Skip to content
Campaign finance reform advocate and Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig announced Tuesday that he is forming a committee to explore entering the Democratic primary for president—a job from which he says he would resign as soon as Congress passed a package of pro-democracy reforms.
“I want to run,” Lessig wrote at the Huffington Post on Tuesday. “But I want to run to be a different kind of president. ‘Different’ not in the traditional political puffery sense of that term. ‘Different,’ quite literally. I want to run to build a mandate for the fundamental change that our democracy desperately needs. Once that is passed, I would resign, and the elected Vice President would become President.”
He calls it “Presidency as referendum,” meant to address “the deep sense that most Americans have that their government is not theirs.”
Lessig’s campaign and potential White House residency would be solely focused on passing the Citizen Equality Act of 2017, which he says aims to restore “the right that all of us have in a representative democracy to be represented equally.”
“That right has been violated in America today—and brazenly so,” he said. “In the way campaigns are funded, in the way the poor and overworked are denied an equal freedom to vote, and in the way whole sections of American voters get written into oblivion by politically gerrymandered districts that assure their views are not represented, we have allowed the politicians to cheat us of the most fundamental commitment of a democracy: equal citizens. And until we find a way to create a mandate to demand equality for citizens, we will never find a way to make real change possible.”
Among other things, the Citizen Equality Act calls for overturning Citizens United, instituting Ranked Choice Voting, and adopting a campaign finance proposal that would give every voter a voucher to contribute to fund congressional and presidential campaigns and provide matching funds for small-dollar contributions to congressional and presidential campaigns.
As for his successor, Lessig told the Washington Post that he would pick a vice president “who is really, clearly, strongly identified with the ideals of the Democratic Party right now,” offering Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as one possibility. He said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has railed against big money in politics on the campaign trail, was another option.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Lessig acknowledges that Sanders, more than any other presidential candidate, has talked extensively about the need for electoral reform.
“Sanders is a rare hero among politicians,” Lessig wrote at the HuffPo. “Throughout his career, he has been unwavering in his advocacy for the issues he believes in, however unpopular. There isn’t a triangulating bone in his body. And as people have come to know him and his history, they are inspired by a man who has stuck by his principles and whose principles are now more relevant and true than ever. The picture of 28,000 people showing up to a rally more than a year before an election is the picture of hope for a democracy.”
But even an “extraordinary” candidate like Sanders, Lessig continued, “is always divided among the 8 or 10 issues at the core of their campaign.”
“What should be obvious to everyone—or at least the 82% of Americans who believe ‘the system is rigged’—is that none of these incredible reforms is possible until we un-rig the rigged system first,” he argued. “We’ve lived through ‘change you can believe in.’ What we need now is a reason to believe in change.”
Click Here: Rugby league Jerseys
This is not the first time Lessig has experimented with an unconventional strategy for effecting political change. As Politico reports, Lessig recently left his position as chairman and CEO of Mayday PAC, a high-profile Super PAC he co-founded to back candidates committed to reforming campaign finance laws. But despite spending more than $10 million in 2014, the Super PAC had a spotty record of success, seeing victory in just two of the eight races it targeted, according to an analysis by Politico.
For more, watch the video below:
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
In a development spurring calls for a new “anti-bailout movement,” the Greek Parliament early Friday approved a controversial €85 billion financial rescue package—the country’s third such bailout from foreign creditors in five years, and one that will require the Greek people to endure further cuts and austerity.
“After more than seven hours of often passionate, bad-tempered debate, all through the night, the Greek Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras, has got his way,” the BBC reported.
“I do not regret my decision to compromise,” Tsipras said as he defended the deal in parliament. “We undertook the responsibility to stay alive over choosing suicide.” He admitted to lawmakers the deal was no triumph, “but we are also not mourning over this difficult agreement. I have my conscience clear that it is the best we could achieve under the current balance of power in Europe, under conditions of economic and financial asphyxiation imposed upon us.”
