---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations
Abramoff Issue's Fallout May Extend Beyond the GOP

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Derek Willis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 3, 2005; Page A01

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate famously collected $82 million in lobbying and public relations fees from six Indian tribes and devoted a lot of their time to trying to persuade Republican lawmakers to act on their clients' behalf.

But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.

Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November.

Democrats are hoping to gain political advantage from federal and Senate investigations of Abramoff's activities and from the embattled lobbyist's former ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). Yet, many Democratic lawmakers also benefited from Abramoff's political operation, a fact that could hinder the Democrats' efforts to turn the lobbyist's troubles into a winning partisan issue.

"It wouldn't surprise me to see the Abramoff controversy impact both parties," said Tony Raymond, co-founder of PoliticalMoneyLine.com, which gathers lobbying and campaign finance information.

Democratic lawmakers who responded to inquiries for this article said that any money they received from the tribes had nothing to do with Abramoff. They were quick to say they did not know the man.

Federal investigators are examining the millions of dollars in lobbying and public relations fees that Abramoff received from the tribes. They are also looking into his dealings with members of Congress and their staffs, lawyers involved in the inquiry said.

Most lobbying firms here are bipartisan, to give their clients access to key lawmakers of both major parties. Abramoff's group was no exception. Although he was recognized as a Republican lobbyist who was close to DeLay and other party leaders, Abramoff was careful to add at least two Democratic lobbyists to his group during his five years at Greenberg Traurig. By the end, seven of his lobbyists were Democrats.

"Lobbying shops typically direct contributions to both parties because they want contacts on both sides of the aisle," said David M. Hart, a professor of public policy at George Mason University. "Lawmakers in the minority can also have a lot of clout."

According to documents and tribal officials familiar with the Abramoff team's methods, the lobbyists devised lengthy lists of lawmakers to whom the tribes should donate and then delivered the lists to the tribes. The tribes, in turn, wrote checks to the recommended campaign committees and in the amounts the lobbyists prescribed. The money went to incumbents or selected candidates in open seats.

Because of the makeup of his team and the composition of Congress, the Abramoff lobbyists channeled most of their clients' giving to GOP legislators, according to a review of public records. Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), chairman of an Appropriations subcommittee that frequently deals with Indian matters, received the largest amount from the tribes as well as from the Greenberg Traurig lobbyists who helped direct those donations: $141,590 from 1999 to 2004, the study showed.

But Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) ran second, with $128,000 in the same period. From 1999 to 2001, Kennedy chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which solicited campaign donations for House candidates.

The Indians' largess flowed to higher-ranking Democrats as well. Senate Democratic leaders Reid and Daschle each received more than $40,000 from the tribes and from lobbyists on Abramoff's team during the period. Gephardt got $32,500.

Of the 18 largest recipients of tribe contributions directed by Abramoff's group, six, or one-third, were Democrats. These included Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), who chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 2001 to 2002, and Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), a leader in Indian affairs legislation.

Over that period, while Abramoff and his lobbyists directed nearly $4 million in funds from the tribes to lawmakers, they also gave from their own pockets. Two-thirds of the total went to Republicans and one-third was handed out to Democrats, according to The Post's calculations.

The six wealthiest tribes that had hired Abramoff's group were the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana and the Tigua Indian Reservation.

Greenberg Traurig declined to comment. An Abramoff spokesman said: "Each tribe has its own protocol for approving political contributions made by the tribe. Mr. Abramoff and his team provided recommendations on where a tribe should spend its political dollars, but ultimately the tribal council made the final decision on what political contributions to make."

Democratic lawmakers sought to distance themselves from Abramoff.

A spokesman for Kennedy said the congressman's donations from the tribes "have nothing to do with Abramoff." Kennedy traces the money's genesis to his family's long-standing commitment to Indian causes, to the fact that he co-founded the Congressional Native American Caucus in 1997, and to his personal relationship with Mississippi Choctaw Chief Philip Martin, whom Kennedy met in 1999 on a fundraising trip for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "They just became close friends," said Kennedy spokesman Sean Richardson.

James Patrick Manley, Reid's spokesman, also asserted that Reid's connection to tribes was remote from Abramoff. He said that Reid does not know Abramoff. But Abramoff did hire as one of his lobbyists Edward P. Ayoob, a veteran Reid legislative aide. Manley acknowledged that Ayoob helped raise campaign money for his former boss. Lawyers close to the Abramoff operation said that Ayoob held a fundraising reception for Reid at Greenberg Traurig's offices here.

