Friday 16th of October 2026
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

frontier systems could create catastrophic risks....

AI companies are warning investors that frontier systems could create catastrophic or existential risks. Governments should impose licensing, independent testing and enforceable safeguards before those companies become even harder to restrain.

 

Jeffrey D. Sachs

Postpone the AI public offerings

 

Anthropic, the maker of the Claude AI models, is preparing what could be the largest initial public offering in history, raising more than $100 billion, according to The New York Times, at a valuation near $2 trillion.

According to Reuters, which reviewed the draft prospectus (the document has not yet been made public), the company tells prospective investors that advanced AI could pose “catastrophic or existential risks to humanity” and that its own models could “resist shutdown”, “conceal or manipulate information” or behave in ways “resembling blackmail”.

The company’s chief executive, Dario Amodei, has put the chance that “things go really, really badly” at a staggering 25 per cent. Last month, he wrote that “we must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models”.

I take these warnings seriously, and so should Congress on behalf of the American people. The offering should be postponed until Congress has enacted a public system of licensing, independent safety evaluation, liability and financial backstops for frontier AI. The same applies to OpenAI and every other developer of frontier models.

I am in favour of artificial intelligence, whose potential for science, health and sustainable development is enormous. What we should oppose is unregulated and militarised AI. A company should not disclose a risk of catastrophe to humanity and then sell its shares to the public before any public authority has the power to evaluate that risk or to stop deployment. In fact, to proceed rapidly in the face of such dire warnings is beyond folly.

The problem goes to the foundations of corporate law. Limited liability, the rule that a shareholder can lose no more than the amount invested, is a privilege granted by the state. It is justified on the premise that the harms a firm can impose on others are insured, regulated or otherwise compensated. When a chemical plant explodes, the law has tools to compensate victims: liability insurance, bonds, capital requirements and compensation funds.

Every one of these tools assumes that the harm can be paid for after the fact. A catastrophic or existential harm cannot be. The only instrument that works is regulation before the fact: licensing, independent testing before deployment and the legal authority to halt an activity before it becomes too dangerous. For frontier AI in the United States, none of this exists.

What does exist is self-regulation, which is tantamount today to no regulation. On 29 September, six AI and chip companies signed a voluntary and non-binding Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities at the White House. This would be laughable if it weren’t so potentially disastrous. A technology whose own makers describe its risks in dire terms should be governed by public institutions with defined procedures, independent monitoring and enforceable liability, not by the self-judgement of a handful of business executives.

A rushed public offering would make the problem vastly harder to fix. Anthropic has reportedly committed at least $518 billion to computing infrastructure over the coming decade, with about 80 per cent of it described as non-cancellable. With quarterly guidance to public shareholders, those commitments create a powerful incentive against any pause, even one the company’s own safety researchers might recommend.

The prospectus itself reportedly describes a “continuous and overlapping cadence” of product launches as “inherent to remaining at the frontier”. Once these shares sit in the pension funds and index funds of tens of millions of American households, any proposal to slow frontier development will be fought not only by the companies but by a vast investor constituency.

The extensive risk disclosures do not solve this problem. They may or may not protect the company from lawsuits by its own shareholders, who will have been warned. They do nothing for the public, which bears the catastrophic risk without ever having been asked.

The usual reply is that, if America’s most safety-conscious developers slow down, less careful companies or China will race ahead. This is a standard collective-action problem, and such problems are solved by agreements backed by law, monitoring and enforcement, not by everyone running faster to doom. We are not living in Hobbes’s state of nature. We have the United Nations, treaty law, the Securities and Exchange Commission and Congress.

During the Cold War, adversaries negotiated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with international inspection. Frontier AI even offers a natural point of verification: the most advanced chips come from a handful of factories and frontier training requires huge data centres.

Washington has not offered Beijing a verifiable agreement on frontier AI. In fact, after his summit with President Xi Jinping in September, President Donald Trump rejected cooperation with China on AI, agreeing only to a channel for communicating about AI incidents. “When you’re leading,” he said, “you don’t open it up to each other”.