The bailout bill, which Greek Finance Minister Euclid Tsakalotos described during the all-night session as “a tough agreement, with many thorns,” passed by a comfortable majority. The government needed the bill to pass in time for Tsakalotos to head to Brussels to meet his Eurozone counterparts, who will decide later Friday whether to approve the draft agreement.
“But the vote laid bare the depth of anger within Tsipras’s leftist Syriza party at austerity measures in exchange for 85 billion euros in aid,” Reuters reports, “as 43 lawmakers—or nearly a third of Syriza deputies—voted against or abstained.”
Click Here: Rugby league Jerseys
Former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis was among the Syriza members to vote against the deal. Earlier this week, he said: “Ask anyone who knows anything about Greece’s finances and they will tell you this deal is not going to work.”
Meanwhile, a statement signed by more than a dozen Syriza dissenters is calling for people across Greece to mobilize and form a “united movement” for democracy and social justice. The bailout deal, they say, “reverses the Greek people’s mandate that went against neoliberal policies on the July 5 referendum.”
By a 62 percent majority, the Greek people on July 5 rejected a bailout offer from foreign creditors that would have imposed further austerity and economic hardship. The bailout deal approved by the Greek Parliament on Friday is considered even harsher than the one that was on the table in July.
“We need to continue on the path of July 5 until the end, until we overthrow the bailout policies, with an alternative plan for the next day, for a democratic Greece, reconstructed and socially just,” the statement reads. “We call for the creation of a nationwide movement, by establishing committees against the new Memorandum, austerity and the country’s new guardianship.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
It is being widely reported that approval of the bailout, and the resulting rebellion, will likely force a confidence vote that could pave the way for early elections.
As Reuters explains:
The Guardian is live-blogging the Eurogroup’s Friday meeting in Brussels.
Follow the developments on Twitter:
Tweets from https://twitter.com/commondreams/lists/greek-austerity-lives-on
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Ten years after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ravaged southern Louisiana, black and white residents of New Orleans are “starkly divided” in their perception of the state’s recovery, according to new research published on Monday.
A survey (pdf) conducted by the Manship School of Mass Communication’s Reilly Center for Media and Public Affairs at Louisiana State University found that nearly 60 percent of the black residents surveyed said Louisiana has “mostly not recovered,” compared with 78 percent of white residents who said the state has “mostly recovered.”
This divide was felt across a range of topics, including the local economy, public schools, hurricane and flood protection, and the overall quality of life in their communities.
And among those who returned to New Orleans after Katrina, African-Americans—particularly women—faced the most difficulty getting back into their homes. One year after the storm, 70 percent of white residents were able to return their homes, while only 42 percent of African-Americans could do so.
Click Here: Cheap Chiefs Rugby Jersey 2019
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
“White and African-American residents of New Orleans tend to see the past decade in very different ways,” said professor Michael Henderson, who directed the survey. “Most white residents think life in New Orleans is better today – not simply better than the toughest times that followed Hurricane Katrina, but better than it was before the storm even arrived. Most African-American residents do not feel that way.”
The findings underscore other outstanding criticisms of the recovery, such as that it led to the privatization of many of the city’s services, including schools and hospitals, as well as the gentrification of many of the historically black and low income neighborhoods.
Further, according to the study, nearly one quarter of the city’s current residents have moved there since Hurricane Katrina, which has increased racial and economic polarization. “These new arrivals to New Orleans have brought a markedly different demographic and socio-economic profile,” the study notes. “They are relatively younger, more highly educated, higher earning, and more white than the long term residents who lived in New Orleans before the storm and still do today.”
Henderson presented his research on Monday at the opening of The Atlantic magazine’s conference, New Orleans: Ten Years Later. The event, organized alongside the Urban Institute, features a number of prominent politicians, journalists, artists, and others, who are expected to speak to the “city’s resilience while evaluating the challenges it and other communities across the country continue to face.”
