• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

There is also this study about Obamacare which gives a different picture and asks different questions than the Forbes one M'skis submitted: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html?_r=0#/

There are a lot of questions I have about some of these studies. For example, when we talk about rises in costs, does this take into account total out of pocket expense for the year or just the premium? If I have a plan with a low premium but high deductible and lots of restrictions on allowable expenses, simply looking at my monthly payment could be misleading. The real question is how much people pay annually for all health care costs.

Also, when they sample increases in premiums, are they including those who had no coverage but now do through the Act? Because that would dramatically skew the numbers. Also, are the subsidies being factored in or just the cost of the premium? 85 percent of those who signed up for Obamacare received subsidies which reduced their out of pocket expense by 76 percent on average.

I am a supporter of the Act even though I agree that the program needs to (and will continue to) be adjusted, modified and altered as we move forward. For something as tremendously complex as healthcare provision nationwide, this is hardly surprising.
 
michaelskis said:
So are you saying that these news stories are lies? Is the information in them irrelevant? I think that the Benghazi story will be quiet until after the Democrats nominate Hillary to run. Then the GOP will use it as one of may tools to try to bury her.
Click to expand...

Usually this Faux grift has a grain of truth to it and then the hokum and half-truths and speculation and innocent-sounding questions and logical fallacies and [fill in your favorite hokumization here _____ ] gets piled on to agitate the faithful. We all know how it's done.
 
illinoisplanner said:
My sole blog post on Cyburbia is all about gerrymandering in Illinois. The Dems are just as brutal. They essentially created two Republican "sink" districts in the Chicago area: one for Peter Roskam and one for Randy Hultgren. The rest are all Dem. They also even managed to gerrymander heavily Republican downtstate Illinois and squeeze out a safe Dem district for Cheri Bustos and a couple competitive districts, but those competitive districts are looking very Republican these days (one is Rodney Davis' and the other was just picked up by Mike Bost). In doing this, the Dems got greedy and wound up screwing themselves and therefore no longer have a foothold in the East St. Louis area. Also, the Republicans managed to take back the North Shore district, which was drawn to be safer for the Dem.

I agree...I would much rather have districts drawn by geography/region and not by political makeup and let the cards fall where they may. In downstate Illinois, districts should be drawn on the county/regional level (Rockford area, western Illinois, Peoria area, Champaign area, Springfield area, southern Illinois, Metro East area), while in the Chicago metro area, they should be grouping like suburban areas and sides of the city (i.e. northern suburbs, northwest suburbs, far northwest suburbs, west suburbs, Aurora/Naperville area, Joliet area, southwest suburbs, north side of the city, west side of the city, central city, south side of the city, southern suburbs, etc.). But instead, as it stands, you have sprawling tentacle like districts, cities split into multiple districts (many suburbs and cities are in 2 different districts, and I think Elgin is in like 3), and districts shaped like "U"s and other odd shapes. People don't even know what district they're in anymore. Even as a geography nut, it's hard for me to immediately know what district some place is in.
Click to expand...

I know that Luis Gutierrez' USHouse district (gerrymandered to be majority Latino) includes the Logan Square and the Douglas Park/Cicero areas, but not the area between them (Austin, Lawndale, et al), with the two pieces being connected to each other via a long, thin, block or two wide corridor that snakes westward to include the paralleling sections of I-290 and I-294 (Tri-State Tollway).

Also, doesn't one of the 'tentacle' districts on Chicago's south side include the South Shore, South Chicago and/or East Side area(s) of the city *and* part or all of Joliet (or something like that)?

Mike
 
michaelskis said:
Sigh... So a small group of republicans in MA vote for something that only applies to their state, and you take that as a blanket "He passed a healthcare bill, that everyone wanted to pass (both R's and D's at some point)" viewpoint of the party.
Click to expand...

I never said everyone wanted it to pass. You said no republicans have ever supported it. I said that they had. And I was right about it. Just so we are clear on that one....

michaelskis said:
If the numbers your talking about is just the number of people insured, despite the cost, then you are correct. More people are insured today than they were before obamacare started to be implemented. The numbers I was referencing was the cost out of pocket. The intent of the bill was to make healthcare affordable, thus the name, Affordable Healthcare Act. In a few locations, it did go down. But as a whole, the average U.S. county saw a rate increase of 49 percent. LINK 1. In Michigan, it is 66%

But it is not just about that, in fact we won't know the full effects of Obamacare for some time because of the implementation timeline and how Obama has been using Executive Orders to extend out that time line (which many say he does not have the constitutional authority to do since the timelines are in be bill... and he is changing the bill without congressional approval)

Once again, this bill has not made healthcare more affordable, it is become more expensive, it as sold by, to quote Gruber, "Stupid American Voters" to get passed, is only being classified as constitutional by SOTUS as a tax, and was based on a foundation of lies that is slowly crumbling.

...

Edit: I would still be against Obamacare if it was introduced by the Ghost of Ronald Reagan himself. It is a bad bill, it is at the wrong level of government, and it is far from 'affordable', so the whole "But the Republicans wanted it" argument is worthless to me.
Click to expand...

So you think the facts show one thing. There are lots of other studies that show something else. You take the talking points (GRUBER-GATE!!!!), and the negative articles (Forbes), and create the story that you want to hear. Have you ever considered running for the Republican House or Senate?

I think what gets me is that there are many more "good" stories that have come out of the ACA than bad ones. I personally know at least 4 people (sure it is a low number, but that is my only pool of understanding) who have had their families lives changed by the ACA. I know that it works for some people. What is funny to me, is that I too do not support the ACA in it's entirety. I also believe that it didn't really do what was proposed, or what it was sold as. It is a very flawed bill. It doesn't even touch half of what is wrong with our healthcare system.

But what I can say is that it isn't this horrible bill that is killing people, or bankrupting our country or the people in it. If you actually step back and look at the whole picture, this is pretty obvious.

If Bush would have put this forward it would have been attacked by the Left for not doing enough, etc.,etc. It is a game. Don't let yourself get dragged down by people who sell themselves as non-partisan and yet sell you their agenda.
 
Hink said:
I never said everyone wanted it to pass. You said no republicans have ever supported it. I said that they had. And I was right about it. Just so we are clear on that one....
Click to expand...