Who can act to slow the juggernaut and prevent a potential catastrophe? Under current law, the SEC can delay an offering but cannot block it on the ground that the business is dangerous. It should nonetheless decline to accelerate the effectiveness of the registration statement until the company discloses the risks of its products, who would bear the cost of the catastrophes it describes, what insurance exists, and whether its computing contracts would allow a safety pause without penalty.

The decisive authority lies with Congress, and there is ample precedent. Congress has required regulatory approval for securities issued by railroads, by utility holding companies and by electric utilities, for which federal or state approval is still required today. When nuclear power was opened to private industry in 1954, it was permitted only under federal licence.

The outgoing Congress should hold hearings before any shares are priced and should enact a moratorium on public offerings by frontier AI developers until the next Congress acts. The new Congress, which is scheduled to convene on 3 January 2027, should within its first 100 days enact a statute making any public offering by a frontier AI developer conditional on a federal licence.

The licence should require independent evaluation before deployment, an enforceable authority to pause training or deployment that no take-or-pay contract can override, and insurance and compensation funds scaled to plausible harms.

Congress should also consider the extraordinary step of making management and board members personally responsible, under civil and criminal law, in the event of a catastrophic failure. Such a step would be out of place in an ordinary industry. It is warranted here because the industry itself warns of catastrophic risks while proceeding at breakneck speed.

Executives and directors who certify a model as safe without due care, or who override safety findings, should face liability that neither the company nor its insurers can cover for them. The licensing requirement should apply equally to the frontier work of companies that are already public, such as Alphabet, Microsoft and Meta.

This proposal is directed at no single company, and it must not become a lever for any administration to extract favours, including unrestricted military access to AI models.

The delay I propose would last a few months, unless the disclosures point to the need for an indefinite suspension. Licensing did not destroy the pharmaceutical, aviation or nuclear industries; it made them safer.

The leaders of the AI industry have told us, in their own words, that the stakes are as high as they can be. They themselves should stop their mad rush forward and Congress should take the companies at their word and act with urgency.

https://johnmenadue.com/post/2026/10/jeffrey-sachs-postpone-the-ai-public-offerings/

 

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….

 

scrap heap....

 

The AI race continues apace, driven by those who reap the financial benefits, while ignoring those who lose their jobs. Where is the regulation, Claudia Weisenberger asks?

American comedian and commentator Jon Stewart recently asked the question on his weekly show, “What do we get in exchange for paying for all of this?” referring to the enormous investments made in AI development and infrastructure.

He then searched the public record of five of the most powerful architects of artificial intelligence: Sam Altman, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jensen Huang, and Jeff Bezos.

The answer, from all five, was the same:

nothing clear, nothing soon, and possibly nothing at all.

Protections missing

Consider what we have been told by the people in charge. Donald Trump — the most powerful elected leader in the world — assured us that the men running the technology companies are the most intelligent people alive and will regulate themselves responsibly.

No one asked the citizens of Western democracies whether they agreed.

Jensen Huang of NVIDIA promised a net gain in jobs. His evidence: the spa industry didn’t exist when he was young. Neither did the Roman Empire, apparently.

Elon Musk said many jobs will go, but people can have one as a hobby

— and promised an age of abundance with a universal basic income paid for by AI productivity.

The only universal income currently on offer in Australia is the JobSeeker payment: $808.70 a fortnight. Is that Musk’s idea of abundance?

Mark Zuckerberg said there will be new, better jobs. When pressed on which ones: ‘It is difficult to imagine the future.’

Jeff Bezos has said almost nothing on the subject at all.

Governments found these answers satisfactory. Not one major English-speaking Western democracy — not the United States, not the United Kingdom, not Australia — has legislated a binding transition plan for workers displaced by AI.

European Union leads the way. Just.

The European Union has gone a bit further. The EU AI Act classifies AI systems used in recruitment, performance monitoring, termination decisions and worker surveillance as high-risk — requiring human oversight, transparency obligations and the right to challenge automated decisions. It also states fully automated firing is prohibited.