According to Henderson, “One topic on which majorities of white and African-American residents agree, however, is that their voices were not heard in the rebuilding process.” Sixty-five percent of black residents and 52 percent of whites said “people like them had no say in the rebuilding process.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Pesticides that have been banned in Europe over bee safety concerns may pose an even greater risk to pollinators than previously thought, a new report by the European Union’s food safety watchdog reveals.
Neonicotinoids, or neonics, pose high risks to bees when sprayed on plant leaves, according to data by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in its report, published Wednesday—which bolsters previous findings that neonics harm pollinators when used as seed treatments or granules.
The EFSA studied three pesticides in particular—clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam—all of which were banned by the EU in 2013 for a two-year period after scientific reports warned of their dangers. The latest findings, said Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero, “confirmed what has already been demonstrated by a wealth of scientific evidence: neonicotinoids are a serious threat to bees and to the future of farming.”
“The Commission should expand the EU-wide ban to cover all uses of neonicotinoids on all crops,” Contiero said. “Viable non-chemical alternatives exist and the EU should encourage farmers to use them.”
José Tarazona, head of the EFSA’s pesticide unit, told the Guardian on Wednesday it is “clear that in some cases there is data suggesting high toxicity and potential risk from these substances.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Neonic use has been linked to dramatic declines in populations of pollinators like bumblebees and honey bees, as well as insects like moths, ladybirds and hoverflies, which help reduce numbers of crop pests. All bee varieties in Europe have been placed on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s red list (pdf) of threatened species.
Click Here: Cheap Chiefs Rugby Jersey 2019
“Another day and yet another study shows the high risk to bees from neonicotinoid pesticides,” said Paul de Zylva, senior nature campaigner at Friends of the Earth (FOE), in response to the EFSA’s study.
“The evidence of harm is clear,” de Zylva continued. “Questions need to be asked about how these products were ever approved for use when they were not tested for their effects on different types of bees.”
Earlier this year, the United Kingdom lifted its own moratorium on pesticides to allow for some limited use of two kinds of neonics—produced by agrochemical giants Bayer and Syngenta—by farmers growing oilseed rape on roughly 300 square kilometers of land. While the repeal is temporary, giving farmers access to the pesticides for only 120 days, the move sparked outrage among environmental advocates.
Wednesday’s findings “underlines why neonics are restricted and why we are challenging the Government’s decision to allow use of the banned pesticides in England,” de Zylva said.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
There are just three wolves remaining on Isle Royale, a Michigan island in Lake Superior, and that’s a problem for the ecosystem, as the moose population is surging and their grazing is threatening the island’s vegetation. But it’s also a sign of the climate change-related impacts the nation is set to face.
Researchers from Michigan Technological University gave the tally of the wolf numbers earlier this year, noting that it was a big drop from the nine they counted the previous year.
But the number has been on a steady decline. Michigan Tech professors John Vucetich and Rolf Peterson, who lead the study, write in their report (pdf):
Click Here: Maori All Blacks Store
With such a small population, inbreeding is weakening the wolves that do remain. There are two adults and a pup now, and the researchers said that the pup appears unhealthy.
But why plummeting numbers on Isle Royale?
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
As Peterson previously stated: “The human imprint is written all over the dynamics of this wolf population in recent decades.” And the National Parks Conservation Association explains
Vucetich told MLive last week that the best plan is to import wolves to the island “as soon as possible.”
The “frequency of ice bridges is expected to continue to decline because of climate warming,” Vucetich said.
“That’s why this issue is really much bigger than just being about Isle Royale. It’s an issue that will set precedent on how the National Park Service will make decisions about climate change,” he said.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Big Oil has succeeded in dismantling a key component of California’s sweeping climate change bill, with legislative leaders announcing Wednesday afternoon that in the wake of an intense lobbying campaign, they would drop a measure calling for a 50 percent cut in petroleum use by 2030.