"There's nothing sinister here," Manley said. Reid is a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee with strong relations with Indian tribes, he explained.

Daschle was familiar with another of Abramoff's Democratic lobbyists, Michael Smith. According to Steve Hildebrand, who was Daschle's campaign manager last year, Smith "helped with a lot of Democratic campaigns." In addition, Daschle was a favorite of Indian tribes and received donations from 64, including five Abramoff clients. "We took about $150,000 in this last election cycle from Indian tribes around the country," Hildebrand said. "Tom is viewed as a champion of Indian issues. We have nine tribes in South Dakota, and they worked hard for him."

Murray also was said to have never laid eyes on Abramoff. "Our office has not had any contact with Jack Abramoff," said the senator's spokeswoman, Alex Glass. "She's been active in Indian health care and in supporting their sovereign governments; that is why they decided to contribute to her. They see her as an advocate."

During the time Murray chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Abramoff's major tribes were significant contributors. Election reports show that the grand total from the tribes to that committee in 2001-2002 reached $175,500.

In March 2001, Dorgan held a fundraising event during a hockey game in a skybox leased by an Abramoff company at MCI Center. But the senator said he believed that the box was controlled by Greenberg Traurig. The event was organized by Smith, the Democratic fundraiser, he added.

"I was unaware that Abramoff was involved," Dorgan said.

-------------

In other words, this guy is typical of lobbying operations at the federal level. There is a "culture of corruption" in Washington, DC, but it has nothing to do with the Republican Party per se. It is derived from a system where two parties dominate and bribery... I mean lobbyist fundraising... is legal.

I think that Abramoff should go to jail, but that there are a large number of lobbyists in Washington who should be joining him.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Some of you people are so full of themselves.

I mean, I read the thread and could almost puke.

Pictures, arguments, freedom, "we are the best", "god bless america", and so forth.

"Le nombril du monde"... should resume this thread pretty much.

Talk about freedom, people living in areas that look like even worse than third world countries, desolate towns and villages, abandon blocks, zones that looks like war zones.

This "self-pep-talk", trying to reassure yourselves that you are -always- doing what's right as if you do no wrong, ever.

Send troops to fight, don't let anyone dare not agree, don't let anyone dare say its wrong for whatever reason if only loving your son or (in rarer cases) your daughter. No, because they are fighting for the ol' mighty freedom. The word of the century... freedom.

It use to be we would shed blood for faith, mostly Christians and Muslims fighting to take over the world, good old conversion, nothing all of us being exactly the same since there's no place in this world for a multitude of gods.

There's the talk about the dreaded Mexicans, them' invader your borders, evil they are, evil! And yet, what the economy of the southern states relies on? Cheap labor, yeah, there's that word again.. "cheap". Fight them, keep them out, but not too many out, makes sense, makes nice profit. If that doesn't work, might as well built some nice companies there, convince them there's no benefit in crossing that border, pay them cheap of course, nothing compared to what a worker doing the -exact- same thing across the border is paid for.

Of course, when you are standing in the wrong side of the road, when all the lights are aimed at your direction, you must have a way to defend your action. Build a wall, it's nice, it's logical of course... "Defend our borders, I say!". But, down the logical and emotional gutter, walls are still walls, keep people in, keep people out.

Now why so many people want to go across that border? Wouldn't be because the standards of living is so high because the Statians (as I prefer to call americans since I'm living in North America which means I am an american) profited from centuries of living off the world, feeding off the world. Boosted their economy with slavery, that helped a lot (oh... did I say cheap labor again? Dreaded word!). When it became a wee bit too difficult to live with that gross human indecency, for slavery remains slavery, people actually chaining other people... yeah, wouldn't that be nice if we could erase bad history? When it became intolerable for some to live with others doing that (not that they believed that blacks (or niggers or negros) we equal in any way, shape or form to whites), slaving other humans, you had a little war, kill some, not that many of course, small cause, freedom? No way... freedom?

Yes, Statians against Statians, free the slave but keep them out still, for after all, they do remain black, color doesn't change, flags do, but not color.

Until the late 60's, still having to ride in the back of the bus, most people would have preferred behind the bus actually. Couldn't even drink at the same fountain, those filthy blacks! Imagine if we were to share microbes with them... shudder?

Came a phrase at one time, early in the 20th century "Le nègre blanc d'Amérique", white slavery. People from Quebec going to the Northern states, trying to find jobs. Now of course, the threat wasn't quite the same, white man, white man, doesn't too problematic. Yet, slowly but surely, one by one they were driven out, threats, they were. They came with their religion, damn they! They spooked french, my god! They were underpaid... well, that's ok, we'll sweep that off and under the rug. Conditions of living, nothing that bad compared to the desolation, the hatred, the violence, the utter violence against blacks, but still conditions far from those of their neighbors.