That appears to be the most significant AI employment regulation passed anywhere in the world.

It says nothing about what happens to workers whose jobs are eliminated before those systems are ever deployed. And even those process protections have been delayed: in July 2026, the EU pushed the high-risk employment provisions back to December 2027 — a 16-month delay.

Hollow promises

At corporate shareholder calls and product launches, the same promises recur. Artificial intelligence will cure cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. It will eradicate poverty. It will transform education. 

When asked when, the answer is consistently the same: some day soon. Sam Altman has been more direct than most. In a recent interview on AI safety, he said: ‘We believe the world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology.” 

He did not specify which bad things.

However, we can look at what AI is delivering right now.

Palantir tracks undocumented migrants for deportation in the United States — and is embedded inside Australia’s NDIS and AUSTRAC systems, using the same Gotham platform deployed by the Israeli Defence Forces in Gaza, tracking welfare recipients and identifying fraud.

Cellebrite extracts data from seized phones. BioCatch monitors financial behaviour across five major Australian banks without customers’ knowledge. AI-guided drones operate in Gaza. These are not hypothetical. They are already operational.

The people making the promises are not the ones living with the consequences.

Would you take a medication your doctor told you had a 10 to 20% chance of killing you? Probably not.

Transitioning out of control

In Australia, the transition is not approaching. It is here!

Technology job advertisements have more than halved since March 2023. Around 31,000 technology-related roles were lost in the year to May 2025. AI-linked job losses are projected to exceed 600,000 —  4% of Australia’s entire workforce — according to a 2023 report by the Productivity Commission.

The displacement is not evenly distributed. White-collar workers face the greatest risk — and within that group, women face nearly triple the displacement risk of men, concentrated in clerical, administrative and customer service roles that AI is replacing first and fastest.

The Australian government released a National AI Plan in December 2025. It is a plan to grow the AI industry.

It is not a plan for the workers the industry displaces.

As of mid-2026, the transition stewardship mechanism recommended by Jobs and Skills Australia remains in development. A May 2026 independent study described Australia as having an ‘absence of plan for workforce transition.’ Other than that, there is no legislation or regulation in place to control this transition.

Are we running out of time?

The productivity gains do not flow to workers. Nobel laureate economist Daron Acemoglu explains why: “The companies building this infrastructure do not see workers as people to be supported through a difficult transition.

They see them as a cost to be eliminated.

The consequences extend beyond lost wages.”

Every Australian who loses their job to AI also stops making superannuation contributions. Those lost contributions compound silently over decades into a significantly poorer retirement. No Australian government has published modelling on the superannuation impact of AI-driven job displacement, and no company deploying AI at scale has been required to account for it.

Economists have proposed alternatives. Governments have not acted on them. The Australian government has appointed a Chief AI Officer in every federal agency to drive AI adoption — and assured Australians, in the words of Minister for the Public Service Katy Gallagher, that this is ‘not about replacing people.’ Hence,

it has published no plan for the workers it does replace.

In 1979, IBM told its employees: ‘A computer can never be held accountable. Therefore a computer must never make a management decision.’

Today, algorithms make life-altering decisions about welfare payments, disability funding and fraud assessments for millions of Australians — faster than any human can review them, in ways no one can fully explain, with consequences that are often irreversible.

The IBM instruction has been ignored. The consequences have not.

 

https://michaelwest.com.au/ai-threats-the-jobs-that-wont-come-back-and-who-pays/

 

READ FROM TOP.

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….

 

tech donors....

 

By Jai Dulani

This article was originally published by Truthout

 

AI and crypto firms have spent record amounts on the 2026 midterms.

Late last month, the wealthiest tech executives on the planet smiled next to President Donald Trump after essentially pinky-swearing they would voluntarily adopt safety policies around AI. While Trump described the agreement as “morally binding,” legal liability or enforcement measures were not explicit parts of the accord. The key takeaway from this handshake deal is that the people with the most amount of political power sit in Silicon Valley, not in Washington, D.C.