The fossil fuel industry had poured money into advertising and lobbying campaigns against Senate Bill 350 (SB350), calling the legislation the “California Gas Restriction Act of 2015” and warning that it could lead to gas-rationing, bans on SUVs, and the demise of oil companies.
Supporters had a different take, saying that SB 350 represented “an opportunity for our state to go in a new direction, allowing us all to avoid toiling away to stop yet another toxic power plant in our backyard, and it can also reverse our destructive reliance on fossil fuels,” as one young activist, Evelyn García, wrote in the lead up to this week’s showdown.
Among climate leaders like 350.org’s Jamie Henn, there was little doubt that the fossil fuel industry’s “bottomless war chest” was to blame for the defeat.
At a press conference Wednesday, Senate President pro Tempore Kevin De León noted that the bill’s remaining sections—which call for the state to boost energy efficiency in buildings by 50 percent and to get half of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030—”are in and of themselves landmark achievements.”
“But in the end—with two days left,” he said, “we could not cut through the million-dollar smokescreen created by a single special-interest with a singular motive and a bottomless war chest.”
De León didn’t stop there. “[T]he fact that, despite overwhelming scientific opinion and statewide public support, we still weren’t able to overcome the silly-season scare tactics of an outside industry which has repeatedly opposed environmental progress and energy innovation—means that there’s a temporary disconnect in our politics which needs to be overcome,” he declared.
Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, echoed those charges while expressing optimism about the road ahead. “Oil has won a skirmish,” Brown said at the press conference. “But they lost a bigger battle, because I am more determined than ever to make our regulatory regime work for the people of California.”
According to KQED News:
“It’s a sad day when oil industry lies stand in the way of clean air, but if the industry thinks they have won a victory, it will be short-lived,” the Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement. However, it continued, “California’s leadership and communities across the state are more determined than ever to reduce petroleum dependence.”
Henn, of 350.org, agreed, pointing to a specific step that Brown could take to strike back against fossil fuels.
“Big Oil succeeded in gutting one of the most important provisions of this bill,” Henn said in a statement. “Let’s face it: Governor Brown got his hat handed to him. Now, the clearest way he can fight back against the industry is by banning fracking in California—and that’s something he can do on his own, without the State Legislature.”
Added Oil Change International’s David Turnbull on Twitter:
The newly gutted bill is expected to be voted on this week.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in California, environmentalists rejoiced as the University of California’s chief investment officer on Wednesday said it has sold off about $200 million of direct holdings in coal and tar sands companies, which he said were no longer good investments for the university’s $98.2 billion fund.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Click Here: All Blacks Rugby Jersey
As the U.S. continues to refuse an independent probe, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) on Thursday released its own damning report of the American military’s bombing of the medical charity’s Kunduz, Afghanistan hospital last month—describing patients burning to death in their beds and people shot by a circling plane while attempting to flee.
The review (pdf), the first installment of an ongoing investigation, gives a harrowing, chronological account of the bombing, which took place while at least 105 patients were admitted, surgeries were ongoing, and people—including children—were immobilized in the intensive care unit. The report confirms that 149 MSF staff and one International Committee of the Red Cross delegate were in the hospital compound during the time of the attack.
What’s more, the investigation finds that MSF was fully in control of the hospital at the time of the bombing, and its rules were in effect—including prohibitions against weapons. In addition, there was no combat “from or in the direct vicinity” of the hospital before the bombings.
“Some public reports are circulating that the attack on our hospital could be justified because we were treating Taliban,” said Christopher Stokes, MSF general director, in a statement accompanying the report. “Wounded combatants are patients under international law, and must be free from attack and treated without discrimination. Medical staff should never be punished or attacked for providing treatment to wounded combatants.”
“The view from inside the hospital is that this attack was conducted with a purpose to kill and destroy,” Stokes continued. “But we don’t know why. We neither have the view from the cockpit, nor the knowledge of what happened within the U.S. and Afghan military chains of command.”