You might be right... so let me clarify, there were ZERO republicans who voted in favor of Obamacare.

Hink said:
So you think the facts show one thing. There are lots of other studies that show something else. You take the talking points (GRUBER-GATE!!!!), and the negative articles (Forbes), and create the story that you want to hear. Have you ever considered running for the Republican House or Senate?

I think what gets me is that there are many more "good" stories that have come out of the ACA than bad ones. I personally know at least 4 people (sure it is a low number, but that is my only pool of understanding) who have had their families lives changed by the ACA. I know that it works for some people. What is funny to me, is that I too do not support the ACA in it's entirety. I also believe that it didn't really do what was proposed, or what it was sold as. It is a very flawed bill. It doesn't even touch half of what is wrong with our healthcare system.

But what I can say is that it isn't this horrible bill that is killing people, or bankrupting our country or the people in it. If you actually step back and look at the whole picture, this is pretty obvious.

If Bush would have put this forward it would have been attacked by the Left for not doing enough, etc.,etc. It is a game. Don't let yourself get dragged down by people who sell themselves as non-partisan and yet sell you their agenda.
Click to expand...

I am sure that there are wonderful stories about how ACA has helped people. If you stole a car from a middle class family and gave it to a homeless person, and only told about how you gave a car to a homeless person, people would consider it a wonderful story. My dad's health insurance for him and my step mom is now more than his house mortgage and is the single most expensive bill he has. It more than doubled when ACA was rolled out. We had a great therapist that our old insurance covered for our middle son. They came to the house, and it was all covered. Now that therapist is not covered by our insurance at all, so we spend $90 every week for 3 days of therapy for him... oh and we need to drive him there.

Thus far, your right. It does not appear to be killing people. It is a factor in further financial strain and I have witness that first hand.

But my biggest frustration, which you seem to be avoiding, is that this is something that should be a state by state decision. It is not a power expressly granted to the federal government unless you classify it as a tax... something Democrats have overwhelming expressed that it wouldn't be.

Finally, if Bush rolled this out, I would be right there with those on the left saying WTF.



On a more current note, it will be interesting to see what the President does about immigration. I agree that it needs to be changed but he stated many times that he would not take executive action to pass legislation regarding immigration, but apparently he is going to do it anyways. Seems everything this guy has said in the past means nothing now.
 
Yesterday the 9th Circuit Court overturned Montana's ban on same-sex marriages. One of the petitioners is a friend of mine. Yesterday the county court clerks changed the marriage application to accomodate the change. Today a judge is down at the courthouse pledging to do same sex marriage ceremeonies as long as there are people who want to get hitched.

I think it is great.

Why shouldn't same sex couples have the opportunity to get married and be as miserable as the rest of us? :p:p
 
otterpop said:
Yesterday the 9th Circuit Court overturned Montana's ban on same-sex marriages. One of the petitioners is a friend of mine. Yesterday the county court clerks changed the marriage application to accomodate the change. Today a judge is down at the courthouse pledging to do same sex marriage ceremeonies as long as there are people who want to get hitched.

I think it is great.

Why shouldn't same sex couples have the opportunity to get married and be as miserable as the rest of us? :p:p
Click to expand...

At least Montana seems to be handling it well enough. Kansas is trying to fight it every step. Some judges say it only applies to the two counties in the lawsuit. Some say they won't do anything until they get clarification of the ruling. What more clarification do you need? The big court said the ban was wrong. It was a state law so it applies to the whole state.

On a happy note, there are a couple counties that are doing the marriages. They tend to me urban and supportive of ideas like that. On a sad note, there is some guy somewhere that was trying to avoid marriage and now has no more excuses.
 
The President's immigration/ amnesty plan that was rolled out last night is not all that bad. I don't believe he has the constitutional authority to do it (nor did the other presidents who did it) and I think it is something that should have gone through congress first.

The biggest thing that I like about it is that it is not a blanket welcome to America plan, but here is what you can do IF you meet these standards. I do think they need to secure the border to prevent more people from coming in illegally, but overall his plan is not that bad and is a federal power. Having said that, he does not have the athority to create and approve laws without congress. It would be similar to Rand Paul being elected President and saying that we will not have the IRS worry about collecting more than 15% of your income in taxes. Suddenly the flat tax situation is solved. That too would be wrong.

I would encourage the Republicans to work with the president to get something similar to what the president rolled out, but with an increase in boarder security. That way it lets those who will be productive stay without opening the flood gates.
 
mgk920 said:
I know that Luis Gutierrez' USHouse district (gerrymandered to be majority Latino) includes the Logan Square and the Douglas Park/Cicero areas, but not the area between them (Austin, Lawndale, et al), with the two pieces being connected to each other via a long, thin, block or two wide corridor that snakes westward to include the paralleling sections of I-290 and I-294 (Tri-State Tollway).

Also, doesn't one of the 'tentacle' districts on Chicago's south side include the South Shore, South Chicago and/or East Side area(s) of the city *and* part or all of Joliet (or something like that)?

Mike
Click to expand...

It's even worse now with the 2011 redistricting. Check it out for yourself: http://www.ilhousedems.com/redistricting/

One district stretches from Hyde Park down to Kankakee. Another one stretches from the South Loop down to Elwood. Luis Guierrez' district, still largely intact, has now become the model for another new U-shaped districts like the Republican "sink" districts they created out of the 14th and 6th districts. All the districts in the Chicago area are a frickin' mess.

The 17th in western Illinois isn't as bad as before, but they certainly went out of their way to make it as Democratic as possible, by putting the Democratic parts of Peoria and Rockford in it, and putting the Republican parts of those cities in other districts.
 
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Until Congress actually passes a law issuing permanent residency, nothing in the executive order would prevent future presidents from stripping their temporary status and deporting them. Amnesty, by definition, is a complete pardon. Executive Orders are inherently temporary because successors can easily undo them. Once the president officially defers action against individuals, they automatically become eligible for work authorization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and driver's licenses under the Real ID Act of 2005. So basically, all Obama's action has really done is saved some folks from a trip to Juarez.