With the midterm elections just weeks away, it’s a good time to reflect on what Big Tech’s actions during this election season have revealed about its agenda and the larger context of the industry’s political influence. From CNN to The New York Times to NPR, there has been extensive news coverage of the hundreds of millions of dollars Big Tech has spent on the midterm elections. Months before Election Day, corporate spending this election cycle had already exceeded total disclosed corporate spending in the 2024 presidential election by 12 percent. The top two industries setting this record — with over half a billion dollars spent and counting — are crypto and AI. This unprecedented corporate spending on midterm elections is key to the tech industry’s plan to rig every level of government to work for the industry, from state legislatures to Congress.

Crypto’s Spending in the Primaries Was About More Than Crypto Regulation

The crypto industry is the largest political spender this election cycle, having spent over $200 million so far. The race it spent the most on was Felix Barry Moore’s campaign for U.S. Senate in Alabama. Crypto super PACs spent over $12 million supporting Moore, who has a pro-crypto track record; as the U.S. representative for Alabama’s 1st district, Moore co-sponsored a bill that prohibits the Federal Reserve from developing or issuing a central bank digital currency for U.S. monetary policy. This leaves digital assets under private control, away from federal scrutiny, which is what the industry wants. 

In Illinois, crypto-related PACs spent over $10 million against former Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, who is running for a seat in the U.S. Senate. Stratton has been vocal against the crypto industry. Politico reported that Stratton is endorsed by two prominent industry critics: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. Pritzker signed a digital assets law last year establishing regulatory oversight and protections for consumers against scams and fraud. In 2025, the FBI reported over $11 billion in losses related to cryptocurrency fraud in its Internet Crime Report.

Crypto corporations were also the dominant corporate political spenders in 2024 and gave $18 million to Trump’s 2025 inauguration. These contributions have paid off many times over the course of Trump’s second term. Trump removed Biden-era regulators and replaced them with crypto industry business partners or former industry insiders. In April 2025, the Trump administration shuttered the Department of Justice’s crypto enforcement team. Trump pardoned several crypto companies and billionaires that were under investigation for criminal money laundering and fraud, often after receiving investments in his own crypto empire. In June of this year, it was revealed that the Trump family has made at least $2.3 billion from crypto-related ventures during Trump’s second term. 

This election season, Trump and the crypto industry were pushing for Congress to pass the Clarity Act, a bill essentially written by the crypto industry that locks in deregulation. From 2025 through August 2026, crypto companies Coinbase and Ripple spent a combined $18 million on lobbying Congress. Crypto donors gave Trump’s primary super PAC, MAGA Inc., over $88 million, more than any other industry. On September 15, the Clarity Act failed to advance through the Senate by a vote of 49-50. However, the attempt shed light on what the industry is seeking in terms of legislation: exemption from robust oversight, weak consumer and investor protections, and no prevention of conflicts of interest for self-enrichment and corruption. 

One doesn’t need to be invested in crypto to be harmed by the industry. Crypto is increasingly making its way into banks, retirement plans, and payment systems. As economic expert Tonantzin Carmona has noted, when it comes to crypto, “Fundamental public interest questions remain underexplored in current policy discussions. … From financial instability to investor fraud to environmental and public safety risks, the potential consequences are real and growing.” Indeed, Black and Latino communities are disproportionately harmed by the volatility and predatory targeting of the crypto industry. Chastity Murphy, a former economic policy adviser to Rep. Rashida Tlaib, said the fight around regulation is “about who controls money, and whether digital infrastructure serves the public or entrenches private power.” 

Crypto’s political spending is about entrenching private power and extracting wealth, leaving everyday people vulnerable to a destabilized financial system with no recourse when scammed. 