MSF based its findings on 60 debriefings with its national and international staff employed at the trauma center, email and telephone records, and before and after photographs of the hospital. The organization also reviewed internal and publicly-available information about the bombing that killed 13 staff members, 10 patients, and 7 people whose bodies were unrecognizable.
Due to an escalation in fighting, MSF on September 29 re-confirmed its GPS coordinates to the U.S. Department of Defense and Afghan Ministry of Interior and Defense and U.S. Army in Kabul—all of whom confirmed receipt, the report states. On Friday, October 2, before the bombings took place, MSF even placed its organizational flags on the roof of the hospital, to ensure its identity would not be mistaken.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
But at roughly 2:00 AM, the U.S. military unleashed a horrific bombing on the hospital, which lasted at least an hour. During this time, MSF made at least 17 calls to Afghan, U.S., and United Nations officials in attempt to stop the bombings, according to a log displayed in the report.
Click Here: cd universidad catolica
The first room hit was the ICU, where staff were caring for patients, some of whom were on ventilators, and at least two of whom were children. “MSF staff were attending to these critical patients in the ICU at the time of the attack and were directly killed in the first airstrikes or in the fire that subsequently engulfed the building,” the report states. “Immobile patients in the ICU burned in their beds.”
The strikes then moved to the main hospital building, destroying the emergency room, mental health department, operating theaters, and other areas—killing two patients while they were undergoing surgery. MSF staff described a litany of horrors: amputations, fully or partially severed limbs, and people “running while on fire and then falling unconscious on the ground.”
The report states some were “shot by the circling AC-130 gunship while fleeing the burning building.”
In the immediate aftermath of the bombing, surviving MSF staff fought for the lives of their colleagues and patients, inserting chest drains, halting severe bleeding, and treating shock—with at least two MSF staff dying on the operating table.
MSF’s account shines light on an attack whose details have been murky, with the Pentagon changing its story at least four times, including initially denying responsibility. The U.S. and Afghan governments so far refused MSF’s repeated calls for an independent investigation by the International Humanitarian Fact Finding Commission (IHFFC), which was established in 1991 under the Geneva Conventions. In addition to releasing Thursday’s report to the public, MSF has also submitted it to the IHFFC.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenWarren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases OVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Joint Chiefs chairman says he regrets participating in Trump photo-op | GOP senators back Joint Chiefs chairman who voiced regret over Trump photo-op | Senate panel approves 0B defense policy bill Trump on collision course with Congress over bases with Confederate names MORE (D-Mass.) is urging Democrats to focus on combatting the Trump agenda, lamenting that he’s been in the White House for less than 100 days.
Warren declined to speculate if she could have won the party’s nomination in 2016 or if Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersThe Hill’s 12:30 Report: Milley apologizes for church photo-op Harris grapples with defund the police movement amid veep talk Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness MORE (I-Vt.) would have faired better against Trump than Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonWhite House accuses Biden of pushing ‘conspiracy theories’ with Trump election claim Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness Trayvon Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton qualifies to run for county commissioner in Florida MORE, telling USA Today, “We are where we are.” “Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE has only been here, not even 100 days yet — God, it’s like dog years or something, it feels like so much has gone on. We’ve got to get focused on what we’re going to do in the next week, in the next month. This man is truly dangerous,” she said. ADVERTISEMENTWarren — who joined the Senate in 2013 and quickly became a liberal favorite — details in her new book why she decided against running in 2016. She’s up for reelection to her Senate seat next year and is expected to run for a second term. Questioned on if she regrets not running last year, Warren said what she regrets is that Trump is president “full stop, right there. … [But] he is and we’ve just got to go forward.” Warren normally doesn’t speak with reporters in the Capitol. But she’s become one of the caucus’s most vocal critics of Trump on social media and has been using the Senate floor to denounce his policies and comments. She added in her USA Today interview that Democrats need to pick their battles with Trump, including avoiding responding to every social media post from the Twitter-friendly president. “On the one hand, you’ve got to be in the fight, but … you can’t shoot at everything that moves,” she said. “We cannot engage Donald Trump on every crazy 3 a.m. tweet.” She added that Democrats need to “kind of pick your shots — even though he’s everywhere, all the time — and really fight back on the things that matter.” Click Here: cd universidad catolica
A Moscow-based think tank linked to Russian President Vladimir Putin created a plan to swing the 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE, Reuters reported on Wednesday.