General authority for deferred action exists under Immigration and Nationality Act, which grants the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to enforce the immigration laws. The Supreme Court has made clear that decisions to initiate or terminate enforcement proceedings fall squarely within the authority of the Executive. The Executive Branch has exercised its general enforcement authority to grant deferred action since at least the early 1970s, with acknowledgement from the Courts. Here are the two most recent with very brief summaries I found:
  • Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee: Supreme Court found that the various prudential concerns that prompt deference to the executive branch's determinations as to whether to prosecute criminal offenses are greatly magnified in the deportation context, which entails civil (rather than criminal) proceedings.
  • Arizona v. United States: Court affirmed the authority of the executive branch not to seek the removal of certain aliens, noting that a "principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion entrusted to immigration officials," and that "returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission." According to the majority, such exercises of prosecutorial discretion may reflect "immediate human concerns" and the "equities of ... individual case," such as whether the alien has children born in the United States or ties to the community, as well as "policy choices that bear on ... international relations."


And as is my practice, I like to use the words of people currently screaming about the "emperor" behavior of Obama against them... Many of the same Republicans who are now fighting comprehensive immigration reform and questioning Obama's legal authority once signed onto a letter that called on Attorney General Janet Reno "to intervene on behalf of those facing unintended deportation." I know about this because the primary author of the letter was none other than my current representative, Lamar Smith, who loves to include scary immigration rhetoric in his little newsletter to constituents.

Even Bill O'Reilly understands deferred action. On November 6th, he compared deferred action on deportation to "a town where the police chief would say to its cops, you know, if somebody's smoking marijuana in the street, low-level beef, ignore it." He went on to say he wasn't bothered by that use of discretion.

But what pisses me off the most is that the only reason this is controversial is because it is Obama doing it rather than Saint Ronald. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr. implemented a "family fairness" policy. When Reagan signed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) to create a path to citizenship for 3 million + folks if they had been continuously present since 1982. The law excluded their spouses and children who didn't qualify and forced them to wait in line, creating "split-eligibility" families, as they were called. In 1987, the Reagan Administration announced a blanket deferral of deportation for children under 18 who were living in a two-parent household with both parents legalizing, or with a single parent who was legalizing. Then, in 1989, the Senate passed legislation to protect a bigger group -- prohibiting deportation of all spouses and children of those who were legalizing under IRCA. But the legislation stalled in the House, and in 1990 President Bush Sr. administratively implemented the Senate bill's provisions. This action expanded the blanket deferral to about 1.5 million additional folks, provided they met certain criteria. Between Saint Ronald & Bush 1.0, over 40 percent of the then-unauthorized population was protected from deportation. By the way, this story ends with the House finally passing the legislation.

I'm quite passionate about this topic because I've seen the immigration process up close & personal. One of my closest friends married an immigrant that overstayed his visa. What ensued over the course of about 18 months was downright inhumane treatment to get his immigration status corrected, including him having to self-deport to Mexico for an extended period. Not only that, but he was required to be processed in the extremely dangerous city of Juarez, where they were both given the 3rd degree. Our immigration policy sucks terribly, and Congress is unwilling to do jack shit about it.
 
My wife is an immigrant. She came to this country on a fiancee visa and we got married. Then we went through the whole immigration process from legal resident to citizen. While it was slow and bureaucratic, I must say I found the process was fair and the INS was always very helpful and responsive. The agency became less efficient and more aggressive after it became part of the Dpeartment of Homeland Security. I think that was a knee-jerk reaction to 9-11 and a mistake.

I found the final interview before my wife was granted citizenship to be kind of funny. Because the interviewer came in the room aned grilled us like we were on "Law and Order." I was pretty sure it was one last effort to shake those poeple who were might be pulling a fast one. He came on tough at first but began to mellow as he was getting the answers he wanted. He never was friendly but at least by the end of the interview he was satisfied.

We were luckier than most people who went through the process because we always had a INS office in our town. A lot of people had to travel great distances to attend to their immigration business.

What I have observed is that immigration policy is color-based, If your face is white or yellow, you don't have much trouble and the politiicans leave you alone. No one is proposing building a wall to stop immigrants from crossing our northern border. Justin Bieber and William Shatner got across just fine.

If your face is brown, well, you have a problem (unless you are East Indian). You'll have Arizona and Texas congressmen talking about security fences and everyone speaking 'Mex'can." Politicians like their domestic workers undocumented so they can pay them squat and deport them if they get uppiddy. They complain that these people are taking American jobs. Partly this is true because if you want a job done right, hire a Mexican, because they work very hard. I know the Forest Service likes Mexican seasonal workers because they work harder than Americans, don't expect to go into town every weekend and don't come to work hungover.

It is often said we are a country of immigrants. Most of our ancestors came to this country during the time when all you needed to immigrate to the USA was get off a ship. When we did get immigration laws these laws heavily favored Northern Europeans. Now the immigrants seem to mostly be coming from Latin America and Asia.

I do think we should continue to have immigration. I believe people should immigrate legally, of course, like my wife did. And I do favor letting the parents of illegally immigrated children come to our county to preserve families.

I support the President doing what he can by executive order. If you wait for Congress to do something, you are in for a long frustrating wait. If a swarm of malaria-ridden mosquitoes flew into Congress it would take four months, three committee hearings and five votes before they decided someone should close a door.
 
I too support the president. The Rs are claiming he is side stepping the issue. The Senate passed a bi-partisan (in a sense) immigration reform bill. While not perfect, it was something. The House and the Tea-party Rs killed it.

As a son of 1st time immigrants, this issue means a lot to me. I do not support wholesale "amnesty" in the form of granting residency/citizenship to everyone. There are many immigrants that wait years to get in this country. My feeling is every politican that gets their head in front of the media have no clue what it takes to get in this country legally, nor does 99% of the population. As otterpop mentioned, the immigration system is set up for preferences to Europe and other "white" nations. Africans, Latinos, East Asians have no chance of securing a visa to immigrate to the US in the so called "green card" lottery. I do support through a means to get those illegals that have been productive members of society a chance to continue to benefit themselves and our local economy.

Illegal / illegal migrants pay taxes. They pay them in the form of sales taxes and other taxes. they contribute to the local economy. Do they take away jobs? I don't know. I typically see most migrants doing the jobs I would never fathom to do, but if I were desperate and needed money for my family, I will do it. Really it boils down to xenophobia. Remember the days of "no irish need apply". Well, sub out "iris" and place in brown color person, because it most people's eyes, we are all "mexican".