The AI Debate: Two Sides of the Same Coin

As Alex Hanna and Emily M. Bender describe in their book, The AI Con, there are two camps in the AI world: AI doomers and AI boosters. Each camp is part of the same AI hype machine, in which, as scientists and advocate Timnit Gebru states, “the utopia and doom is still a marketing ploy.” Over the course of the AI industry’s massive spending leading up to the midterms, the two forces that have embodied this debate are OpenAI and Anthropic. The Leading the Future super PAC network, often referred to as OpenAI’s super PAC, and the Public First Action super PAC network, backed by Anthropic, have been framed as pro-innovation and pro-safety respectively. 

A look at super PAC spending in North Carolina exemplifies the difference between the two super PAC networks, as well as how they ultimately advance the same outcome. Anthropic’s super PAC spent over $1.6 million on ads backing Rep. Valerie Foushee in the primary for North Carolina’s 4th congressional district. Foushee is one of three co-chairs of the House Democratic Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy, to which she was appointed in December 2025. Foushee has supported regulation such as a requirement to label when content is made by generative AI. Also in North Carolina, Leading the Future spent over $500,000 on ads promoting Republican Laurie Buckhout in North Carolina’s 1st district Republican primary. Buckhout has promised to maintain “American dominance in AI.” While the “innovation” camp tends to spend more on Republicans and the “safety” camp on Democrats, these two sides are fundamentally the same; focusing on future hypothetical hype or doom leads to the public ignoring the current harms of AI: surveillance, data centers, labor exploitation, pollution, and discrimination. 

David Sacks, former AI and crypto czar for the Trump administration, has described Anthropic as running a “sophisticated regulatory capture strategy based on fear-mongering.” In many ways, Sacks is right. As Lina Khan, who served as chair of the Federal Trade Commission from 2021 to 2025, has pointed out, “Much of the commentary from the executives suggests they currently operate in a legal vacuum, as if AI has wiped clean the regulatory map. In fact, their business practices — including how they develop and deploy their technologies — are already subject to longstanding laws.” As Big Tech and corporate media set false terms of debate — innovation vs. regulation — we must remember, there are plenty of laws on the books to tackle the harms of AI. What we’re lacking is enforcement.

Crypto and AI’s Political Spending Pivot to States

Last year, Trump and the AI industry pushed for federal preemption, proposing to block states from regulating AI for a decade. Crypto exchange Coinbase also asked the Department of Justice to submit a “views letter” to Congress arguing that any new federal crypto legislation should include strong preemption provisions, meaning that when federal law is explicit, it overrides conflicting state crypto regulations. The tech industry didn’t win preemption. Now, in response to the growing wins in the grassroots movement to resist data centers, the industry has pivoted to political spending in state and local races. 

California has been a major battleground of this pivot. Just this past year, nearly 30 AI-related measures have been enacted in the state, with Gov. Gavin Newsom having recently signed 11 AI regulatory bills into law. Crypto and AI corporations have poured money into lobbying efforts as well as California state PACs. Meta launched its own California PAC, Mobilizing Economic Transformation Across (Meta) California, pouring in $20 million solely for local elections in the state. The result has largely been watered-down bills and some vetoes, with some notable exceptions. Workers were able to claim victory as bills were passed that protect workers against surveillance and the ability to be fired by an algorithm. Overall, the industry is running the same playbook at the state level that it ran federally: game the system to ensure there is little to no meaningful regulation.

Research reveals that the policies Meta and Google opposed via super PAC spending include AI safety laws like California’s Senate Bill 53 (S.B. 53), which would require companies to disclose how various safety issues are approached, how “catastrophic” risks are inspected, and how “critical safety incidents” are responded to. S.B. 53 would also make it easier for members of the public and company whistleblowers to report potential safety risks. 

Another law Meta and Google opposed via super PAC spending is California’s Assembly Bill 2013 (A.B. 2013), also known as the Generative AI Training Data Transparency Act. The law requires AI developers to clearly explainwhich dataset sources were used to train models and if personal information or synthetic data was used to train the model. 