Three current and four former U.S. officials told Reuters that two confidential documents obtained from the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies justify the conclusion reached by the U.S. intelligence community about Russia’s interference in the U.S. election.
ADVERTISEMENT
According to the report, the institute is run by former senior Russian intelligence officials appointed by the Russian president’s office.
The seven U.S. officials told Reuters that one of the documents was a strategy paper drafted in June 2016 that advocated a propaganda campaign on various media platforms urging U.S. voters to back a presidential candidate with a friendlier stance toward Russia.
The second document, written in October, advocated for Russia to switch focus to amplifying voter fraud claims, given the widely held view at the time that Democrat Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonWhite House accuses Biden of pushing ‘conspiracy theories’ with Trump election claim Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness Trayvon Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton qualifies to run for county commissioner in Florida MORE was likely to beat Trump.
The shift in strategy would be used to undermine Clinton’s presidency and damage her reputation, the document implied.
According to four of the sources, the June strategy paper expanded on Putin’s earlier strategy from March 2016, in which Moscow allegedly instructed state-backed media outlets such as Sputnik News and RT to produce more pro-Trump content.
A spokesperson for Sputnik dismissed the claims of U.S. sources, calling them an “absolute pack of lies” in a statement to Reuters.
Click Here: cheap sydney roosters jersey
Mikel Arteta and his technical staff at Arsenal want to gradually move to a 4-3-3 system following the arrival of Thomas Partey from Atletico Madrid, according to a report.
Arteta’s men have won three of their first four matches in the Premier League this season, with their only loss coming against defending champions Liverpool.
There is a lot of positivity surrounding Arsenal now with Arteta bringing back a feel-good factor to the Gunners and they only strengthened their ranks in the summer transfer window.
OPINION: Summer transfer window 2020: The winners
Click Here: cheap INTERNATIONAL jersey
The Gunners brought in Willian, Gabriel Magalhaes and Partey, while they re-signed Dani Ceballos on loan from Real Madrid and Pablo Mari and Cedric Soares made their loan deals permanent.
Partey was their biggest signing of the transfer window, joining from Atletico Madrid for £45m to add a new dimension to Arteta’s central midfield.
And The Athletic has said that Arsenal held a ‘series of clandestine meetings’ with Partey as far back as the 2018-19 season as the Ghana international outlined his preferred position and started to consider a move to the Emirates Stadium.
The 27-year-old told the Gunners’ former head of international scouting, Francis Cagigao, that ‘his preference is to operate as one of a pair of deep-lying midfielders, but he can also play at the base alone’.
Partey told Cagigao that he could ‘envisage playing in tandem’ with Granit Xhaka, while he wanted more ‘self-expression’ that he wasn’t afforded by Diego Simeone.
He ‘ticks all the boxes of Arteta’s specifications for a screening No 6. Partey is now the primary option for that position’ with Arteta hoping to eventually be able to alter his formation.
The Athletic article adds that Arteta and his ‘technical staff still envision the team ultimately developing into a 4-3-3 system, akin to the one adopted by Liverpool and Manchester City’.
The addition of Partey ‘can provide the security and strength through the spine that could enable Arteta to move away from the back three’.
After pinning down Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang to a new contract and bringing Gabriel to the club, a ‘spine is emerging’ at Arsenal.