I always tell people, live in their shoes for a day. What if you lived in a country working for less than a dollar a day and have mouths to feed? Would you continue to the struggle, or look for something better? I don't let my kids forget where their grandparents came from. My daughter at 6 asked when we went to central america why little girls weren't in school and selling things on the highways. My response was "because they are just trying to survive" and going to school isn't a priority over just finding enough money to feed themselves". She got it and every time we bought something we made a point to find the children selling goods and provide a whole lot more.

The entire system is broken and needs fixed. Maybe this gets congress going to put together something, but of course the Rs will get all sue happy and shit will continue to not change for the better. :not:
 
Wow, it seems that the only thing that we don't agree on is the method of it getting appoved. I agree that the republicans are being totally inappropriate in their blocking of it going through the proper process.

My concen is that we have laws and rules. Where are the limits of which rules he can decide not to enforce and those that he will. I agree the rules should be changed, but to just deside not to enforce them administratively?
 
I'm glad you acknowledge what has gone on in Congress on the immigration issue. Their lack of action should piss off EVERYONE regardless of party. The overwhelming majority of Americans want an efficient, transparent immigration program--they are not concerned about them stealing jobs.

I don't think Obama is trying to legislate from the Oval Office... I think he is looking at how Reagan & Bush 1.0 used executive orders as a stop gap measure that led to legislative action within about 12 months that essentially ratified & codified their respective decisions. It is worth noting, however, that Reagan & Bush 1.0 operated in a much different, far less polarized political climate.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I'm glad you acknowledge what has gone on in Congress on the immigration issue. Their lack of action should piss off EVERYONE regardless of party. The overwhelming majority of Americans want an efficient, transparent immigration program--they are not concerned about them stealing jobs.

I don't think Obama is trying to legislate from the Oval Office... I think he is looking at how Reagan & Bush 1.0 used executive orders as a stop gap measure that led to legislative action within about 12 months that essentially ratified & codified their respective decisions. It is worth noting, however, that Reagan & Bush 1.0 operated in a much different, far less polarized political climate.
Click to expand...

Obama told illegals that they can get jobs. Current law prohibits illegals from getting jobs without a visa. Obama changed the law. While I personally think it is for the better and the Republicans are just being a bunch of tools, the way he did it was wrong and I fear that if it stands, it will erase the limits of Presidential power.

In looking up what Regan and Bush did, they too overstepped their athority. The only real difference is there was bills already in the process when they did what they did. I am not aware of a bill in process here.

The other question here is what if we just decided not to enforce a zoning regulation, just because it was bad. We all know that there are parts of our regulations that we don't agree with, but we enforce them or we loose our jobs.
 
Last edited:
Hink said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30155216

What?! Benghazi was handled appropriately?

No! That's not what Fox News said though! Oh the humanity!!!!!!
Click to expand...

My only problem with the Benghazi thing, we've all moved on (okay most of us have). Obviously someone needs to make some corrections on security. I'm sure someone lied or covered up or did something wrong, but since I'm not after Hilary's head maybe we can move on to more important not so political problems like keeping those damn Canadians out of our country. Better yet, spend some money on fixing up some bridges. Like we can actually solve a real problem:lmao:
 
There were protests here in Michigan by some fast food workers who want a $15.00 minimum wage. If you look at the jobs that are often minimum wage, they are often low skill many of which seem to becoming automated. Years ago there was no self checkout lanes in a store, now I have seen a few places that have more self checkout than staffed. I also learned that there are a few fast food drive through order windows that are become automated.

Do you think that increasing the minimum wage will result in further automation and elimination of jobs?

I know, I know, it will never happen. Tell the autoworkers that.
 
michaelskis said:
Do you think that increasing the minimum wage will result in further automation and elimination of jobs?
Click to expand...

No, it may hasten the demise of some service jobs - which sit-down chain is phasing them out now? - but those are going away whether 7.00/hr or 11.00/hr. There is fairly good data out there now that economies are not hurt by raising the minimum wage, so people using economic data honestly can't make that case.
 
ColoGI said:
No, it may hasten the demise of some service jobs - which sit-down chain is phasing them out now? - but those are going away whether 7.00/hr or 11.00/hr. There is fairly good data out there now that economies are not hurt by raising the minimum wage, so people using economic data honestly can't make that case.
Click to expand...

Can you expand on that a bit? Reason I ask is over the past 30 years, my dad has been part owner of a radio network. There is a position called a Board Op that more or less sits in a chair over night to answer the phone if it rings and make sure the computer that's runs what you hear stays running. If it stops, they call someone. Every time they raise the minimum wage, someone gets laid off. In talking with him today, if it goes to 15 dollars an hour, they all get laid off.

The greenhouse I once worked for also lays off people when the minimum wage goes up. In this economy their profit margins are so limited that the owne makes less than some of his top landscape designers. Same goes for the locally owned grocery store, the ski resort, and the golf course where the managers are friends of mine. In other situations where they can't cut anymore staff, the prices go up.

The stock market may have rebounded since the recession, but wages haven't. People who got laid off of high paying jobs took low paying jobs just because it was an income. If the min wage goes up and more people lose their jobs, then you tell me, how has the increase helped their economic situation? If prices go up to address the difference, how does it help other people?
 
michaelskis said:
Can you expand on that a bit? Reason I ask is over the past 30 years, my dad has been part owner of a radio network. There is a position called a Board Op that more or less sits in a chair over night to answer the phone if it rings and make sure the computer that's runs what you hear stays running. If it stops, they call someone. Every time they raise the minimum wage, someone gets laid off. In talking with him today, if it goes to 15 dollars an hour, they all get laid off.
Click to expand...

There are several robust studies out there that show raising wages is a net positive - some jobs lost, others retained because of more spending. The demagoguery will never go away on the Noise Machine, but more and more economists understand that it is a net positive. Sure, in easily automatable jobs like the radio one you describe that is happening - it was happening since I was a kid in the late 70s and my mom dated a DJ who was lamenting the fact DJs were going away...
 
