Author: admin

HSBC Encouraging Departures By Offering “Little To Zero” Bonuses For Underperformers

HSBC Encouraging Departures By Offering “Little To Zero” Bonuses For Underperformers

HSBC is preparing to award little or no bonuses to some bankers as it adopts a tougher, performance-driven pay model similar to its US rivals, according to Bloomberg. Underperforming staff in investment banking and wealth management — including some managing directors — may be encouraged to leave after bonuses are paid in the coming weeks, according to people familiar with the matter. Final decisions have not yet been made.

The move reflects the strategy of CEO Georges Elhedery, who has pushed to align HSBC’s compensation practices with those of Wall Street firms. Since taking over in late 2024, he has led a major restructuring, shutting down much of the bank’s US and European deals and equity underwriting operations and merging commercial and investment banking. Several senior executives have exited as part of the overhaul.

According to Bloomberg, HSBC said it remains committed to rewarding employees competitively, with pay linked closely to performance.

The bank’s 2024 bonus pool remained flat at $3.8 billion, defying an industry trend toward higher payouts. Some staff, particularly in corporate and institutional banking, were warned to expect lower awards.

While Elhedery’s revamp is expected to deliver $3 billion in savings, it has raised costs in the short term. HSBC’s cost-to-income ratio rose to 49.9% in the first half of 2025, up from 43.7% a year earlier. Still, investors have responded positively, with shares nearly doubling since his appointment in September 2024, though gains trail rivals such as Barclays and Standard Chartered.

HSBC remains Europe’s largest bank by market value, at around £225 billion, ahead of Santander, UBS, and BNP Paribas.

Founded in Hong Kong in 1865, HSBC has strengthened its focus on Asia and the Middle East amid shifting geopolitical risks. The bank is also reviewing options for its Singapore insurance unit, following recent asset sales in Europe and North America, including insurance and banking businesses in the UK, Germany, and France.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 02/07/2026 – 08:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/c6z710S Tyler Durden

Year Two Of The Largest Ever Global LNG Supply Wave Is Hitting Markets

Year Two Of The Largest Ever Global LNG Supply Wave Is Hitting Markets

Roughly two and a half months after Goldman’s head of Global Commodities Research, Samantha Dart, laid out a timeline for what she called the “largest ever” LNG supply wave to hit global markets, she published a new client note late this week reiterating that the “supply wave is still on track.”

“2025 was year one of what we see as the largest ever global LNG supply wave, lasting seven years,” Dart began the note, warning that “this wave is the main driver of a lengthy bearish cycle for European natural gas (TTF) and LNG (JKM), which we expect to bottom in 2028/29.”

Dart forecasts that TTF and JKM will average below $5/mmBtu by the end of the decade, around 2028-29, compared with current TTF prices of around $41/mmBtu.

Here is Dart’s update on the global LNG supply wave that is in year two, hitting markets:

We see realized 2025 and forecasted 2026 LNG supply largely in line with our previous expectations, despite the recent US disruptions and recent delays to liquefaction capacity starts. Specifically, 2025 global LNG supply averaged 431 mtpa, only marginally below our 433 mtpa expectation as of end-2024, as a large beat in the US (driven by larger-than-expected ramp up at Plaquemines) was ultimately offset by smaller misses across existing LNG producers. We see some of these misses, like for Algeria and Indonesia, as likely structural, owing partly to growing domestic energy demand, and we incorporate further supply losses (-1 mtpa in total initially, but building to -3 mtpa in 2028-2030[1]) in our forward balances.

Global LNG supply has started 2026 below our previous expectations driven by export capacity start delays in the US, Canada, Congo and Australia, though by 4Q26 we expect supply to largely catch up with our earlier numbers.

On net, we still expect 2025-to-2030 global LNG supply growth (+193 mtpa, 45% of 2025 global supply) to far exceed Asia demand growth (+144 mtpa), even taking into account our estimated demand response to low gas prices (>40 mtpa from China alone). We expect this oversupply to take European gas storage to congestion, particularly in 2028/29, leaving a temporary price-driven curtailment of US LNG exports as the likely solver of the imbalance in that period, in our view. We note that all but one of the supply projects in our balances through 2029 have already reached a Final Investment Decision (FID)[2].