Crypto billionaires Chris Larsen and Tim Draper also funded the Grow California PAC, which focused on electing corporate-friendly candidates as a “counterforce” to the state’s labor movement. In District 67 (Los Angeles and Orange County), Grow California spent nearly $1.5 million opposing UNITE HERE Co-President Ada Briceño. This was the highest spending in any state assembly race in California. The tech billionaires outspent organized labor almost 7 to 1. Briceño lost in the primary. Big Tech is not just protecting its industry; it is also funding opposition to worker organizing.

Big Tech is also funding broader attacks on democracy. Larsen is funding a ballot measure in San Francisco that would make it harder to advance public proposals via petitions. Proposition D would increase the number of signatures required to qualify ballot initiatives from 2 percent to 8 percent of the city’s registered votes, or roughly 10,000 to 42,000. Previously, Larson has also personally spent over $9 million expanding police surveillance in San Francisco through a fleet of drones and 2,700 private cameras that cops can watch in real time. 

What has been revealed this election cycle is that, in the age of crypto and the AI boom, Silicon Valley has carried out a near-total capture of our federal government. Meanwhile, Big Tech has pivoted to state elections in an attempt to undermine the levels of government where our organizing still has leverage. Our best tool is to continue organizing people — fighting data centers, fighting flock cameras, fighting the tech companies that are destroying our lives. It is only through this grassroots power that we can show politicians and political parties that they need to be more afraid of organized people than they are of upsetting tech donors.

https://scheerpost.com/2026/10/15/the-tech-oligarchs-have-captured-washington-now-theyre-pivoting-to-the-states/

 

READ FROM TOP.

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….

AI credit....

 

The cost of insuring against a big technology firm defaulting on its debt has soared to record highs.

These contracts are known as credit default swaps.

Heavily indebted data centre operator CoreWeave has been among the hardest hit.

Investors who lent the company money are now paying a lot to buy these credit default swaps to insure against losing their investments if the company defaults.

The so-called neocloud company has taken on more than $US50 billion ($72 billion) in debt.

The yield on CoreWeave bonds maturing in 2031 has hit 15.78 per cent.

This week, the spread on its five-year credit default swaps soared 16 per cent to a record 1.14 per cent, before easing slightly to 1.03 per cent.

Floodlines Research founder Anna Wu said the record highs in tech credit default swaps were an extension of CoreWeave's spreads blowing past 1 per cent.

"[It] has revived worries about how the AI build-out is being financed," Ms Wu said.

Turning to private credit

Wall Street's big tech firms are increasingly turning to debt and private credit financing, having exhausted options to raise money in the share market.

But elevated global inflation is putting upward pressure on interest rates, which is increasing the cost of this debt.

Competition for debt from governments and other big tech firms is also increasing interest rates, and the cost of servicing this debt.

Investors are increasingly concerned that debt costs are rising too much for big tech firms to service, and they are buying insurance to prevent harmful financial losses.

Ms Wu conceded financial markets were growing more anxious about these mammoth companies' financial health.

"Nvidia's Jensen Huang defended CoreWeave in Stockholm yesterday, saying its cost of capital is falling and it needs no Nvidia backstop, but I think investor sentiment on tech is fragile after the chip sell-off, so this is more sentiment than fundamentals for now," she said.

Elsewhere in the market cloud ⁠computing giant Oracle has seen its credit default swaps rise 0.3 per cent this week, while costs to insure against debt defaults for Nvidia, STMicroelectronics and SpaceX also rose sharply.

Credit default swap ⁠spreads for Amazon, Alphabet and Meta also traded at record highs, data from LSEG and S&P Global Market Intelligence showed, though they have risen far more slowly than Oracle, or CoreWeave.

"This is not the first time we've had a sizeable market wobble on the back of AI fears, ⁠but as we move to a capex cycle funded out of debt rather than simply free cash flow, we have to increasingly respect the credit price action," Deutsche Bank strategist Jim Reid said.

"AI financing costs aren't dramatic overall, but there are worrying themes at the edges."

READ MORE: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-16/investors-bracing-for-big-tech-collapse-as-debt-levels-soar/107274648

 

READ FROM TOP.

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….