ColoGI said:
There are several robust studies out there that show raising wages is a net positive - some jobs lost, others retained because of more spending. The demagoguery will never go away on the Noise Machine, but more and more economists understand that it is a net positive. Sure, in easily automatable jobs like the radio one you describe that is happening - it was happening since I was a kid in the late 70s and my mom dated a DJ who was lamenting the fact DJs were going away...
Click to expand...

I don't remember where I saw it... but there's a small local burger chain in Detroit that is paying their employees a minimum of $14 or $15 hourly. They've said that it has been a net positive for them because productivity is higher and they don't spend money continually training inefficient new employees. Plus they get more loyalty from customers since they are viewed as contributing back to the community through living wage jobs.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I don't remember where I saw it... but there's a small local burger chain in Detroit that is paying their employees a minimum of $14 or $15 hourly. They've said that it has been a net positive for them because productivity is higher and they don't spend money continually training inefficient new employees. Plus they get more loyalty from customers since they are viewed as contributing back to the community through living wage jobs.
Click to expand...

How much is a hamburger at that place? There are specialty resturants that pay more, but they also charge a lot more.
 
michaelskis said:
How much is a hamburger at that place? There are specialty resturants that pay more, but they also charge a lot more.
Click to expand...

We did this exercise in the Denver area when the minimum wage "debate" started some months ago: for $12/hr, a McDonald's burger would increase 35-50 cents. No one wanted to let go of the scare stories about burgers becoming unaffordable, so protests got only a tiny bit of traction.

Nevertheless, Suburb Repairman is talking about Moo Cluck Moo, and their prices aren't too bad. I'd eat there occasionally if the food was good and convenient, etc, and there was one in Colo.

IMHO this issue will follow the same path as women's voting, gay marriage, races mixing: once people see it for themselves and it isn't harmful, things will change. In this country they have to, this wage inequality problem can't go on much longer.
 
ColoGI said:
We did this exercise in the Denver area when the minimum wage "debate" started some months ago: for $12/hr, a McDonald's burger would increase 35-50 cents. No one wanted to let go of the scare stories about burgers becoming unaffordable, so protests got only a tiny bit of traction.

Nevertheless, Suburb Repairman is talking about Moo Cluck Moo, and their prices aren't too bad. I'd eat there occasionally if the food was good and convenient, etc, and there was one in Colo.

IMHO this issue will follow the same path as women's voting, gay marriage, races mixing: once people see it for themselves and it isn't harmful, things will change. In this country they have to, this wage inequality problem can't go on much longer.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an awesome place and I applaud them for paying their employees more. That is me of the many reasons we shop at Costco instead of Sam's Club.

I have also seen these reports where they show the price increases at the store level being minimual. However I have yet to see a comprehensive study that includes increases thoughout the full supply chain, starting at the chemical company that produces the seeds to the end consumer. The cost increase would need to not just address the employees at that location, but also the increases in raw goods that supply that store.
 
I have real issues with this bill.

House-approved Michigan Religious Freedom Restoration Act: A license to discriminate? (LINK)

As some of you know, I work for a very diverse community with an extremely high concentration of homosexuals and guess what, they are people just like you and me. This bill would allow coworkers to tell them that they won't serve them because of their sexual orientation, even though in almost every aspect I can't see how it would be in opposition to anyone's religious beliefs. This bill would also allow a Muslim taxi driver to deny transporting a woman if she did not have a hijab on, or a Jewish accountant or lawyer from representing someone who eats pork. It's not like the Jewish person is buying the guy a pork sandwich.

It is one thing to actively contribute in a direct way to something that violates a persons religious freedoms, but this bill seems to take that point WAY too far.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I don't remember where I saw it... but there's a small local burger chain in Detroit that is paying their employees a minimum of $14 or $15 hourly. They've said that it has been a net positive for them because productivity is higher and they don't spend money continually training inefficient new employees. Plus they get more loyalty from customers since they are viewed as contributing back to the community through living wage jobs.
Click to expand...

ColoGI said:
We did this exercise in the Denver area when the minimum wage "debate" started some months ago: for $12/hr, a McDonald's burger would increase 35-50 cents. No one wanted to let go of the scare stories about burgers becoming unaffordable, so protests got only a tiny bit of traction.

Nevertheless, Suburb Repairman is talking about Moo Cluck Moo, and their prices aren't too bad. I'd eat there occasionally if the food was good and convenient, etc, and there was one in Colo.
Click to expand...

Granted, I live on the other side of the city from the two locations of Moo Cluck Moo but I had never heard of them before. If I ever make it down to that side of town around lunch time, I would give it a try.

If the food is good, the prices don't look out of line compared to the hipster-frequented places downtown or in my neck of the woods.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/06/news/economy/oil-jobs-gas-prices/index.html

This is why Keystone was never going to be worth it. And let me note: The Republicans are trying to push Keystone again. These jobs are more fickle than the "infrastructure" jobs they hated that President Obama "created" with the stimulus. Seriously, do you not see the hypocrisy Republicans?

If we really want to create jobs, than let's push rail, energy grid upgrade, broadband expansion, or other infrastructure that creates a clear value to the country. Infrastructure is the solution. I would argue Green Infrastructure (i.e. not roads), but any infrastructure investment would work. Oil is down because of the boom in ND. That is on private land. Think about if the government opened up Alaska? Do you think we would have more jobs, or would we just see more of the CNN article above? Why would we want to put all our eggs in that basket?
 
Hink said:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/06/news/economy/oil-jobs-gas-prices/index.html

This is why Keystone was never going to be worth it. And let me note: The Republicans are trying to push Keystone again. These jobs are more fickle than the "infrastructure" jobs they hated that President Obama "created" with the stimulus. Seriously, do you not see the hypocrisy Republicans?

If we really want to create jobs, than let's push rail, energy grid upgrade, broadband expansion, or other infrastructure that creates a clear value to the country. Infrastructure is the solution. I would argue Green Infrastructure (i.e. not roads), but any infrastructure investment would work. Oil is down because of the boom in ND. That is on private land. Think about if the government opened up Alaska? Do you think we would have more jobs, or would we just see more of the CNN article above? Why would we want to put all our eggs in that basket?
Click to expand...