The largest ever LNG supply wave is underway, and the early leadership is clear: U.S. capacity is ramping fastest and setting the tone for global balances.

Exhibit 18: The LNG supply wave has started.

Exhibit 12: Supply growth is being led by the U.S.

Exhibit 17: U.S. liquefaction start ups and ramp schedules, the core driver of incremental volumes.

Exhibit 3: Global LNG supply growth remains structurally above Asia demand growth, pushing the market toward a late decade pressure point. In 2028 to 2029, the implied balancing mechanism is supply curtailment, most likely via price driven reductions in US LNG exports as storage and logistics constraints tighten.

Professional subscribers can find out more about NatGas markets on our new Marketdesk.ai portal​​​​.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 02/07/2026 – 07:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/F29MBiY Tyler Durden

Watch: Comedy Writer Testifies Before US Congress On UK’s Chilling Free Speech Crackdown

Watch: Comedy Writer Testifies Before US Congress On UK’s Chilling Free Speech Crackdown

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Graham Linehan, the Irish comedy writer, testified before the US House Judiciary Committee, detailing how Britain’s authorities hounded him over online posts challenging trans ideology—exposing the chilling grip of censorship under Keir Starmer’s government.

His appearance underscores America’s growing scrutiny of Europe’s speech-stifling laws, with Linehan urging lawmakers to push back against policies that silence women and crush free expression.

The hearing, titled “Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation,” examined how regulations like the EU’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act enable government overreach, forcing platforms to censor content globally and punishing dissenters. Chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan, it highlighted arrests for online speech, including Linehan’s own ordeal, as threats spilling over to US shores.

Linehan opened his testimony by recounting his shift from comedy to activism. “I spent 30 years writing comedy for British television. It was a career that I loved but it ended when I began noticing that women were losing their livelihoods, their social circles and even their freedom for defending rights won over 100 years ago by the suffragette movement,” he said.

He explained his views aligned with those facing backlash: “They believed as I do that single sex spaces are essential for women’s privacy, dignity and safety. They believed that children should not undergo experimental medical treatment that ravages their health and shortens their lives. They believe women have a right to fair sport.”

These stances, Linehan testified, made him a target. “For holding them I became the target of a series of harassment campaigns that cost me my career, my marriage and eventually drawn from my homeland.”

He detailed police involvement: “For a decade the British police have harassed me for expressing views that I don’t think in ten years not one person—not the police who arrested me and not the colleagues who condemned me or friends who turned away—has told any of us what we did wrong.”

Linehan stressed the ideological clash: “I want everyone to understand that gender ideology and free speech cannot coexist. You can hear the lie in the very language: trans woman meaning man, man meaning woman, health care opposite of health care. Men’s demands, ideology that tells lesbians they are bigoted for not accepting male partners is not progressive—it is homophobic.”

Bringing it stateside, he cited a US case: “Right now a man named Hobby Bingham who calls himself Princess Zoe Andromeda Love is a registered sex offender in this country. He raped a 12 year old girl, was transferred to the Washington Corrections centre where he raped a developmentally disabled female inmate. This is not happening in Britain—it’s here.”

Linehan called for action: “First, use every diplomatic lever you have to pressure the British government to implement its own Supreme Court ruling… Women just won a landmark case confirming that sex means biological sex… Please make sure to make it clear that America is watching.”

He continued, “Second, put pressure on the Irish government to reopen the conversation it never had in 2015… The Gender Recognition Act was quietly passed—no public consultation, referendum, no women’s rights organizations consulted.”

“Third, recognize free speech is not preserved simply by declining to arrest people,” Linehan urged, adding “We need new whistleblower protections for the digital age. If government will not defend dissenters from institutional retaliation and mob rule then what is the First Amendment for?”

This testimony stems from Linehan’s September 2025 arrest at Heathrow, where five armed officers detained him over three gender-critical tweets posted from the US. 

The incident spiked his blood pressure to stroke levels, landing him in hospital amid what he called a “persistent harassment campaign” by trans activists and police.