I agree. We need an all of the above approach. I still think we need the keystone pipeline as it is much safer than transporting the oil by rail, but I agree that we should not put all our eggs in that basket. My brother-in-law is a union pipe-fitter that builds these types of things, and he was saying that it is amazing how structurally secure these pipes are. Most of his work so far has been with natural gas, but if the Keystone gets fast-tracked, we will likely be working on that.

Here is a report on oil transit by rail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpXfQMFR_Qs
 
michaelskis said:
If what the reporter is printing is true, then I think it is not only her right, but it is her duty to report the news.
Click to expand...

That's what she said.


I think its really interesting these "important elected wonders" are so full of themselves. Get off your f-ing power trip and do the job you are supposed to do and remember its not all glam & fam. You are now a public figure and should be treated as such.
 
Yep, this is the guy I mentioned yesterday in the random thoughts thread. Thankfully I work for the city and not the county. Aye carumba . . . . :r:
 
In response to the movie American Sniper, Michael Moore tweets:

irrelevant movie hack named Michael Moore said:
My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren't heroes. And invaders r worse
Click to expand...

I admit that I have not gone to see the movie yet, but I have read the book and while I feel bad that Michael Moore's uncle was killed in WWII, I find his comments to be a pathetic attempt to get back into the media. I question if he really believes the crap that he posts, or if he is really that full of hate.

There are a lot of people who were opposed to the war. My views have changed since then and I agree that we should not have invaded Iraq like we did, but Chris Kyle's service to this country on the battle field, and at home working with others with PTSD is nothing but heroic.

What are your thoughts on Michael Moore's comments? If you have seen the movie or read the book, what are your thoughts on Chris Kyle, the movie or the book?
 
michaelskis said:
In response to the movie American Sniper, Michael Moore tweets:



I admit that I have not gone to see the movie yet, but I have read the book and while I feel bad that Michael Moore's uncle was killed in WWII, I find his comments to be a pathetic attempt to get back into the media. I question if he really believes the crap that he posts, or if he is really that full of hate.

There are a lot of people who were opposed to the war. My views have changed since then and I agree that we should not have invaded Iraq like we did, but Chris Kyle's service to this country on the battle field, and at home working with others with PTSD is nothing but heroic.

What are your thoughts on Michael Moore's comments? If you have seen the movie or read the book, what are your thoughts on Chris Kyle, the movie or the book?
Click to expand...
I think it's ridiculous this day and age to call any combatant who can't see the whites of their enemies' eyes a 'coward'. The list of 'cowards' would have to include: almost everyone in the airforce (visual kills are rare in an age where radar tracks missiles fired miles away), virtually everyone in the navy (see air force), virtually everyone relying upon any form of indirect fire (you know, artillery). Anyone using most passive measures (mines and ied's)The list goes on and on. Folks, war is about eliminating a foe's willingness and ability to resist. Any way to kill lots of people is an effective means to that end.
 
michaelskis said:
What are your thoughts on Michael Moore's comments? If you have seen the movie or read the book, what are your thoughts on Chris Kyle, the movie or the book?
Click to expand...

Predictable Fauxtrage aside, I used to work closely with an ex-sniper for Secret Service, and knew a couple LURPs in AF. Not sure I could do the job.

MM was taught something by his dad who actually has a valid point. Back then it was believed to be true by many. Why did he tweet it? Was he drunk? Is Twitter blabber really Fauxtrage-worthy? Are people mad because MM exposed embarrassing things and hope for payback?
 
Maister said:
I think it's ridiculous this day and age to call any combatant who can't see the whites of their enemies' eyes a 'coward'. The list of 'cowards' would have to include: almost everyone in the airforce (visual kills are rare in an age where radar tracks missiles fired miles away), virtually everyone in the navy (see air force), virtually everyone relying upon any form of indirect fire (you know, artillery). Anyone using most passive measures (mines and ied's)The list goes on and on. Folks, war is about eliminating a foe's willingness and ability to resist. Any way to kill lots of people is an effective means to that end.
Click to expand...


I would urge you to go to you tube and watch a few full length documentaries on snipers. What you quickly learn is that even the guys on your own side that were trained snipers have a certain... "off aurau" about them.

Traditionally, if you were an enemy sniper that was captured, you were considered cowardly by whatever side you were captured by. This led to your imediate execution at the hands of your captors. Even more subject to execution than being a captured SS member made a person liable to such treatment.

What is interesting in "American Sniper" is that the Syrian sniper that had long term success was shown in the light of the "cowardly" sniper... evil, ruleless, diabolical, sneaky... you get the picture. Because of the view of the naration the "American" sniper was viewed in a workman like approach. He had a job and he was going to do it. From the side of anybody else other than US serviceman and their supporters, that sniper would have equally viewed as a "cowardly" sniper... evil, ruleless, diabolical, sneaky... you get the picture.

Snipers are a good thing to have on your side. When they are on the other guys side they are a "cowardly" sniper... evil, ruleless, diabolical, sneaky... It is a truth that can not be denied. They are not the same as fighter aircraft, or drones, or artillary, or tanks. They are a very purposefull method of personally killing a very specific target. Often with little means to fight back against them. Good / Bad? depends on your point of view. Just don't pretend they are not a breed apart that make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up and that they make you wonder and that you feel you can't quite trust them.

If you have seen the movie "American Sniper" you will notice he had faced several issues with the work himself. He eventually hit a wall that made him choose to leave the service. It took him 4 tours to realize that the situation on the ground didn't fit nicely into a neat patriotic package. The scene where he meets his brother leaving Iraq while he is going into Iraq frames this quite well. After the first tour he starts meeting other service members who don't share his gung ho brand of idiocy base on pure jingoistic patriotism. Note that the movie displays these people as being just as effective at doing their military jobs and of supporting each other dispite their apparant lack of blind patriotism. By the start of Tour 4, he no longer believes the patriotic crap and it is never even referenced. He is on a mission to protect his fellow soldiers from the "cowardly" sniper... evil, ruleless, diabolical, sneaky... sniper. See the cynicism of the jingoistic support of "OUR" sniper while reviling the other "cowardly" sniper... evil, ruleless, diabolical, sneaky... sniper.

The movie itself was really quite wooden in its dialogue. It also portrayed the lead character as 5 IQ points above a blithering idiot, which he can't be if he is a SEAL. It is no wonder he had PTSD after coming back after multiple tours. It was really complicated geopolitical situations faced by an increadibly naive and kind of slow person (as characterized). Or, at least that was how they portayed him. Mostly I think it must have been script writers that had never been in the service or under fire. The dialogue was really bad and incredably simplistic. I give it a 3 of 5 stars and rate it a "do not take a date to see this movie".

That has been the historical truth about snipers... cynical, feared, hated, untrusted but good to have on YOUR side only.
 
While I am often in agreement with Michael Moore, he's quite the loudmouth and sometimes he does more harm for his cause than good.

As for American Sniper - I have not read the book nor seen the movie and have no desire to. I know some Marines and sailors who worked with him first-hand, and well, if you cannot say something good about a person, you shouldn't say anything at all.
 
Here's what he actually wrote (if you'll read it)

WSU MUP Student said:
While I am often in agreement with Michael Moore, he's quite the loudmouth and sometimes he does more harm for his cause than good.

As for American Sniper - I have not read the book nor seen the movie and have no desire to. I know some Marines and sailors who worked with him first-hand, and well, if you cannot say something good about a person, you shouldn't say anything at all.
Click to expand...

Lots of talk about snipers this weekend (the holiday weekend of a great man, killed by a sniper), so I thought I'd weigh in with what I was raised to believe about snipers. My dad was in the First Marine Division in the South Pacific in World War II. His brother, my uncle, Lawrence Moore, was an Army paratrooper and was killed by a Japanese sniper 70 years ago next month. My dad always said, "Snipers are cowards. They don't believe in a fair fight. Like someone coming up from behind you and coldcocking you. Just isn't right. It's cowardly to shoot a person in the back. Only a coward will shoot someone who can't shoot back."

So I sent out this tweet today:

https://twitter.com/mmflint/status/556914094406926336

And then I sent this:

https://twitter.com/mmflint/status/556988226486169600

But Deadline Hollwood and the Hollywood Reporter turned that into stories about how I don't like Clint Eastwood's new film, "American Sniper." I didn't say a word about "American Sniper" in my tweets.

But here's what Deadline Hollywood posted (note how they changed "snipers" to "shooters" in their headline):

http://deadline.com/…/michael-moore-american-sniper-oscars…/

Hollywood Reporter has since corrected their story:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/…/michael-moore-blasts-ame…

If they wanted to know my opinion of "American Sniper" (and I have one), why not ask me? ...

More on his FB wall.
 
Veloise said:

Lots of talk about snipers this weekend (the holiday weekend of a great man, killed by a sniper), so I thought I'd weigh in with what I was raised to believe about snipers. My dad was in the First Marine Division in the South Pacific in World War II. His brother, my uncle, Lawrence Moore, was an Army paratrooper and was killed by a Japanese sniper 70 years ago next month. My dad always said, "Snipers are cowards. They don't believe in a fair fight. Like someone coming up from behind you and coldcocking you. Just isn't right. It's cowardly to shoot a person in the back. Only a coward will shoot someone who can't shoot back."

So I sent out this tweet today:

https://twitter.com/mmflint/status/556914094406926336

And then I sent this:

https://twitter.com/mmflint/status/556988226486169600

But Deadline Hollwood and the Hollywood Reporter turned that into stories about how I don't like Clint Eastwood's new film, "American Sniper." I didn't say a word about "American Sniper" in my tweets.

But here's what Deadline Hollywood posted (note how they changed "snipers" to "shooters" in their headline):

http://deadline.com/…/michael-moore-american-sniper-oscars…/

Hollywood Reporter has since corrected their story:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/…/michael-moore-blasts-ame…

If they wanted to know my opinion of "American Sniper" (and I have one), why not ask me? ...

More on his FB wall.
Click to expand...

What are your thoughts on his comments?

I can see where is is coming from even though I disagree with his comments. I did not fully understand the role of sniper in the US military until I read the book. Even more so what these guys (and girls) go through after they get out of the military.
 
Moore intentionally made those comments to incite. His film career is pretty marginal these days and he is moving toward irrelevancy. He is not well-respected in the documentary world, leaving him on a very lonely island. He does more harm to progressive causes than good and shows clear signs of megalomania.

The term "hero" is thrown around way too loosely. Chris Kyle has been sugarcoated through the book and this movie--there's a long list of people that served with him that will offer alternative recollections of what he was like. I'm not saying he was bad. Snipers are, by their nature, wired very different; they have to be in order to do that job. They are admittedly a sketchy area--if on your side they are heroes... on the enemy's side they are cowards. Yes--he performed outstanding service to his country and saved countless lives of his fellow soldiers, earning a variety of recognitions from multiple military branches, but let's not lift him up as some kind of humble saint and start naming schools after him. That being said, I think his story was an important one worth telling. I just wish Eastwood would have told the story better.

I'm actually tremendously bothered by the movie because, like Duke said, they made him sound like some kind of moron when he was anything but. I expected better from an Eastwood adaptation. But it is also one of the few stories to actually attempt to delve into the mental conflicts faced by soldiers and the resulting PTSD, and the impact on families.

I would hope it would lead leaders to take mental health of returning soldiers more seriously before, during and after wars. But it won't.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
Moore intentionally made those comments to incite. His film career is pretty marginal these days and he is moving toward irrelevancy. He is not well-respected in the documentary world, leaving him on a very lonely island. He does more harm to progressive causes than good and shows clear signs of megalomania.

The term "hero" is thrown around way too loosely. Chris Kyle has been sugarcoated through the book and this movie--there's a long list of people that served with him that will offer alternative recollections of what he was like. I'm not saying he was bad. Snipers are, by their nature, wired very different; they have to be in order to do that job. They are admittedly a sketchy area--if on your side they are heroes... on the enemy's side they are cowards. Yes--he performed outstanding service to his country and saved countless lives of his fellow soldiers, earning a variety of recognitions from multiple military branches, but let's not lift him up as some kind of humble saint and start naming schools after him. That being said, I think his story was an important one worth telling. I just wish Eastwood would have told the story better.

I'm actually tremendously bothered by the movie because, like Duke said, they made him sound like some kind of moron when he was anything but. I expected better from an Eastwood adaptation. But it is also one of the few stories to actually attempt to delve into the mental conflicts faced by soldiers and the resulting PTSD, and the impact on families.