The testimony arrives amid escalating revelations about Britain’s free speech erosion. As we previously highlighted, some 10,000 arrests were made in 2024 for “grossly offensive” social media posts—30 per day—under vague communications laws, outpacing even Russia’s crackdown while real crimes like knife attacks and burglaries fester unsolved.

As we have also detailed, the Trump administration has offered asylum to UK “thought criminals,” including gender-critical activists.

Sources indicated the White House eyed protections for those prosecuted over silent protests or online dissent, influenced by Elon Musk’s highlighting of such cases.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 02/07/2026 – 07:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/9aBJ4hT Tyler Durden

The Supreme Court Is Poised To Remind States That the Constitution Doesn’t Stop at the Liquor Store


A map of the United States, with the US Supreme Court and liquor stores in front. | Illustration: Onur Ersin/Dreamstime/Midjourney

Twice in the past two decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard landmark cases involving protectionist alcohol laws, and twice the Court has made it clear that when states discriminate against out-of-state alcohol businesses, they are running afoul of the U.S. Constitution. But so far, many lower courts have refused to listen. Now, the Supreme Court may be poised to step in and clarify once and for all that, when it comes to alcohol, regulators cannot simply ignore the Constitution.  

The latest case arises out of Arizona, where several wine enthusiasts have brought a legal challenge to the state’s requirement that all wine retailers must have an in-state physical storefront in order to ship wine directly to Arizona consumers. The challengers argue that this physical presence requirement violates the so-called Dormant Commerce Clause, which forbids states from unduly interfering with interstate commerce by discriminating against out-of-state economic interests.  

Requiring in-state storefronts puts a damper on what’s known as direct-to-consumer alcohol shipping, whereby out-of-state wine retailers could ship their products right to the doorsteps of Arizona customers. Since it is financially impossible for most out-of-state wine shops to open up brick-and-mortar storefronts in Arizona, the rule effectively locks out-of-state competitors out of the wine shipping market in the state.

The Supreme Court has grappled with similar questions before. In the 2005 case Granholm v. Heald, the Supreme Court struck down in-state physical presence requirements for wineries (but not wine retailers), thereby freeing up out-of-state wineries to ship across state lines directly to consumers. In 2019, the Court stepped into the fray again, striking down a Tennessee law that required liquor store owners to be residents of the state for multiple years before they were eligible to receive a retailing license.

The import of these landmark cases is clear: States cannot enact protectionist alcohol laws that discriminate against out-of-state economic interests unless they can show that such rules promote legitimate, nonprotectionist interests such as public health and safety. Instead of following these straightforward holdings, numerous lower courts have continued to narrowly interpret them or create manufactured loopholes to evade them.

Leading the charge is the infamous 9th Circuit, which has adopted what’s known as the “essential feature” test for evaluating alcohol laws like Arizona’s. Under this test, the 9th Circuit held that because Arizona’s in-state physical presence mandate was an “essential feature” of the state’s three-tier system of alcohol regulation, the law was immunized from a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge.

In the 9th Circuit’s view, the three-tier system—which requires that alcohol producers, wholesalers, and retailers all be legally distinct entities—is vital to the regulation of alcohol in America today. Therefore, if out-of-state wine retailers were allowed to ship directly to Arizona residents without an in-state physical storefront, they’d be bypassing the wholesaling and retailing tiers in Arizona.

Under the framing of the “essential feature” test, courts are simply able to deem discrete alcohol laws to be “essential” to the three-tier system, which in turn creates a get-out-of-jail-free card that inoculates these protectionist laws from constitutional scrutiny. Not only is the 9th Circuit’s test an obvious and willful evasion of past Supreme Court holdings, but it doesn’t even make sense on its own merits.

Alcohol delivery has exploded since COVID-19, as the vast majority of states have implemented some form of pro-delivery reform for booze. Regulating this delivery wave has proven relatively straightforward, with states using simple licensing and permitting rules.

Just like a brewery, winery, bar, or liquor store needs to obtain a license in order to operate, alcohol delivery likewise requires a license. If a retail shop proceeds to deliver or ship alcohol in a shady or dangerous way, the license can simply be revoked—just like a bar that is caught in a sting for serving underage patrons.

Requiring in-state storefronts is as non-essential a feature of the alcohol regulatory system as one can imagine. Moreover, 13 states plus Washington, D.C., already allow out-of-state wine retail shops to ship their products directly to in-state residents. All of these states have a three-tier system just like Arizona, further underscoring that in-state physical storefronts are entirely non-essential.

Given this backdrop, it’s clear that the 9th Circuit’s “essential feature” test is detached from the on-the-ground reality of how alcohol regulation actually works. Simply allowing states to deem parts of their alcohol regulatory code as “essential,” and thus magically escape a constitutional challenge, is an obvious sidestepping of the Supreme Court’s past decisions.

The Manhattan Institute and Reason Foundation have filed an amicus brief in support of petitioners in the Arizona case. Perhaps the third time this goes to the Supreme Court will be the charm.

The post The Supreme Court Is Poised To Remind States That the Constitution Doesn't Stop at the Liquor Store appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/U9RGDJ5
via IFTTT

The Supreme Court Is Poised To Remind States That the Constitution Doesn’t Stop at the Liquor Store


A map of the United States, with the US Supreme Court and liquor stores in front. | Illustration: Onur Ersin/Dreamstime/Midjourney

Twice in the past two decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard landmark cases involving protectionist alcohol laws, and twice the Court has made it clear that when states discriminate against out-of-state alcohol businesses, they are running afoul of the U.S. Constitution. But so far, many lower courts have refused to listen. Now, the Supreme Court may be poised to step in and clarify once and for all that, when it comes to alcohol, regulators cannot simply ignore the Constitution.  

The latest case arises out of Arizona, where several wine enthusiasts have brought a legal challenge to the state’s requirement that all wine retailers must have an in-state physical storefront in order to ship wine directly to Arizona consumers. The challengers argue that this physical presence requirement violates the so-called Dormant Commerce Clause, which forbids states from unduly interfering with interstate commerce by discriminating against out-of-state economic interests.  

Requiring in-state storefronts puts a damper on what’s known as direct-to-consumer alcohol shipping, whereby out-of-state wine retailers could ship their products right to the doorsteps of Arizona customers. Since it is financially impossible for most out-of-state wine shops to open up brick-and-mortar storefronts in Arizona, the rule effectively locks out-of-state competitors out of the wine shipping market in the state.

The Supreme Court has grappled with similar questions before. In the 2005 case Granholm v. Heald, the Supreme Court struck down in-state physical presence requirements for wineries (but not wine retailers), thereby freeing up out-of-state wineries to ship across state lines directly to consumers. In 2019, the Court stepped into the fray again, striking down a Tennessee law that required liquor store owners to be residents of the state for multiple years before they were eligible to receive a retailing license.

The import of these landmark cases is clear: States cannot enact protectionist alcohol laws that discriminate against out-of-state economic interests unless they can show that such rules promote legitimate, nonprotectionist interests such as public health and safety. Instead of following these straightforward holdings, numerous lower courts have continued to narrowly interpret them or create manufactured loopholes to evade them.

Leading the charge is the infamous 9th Circuit, which has adopted what’s known as the “essential feature” test for evaluating alcohol laws like Arizona’s. Under this test, the 9th Circuit held that because Arizona’s in-state physical presence mandate was an “essential feature” of the state’s three-tier system of alcohol regulation, the law was immunized from a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge.

In the 9th Circuit’s view, the three-tier system—which requires that alcohol producers, wholesalers, and retailers all be legally distinct entities—is vital to the regulation of alcohol in America today. Therefore, if out-of-state wine retailers were allowed to ship directly to Arizona residents without an in-state physical storefront, they’d be bypassing the wholesaling and retailing tiers in Arizona.

Under the framing of the “essential feature” test, courts are simply able to deem discrete alcohol laws to be “essential” to the three-tier system, which in turn creates a get-out-of-jail-free card that inoculates these protectionist laws from constitutional scrutiny. Not only is the 9th Circuit’s test an obvious and willful evasion of past Supreme Court holdings, but it doesn’t even make sense on its own merits.

Alcohol delivery has exploded since COVID-19, as the vast majority of states have implemented some form of pro-delivery reform for booze. Regulating this delivery wave has proven relatively straightforward, with states using simple licensing and permitting rules.