I would hope it would lead leaders to take mental health of returning soldiers more seriously before, during and after wars. But it won't.
Click to expand...

There is an interesting paradox in the concept that snipers are cowards when you look at the history of warfare. We no longer meet in the town square with two lines of troops. When it comes to historic hand to hand combat with swards, spears, and the like, distance and cover were as much a hindrance as they were an asset. As archers progressed into a military role, those who did hand to hand combat realized that coverage was important. Today, someone in one part of a world can put on a pair of glasses and take out an entire convoy using a remote controlled drone, even if the operator is on the opposite side of the planet. Technology has changed the face of warfare and it will continue to change.

As for Eastwood, that is why I didn't go see the movie this past weekend. I wanted to reread the book before I watched the movie.

I think your comment regarding the mental health of soldiers is right on.
 
michaelskis said:
There is an interesting paradox in the concept that snipers are cowards when you look at the history of warfare. We no longer meet in the town square with two lines of troops. When it comes to historic hand to hand combat with swards, spears, and the like, distance and cover were as much a hindrance as they were an asset. As archers progressed into a military role, those who did hand to hand combat realized that coverage was important. Today, someone in one part of a world can put on a pair of glasses and take out an entire convoy using a remote controlled drone, even if the operator is on the opposite side of the planet. Technology has changed the face of warfare and it will continue to change.

As for Eastwood, that is why I didn't go see the movie this past weekend. I wanted to reread the book before I watched the movie.

I think your comment regarding the mental health of soldiers is right on.
Click to expand...

It is not a paradox. In reality, warfare is actually getting safer as time moves on. This is not due to greater efficiency of the men involved. The weapons are getting more efficient. This means that human combatants are disbursing and covering more area. This has been demostrable from over the last 5,000 years of military history. Initially warfare took place over a few acres. As weapons continued to get better they would expand to cover maybe several thousand yards by about 1400 ce. By 1800 you have combatants over several miles with support systems. Come to the current state of warfare in 2012 a "division" of 5k - 8k may have to cover up to 50 miles of linear territory.

Weirdly, as the size of military units become more efficient and cover more area the number of combatants continues to drop while the casualties also drop. Throw in modern medicine and the casualties percentage of deaths continues to plummet in modern battle formations.

Urban fighting and "terrorist" attacks negate the advantages of modern army. Modern snipers fit into the old school mode. They have updated the lone man in a tower or tree into an insane unit of 2 - 8 people with equipment to support the sniper completly that can hit a target out to almost 2,500 yards. That is about a mile and a half. Snipers are one pointy part of the spear.

Only simpletons offer hero status right away without thinking about the greater parts of how it all fits together. People want to lionize and affix hero status to vets. That is one way of affixing platitudes to a group of people as a whole. Oh our vets are "heros", oh our vets should be treated well, oh we support our vets! Makes me want to puke. Not many people want to actually spend any money on vets. They want to stand on bridges, wave flags, be awed by F-16 flyovers. Its a lot of whoey jingoistic crap.

When you come home fucked up after being blown up or covered in toxic goo or hearing destroyed and the list is endless... Vets then have to fight like hell to get help and get compensation for the shit that fucked them up. Show us how you care, vote for people who will actually cover the costs of our wars then come back and wave some flags.
 
Duke Of Dystopia said:
Only simpletons offer hero status right away without thinking about the greater parts of how it all fits together. People want to lionize and affix hero status to vets. That is one way of affixing platitudes to a group of people as a whole. Oh our vets are "heros", oh our vets should be treated well, oh we support our vets! Makes me want to puke. Not many people want to actually spend any money on vets. They want to stand on bridges, wave flags, be awed by F-16 flyovers. Its a lot of whoey jingoistic crap.
Click to expand...

As a vet (with a CAR nonetheless), all I can say is "Hear, hear."

Veteran's Day in particular is quickly becoming one of the biggest farces on the calendar. Myself, and countless other veterans, active duty service members, and dependents would be so much better served if the restaurant industry would stop giving giving away free meals for Vets one day a year and use that money to lobby for some sort of actual change and to bring awareness to whatever cause they wanted to support.

And let's not even discuss the NFL or NCAA football.

But hey, here's the bumper sticker that was on my Jeep while recalled from the IRR to active duty for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, so what do I know?
28v3pmc.jpg
 
Duke Of Dystopia said:
It is not a paradox. In reality, warfare is actually getting safer as time moves on. This is not due to greater efficiency of the men involved. The weapons are getting more efficient. This means that human combatants are disbursing and covering more area. This has been demostrable from over the last 5,000 years of military history. Initially warfare took place over a few acres. As weapons continued to get better they would expand to cover maybe several thousand yards by about 1400 ce. By 1800 you have combatants over several miles with support systems. Come to the current state of warfare in 2012 a "division" of 5k - 8k may have to cover up to 50 miles of linear territory.

Weirdly, as the size of military units become more efficient and cover more area the number of combatants continues to drop while the casualties also drop. Throw in modern medicine and the casualties percentage of deaths continues to plummet in modern battle formations.

Urban fighting and "terrorist" attacks negate the advantages of modern army. Modern snipers fit into the old school mode. They have updated the lone man in a tower or tree into an insane unit of 2 - 8 people with equipment to support the sniper completly that can hit a target out to almost 2,500 yards. That is about a mile and a half. Snipers are one pointy part of the spear.

Only simpletons offer hero status right away without thinking about the greater parts of how it all fits together. People want to lionize and affix hero status to vets. That is one way of affixing platitudes to a group of people as a whole. Oh our vets are "heros", oh our vets should be treated well, oh we support our vets! Makes me want to puke. Not many people want to actually spend any money on vets. They want to stand on bridges, wave flags, be awed by F-16 flyovers. Its a lot of whoey jingoistic crap.

When you come home fucked up after being blown up or covered in toxic goo or hearing destroyed and the list is endless... Vets then have to fight like hell to get help and get compensation for the shit that fucked them up. Show us how you care, vote for people who will actually cover the costs of our wars then come back and wave some flags.
Click to expand...


The paradox part comes in terms the concept that some people call snipers cowards because they hide when they shoot. Much of modern warfare falls under that definition.

Beyond that, I agree.
 
Back
Top