Just like a brewery, winery, bar, or liquor store needs to obtain a license in order to operate, alcohol delivery likewise requires a license. If a retail shop proceeds to deliver or ship alcohol in a shady or dangerous way, the license can simply be revoked—just like a bar that is caught in a sting for serving underage patrons.

Requiring in-state storefronts is as non-essential a feature of the alcohol regulatory system as one can imagine. Moreover, 13 states plus Washington, D.C., already allow out-of-state wine retail shops to ship their products directly to in-state residents. All of these states have a three-tier system just like Arizona, further underscoring that in-state physical storefronts are entirely non-essential.

Given this backdrop, it’s clear that the 9th Circuit’s “essential feature” test is detached from the on-the-ground reality of how alcohol regulation actually works. Simply allowing states to deem parts of their alcohol regulatory code as “essential,” and thus magically escape a constitutional challenge, is an obvious sidestepping of the Supreme Court’s past decisions.

The Manhattan Institute and Reason Foundation have filed an amicus brief in support of petitioners in the Arizona case. Perhaps the third time this goes to the Supreme Court will be the charm.

The post The Supreme Court Is Poised To Remind States That the Constitution Doesn't Stop at the Liquor Store appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/U9RGDJ5
via IFTTT

Archives: February-March 2026


archives | Illustration: March 1976 issue of ReasonU.

5 years ago
February 2021

“Good luck forgetting about presidential politics when the president has the power to shape what our health insurance covers or unilaterally forgive student loans, the ability to launch a trade war from his couch or a shooting war with Iran. You may not want to be interested in the presidency, but the presidency is interested in you. After Trump, the office will still be invested with more power than any single, fallible human being can safely be trusted with. Unless and until we start taking that power back, it’s only a matter of time before politics gets all too interesting once again.”
Gene Healy
“Trump Wasn‘t a Dictator, but He Played One on TV”

5 years ago
March 2021

“The weight of evidence through history is that concentrated government power in the best case leads to incompetence and waste, while in the worst case it degenerates quickly into tyranny. Whether your main concern is material enrichment or the protection of human rights, limited government has been shown on the proving grounds of experience to be the best available means to that end.”
Stephanie Slade
“Is There a Future for Fusionism?”

35 years ago
February 1991

“Clearly, any court that is asked to impose [medical] treatment decisions should move cautiously. The presumption should be in favor of the values and choices of the individual or family. There are surely cases where well-meaning religious devotees choose unwisely and thereby endanger the health of their children. But often cases that give rise to charges of this sort are far more complex than the legal system can easily resolve. Controversies that are depicted as conflicts between science and faith may in fact be conflicts between two kinds of faith—one of them the unquestioned belief that medicine knows best how to handle any problem.”
Stanton Peele and Archie Brodsky
“What‘s Up to Doc?”

“Washington is poised to sidetrack Eastern Europe’s opportunity for a true free market by joining the World Bank and related organizations in promoting a variety of rear-guard socialist planning efforts…..During international negotiations over the creation of the European Bank in early 1990, U.S. Treasury officials portrayed the institution as a new and improved development bank. They suggested that the bank will play an important role in Eastern Europe’s privatization efforts. Yet multilateral development banks have never linked significant amounts of assistance to privatization of bloated, money-losing state enterprises. The World Bank’s emphasis remains rehabilitation, not privatization. Despite its market-oriented rhetoric, it continues to tinker with socialism and central planning.”
Melanie Tammen
“Planning for Capitalism”

40 years ago
March 1986

“For the citizen confronted by Special Agents of the IRS, there is only one course of action to follow: Keep your mouth shut! Be polite about it, but don’t invite them in and don’t answer their questions. And don’t worry about making them suspicious. Things are already way beyond that stage. Just shut up; and when they’re gone, call your lawyer—not your accountant, but your lawyer. This is not a bookkeeping problem you’re involved in—it’s the real thing.”
Warren Salomon
“When the IRS Comes Knocking”

50 years ago
March 1976

“My opposition to gun control stems from a basic libertarian view of man and society. I oppose gun control for the same reason that I oppose censorship, antimarijuana legislation, or any other victimless crime laws. Government should protect individuals from the initiation of force. Otherwise, what a person does with his life and property is no concern of the State. Neither individual freedom nor individual responsibility is compatible with laws which seek to protect people from themselves. Gun control, however, is far more dangerous than other forms of prohibition. It is a direct, and rather substantial, assault on the right to life itself. For in our violent society guns have become an increasingly necessary instrument of survival, just as they were in frontier days. Gun control, which seeks to ultimately ban these survival tools, will leave the peaceable individual totally vulnerable to the criminal element.”
Donald Feder
“A Libertarian Look at Gun Control”

The post Archives: February-March 2026 appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/MgK3VjT
via IFTTT

Archives: February-March 2026


archives | Illustration: March 1976 issue of ReasonU.

5 years ago
February 2021

“Good luck forgetting about presidential politics when the president has the power to shape what our health insurance covers or unilaterally forgive student loans, the ability to launch a trade war from his couch or a shooting war with Iran. You may not want to be interested in the presidency, but the presidency is interested in you. After Trump, the office will still be invested with more power than any single, fallible human being can safely be trusted with. Unless and until we start taking that power back, it’s only a matter of time before politics gets all too interesting once again.”
Gene Healy
“Trump Wasn‘t a Dictator, but He Played One on TV”

5 years ago
March 2021

“The weight of evidence through history is that concentrated government power in the best case leads to incompetence and waste, while in the worst case it degenerates quickly into tyranny. Whether your main concern is material enrichment or the protection of human rights, limited government has been shown on the proving grounds of experience to be the best available means to that end.”
Stephanie Slade
“Is There a Future for Fusionism?”

35 years ago
February 1991

“Clearly, any court that is asked to impose [medical] treatment decisions should move cautiously. The presumption should be in favor of the values and choices of the individual or family. There are surely cases where well-meaning religious devotees choose unwisely and thereby endanger the health of their children. But often cases that give rise to charges of this sort are far more complex than the legal system can easily resolve. Controversies that are depicted as conflicts between science and faith may in fact be conflicts between two kinds of faith—one of them the unquestioned belief that medicine knows best how to handle any problem.”
Stanton Peele and Archie Brodsky
“What‘s Up to Doc?”

“Washington is poised to sidetrack Eastern Europe’s opportunity for a true free market by joining the World Bank and related organizations in promoting a variety of rear-guard socialist planning efforts…..During international negotiations over the creation of the European Bank in early 1990, U.S. Treasury officials portrayed the institution as a new and improved development bank. They suggested that the bank will play an important role in Eastern Europe’s privatization efforts. Yet multilateral development banks have never linked significant amounts of assistance to privatization of bloated, money-losing state enterprises. The World Bank’s emphasis remains rehabilitation, not privatization. Despite its market-oriented rhetoric, it continues to tinker with socialism and central planning.”
Melanie Tammen
“Planning for Capitalism”

40 years ago
March 1986

“For the citizen confronted by Special Agents of the IRS, there is only one course of action to follow: Keep your mouth shut! Be polite about it, but don’t invite them in and don’t answer their questions. And don’t worry about making them suspicious. Things are already way beyond that stage. Just shut up; and when they’re gone, call your lawyer—not your accountant, but your lawyer. This is not a bookkeeping problem you’re involved in—it’s the real thing.”
Warren Salomon
“When the IRS Comes Knocking”

50 years ago
March 1976

“My opposition to gun control stems from a basic libertarian view of man and society. I oppose gun control for the same reason that I oppose censorship, antimarijuana legislation, or any other victimless crime laws. Government should protect individuals from the initiation of force. Otherwise, what a person does with his life and property is no concern of the State. Neither individual freedom nor individual responsibility is compatible with laws which seek to protect people from themselves. Gun control, however, is far more dangerous than other forms of prohibition. It is a direct, and rather substantial, assault on the right to life itself. For in our violent society guns have become an increasingly necessary instrument of survival, just as they were in frontier days. Gun control, which seeks to ultimately ban these survival tools, will leave the peaceable individual totally vulnerable to the criminal element.”
Donald Feder
“A Libertarian Look at Gun Control”

The post Archives: February-March 2026 appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/MgK3VjT
via IFTTT