Fighting for freedom, killing people is quite fun. Makes you proud, makes you ride on a wave, testosterone. Ahhh yes, Kurds being massacred, doesn't speak about the countless bodies killed by Statians soldiers around the world. No way, how many.. mmm.. 3 millions dead or wounded in Vietnam (i know, I won't venture too far with that one). How many raped? How villages burns? Looted? How many tortured to death?

But that's long ago, this doesn't happen anymore, Statians have grown up since then, matured. Statians don't torture people anymore, they don't rape people anymore, they don't make people piled up on-top of one and other totally naked with dogs biting at them (shouldn't go to far with that -one- single bad example... no). These are exceptions, Statians fight the evil of terrorism, around the world. Brutally attacked and destroy Iraq, where they were no terrorist groups before, open the border up for so many they can't be counted (never can actually be counted... those terrorist census are somewhat rare).

Oh...but I hear Osama... the bad dude. He's enraged, he does like Statians (wonder why?). Rage is nice, makes you blind, makes you do anything, murder being one of them. You kill mine, I kill yours. You have a few bombs, a few guns, I got atomics, you'll see!

Fight... fight for Iraq's freedom? Yes... freedom? Concept is somewhat difficult to grasp, even if Statians believe that they have actually pretty much define the word by now. Don't like those religious fanatics in Afghanistan, lets free the country, lets help the poor fighting, killing, it's fun!

Doesn't speak a word for "Let people decide their right and their wrong". Let us decide for them.

The real strategy behind Iraq, a good one, some oil but not only oil, gotta position yourself, extend your power, makes it easier to strike all over the world. This same world which is slowly living by the rule of Statians which, themselves (not all but many) live by religious fanatic rules themselves. Christians are terrible monsters too, probably worse than Muslims for they did rule this world with an iron fist for too long. But again, it's all about conversion, whether religion, whether economy, whether social. Easier when the guy living next door believe and live the same way you do.

Ok, that doesn't work, it's easier to make belief he lives the same way you do but you do prefer that he doesn't earn as much as you or the entire system will fall apart.

Iraq is on fire. Cities devastated, people hungry, people without electricity, water, education. The entire country is a chaos zone. The iron fist monster that lived before the Statians came, well, he would murder (had quite some expertise at it too), but somehow, his country was doing well, people eating, drinking, educated (yes, real education). But he's a monster, he's evil, he's a monster. He says that Statians are bad (he's probably right!), he says they'll take over the world (damn it I think he's right again!), he says that Kurds are less than human beings (wait, didn't Statians say the same thing about the bl... oops... won't say the dreaded word!). So might as well kill Kurds since no one wants them. Iran doesn't want them and kills, its fine by Statians, Turkey doesn't want them and kills them, its fine by Statians.

Over time, every one people has to choose. Do fight or do we let ourselves, our culture slowly die? Kurds are courageous, not more, not less than any other people. Some decided to fight, some decided to live under other people's rule. But when you come as an invader, when you tell people they should do this or that, you pretty much tell them you are the beholder of sacred truth. Tell Afghans they have to get rid of Taliban because they are bad. But they do nothing, strangely enough? Why do people like pain so much? Let people decide their wrongs for themselves or they never will grow. Now, Afghans have become puppets, Statians puppets.

They are discovering this other word which is so often thrown around by Statians "democracy". Evil word again for Statians know not the meaning of the word, no one actually really knows the meaning of that word. If you consider that there will always be opposition, take us, here in Quebec, 49.2% voted to separate, 50.8% voted to stay, 50% of the population must live and abide by the other half's rule? Is this actual democracy or polite dictatorship?

Evade a country, wipe why you believe to be wrong, put a new system in place and hope to g... err hope that the people will accept this new way of life. So they can spend a lot, so they can rape the earth around them a lot, so they can profit a lot, so they can lose their own culture a lot.

Of course Taliban's are thugs, brutal beings. But then again, aren't Christians thugs too? How many cultures around the world Christians have annihilated? Wipe all previous belief, place a new one in, make everyone good little christians. Don't me wrong, I like using Christians as an example, but all religions are the same, they collide, they built real walls which separates humans from other humans. The real evil is god, these gods, these walls, these beliefs. You're god is wrong, mine is right. You're going to hell, I'm going to heaven, what's heaven's address anyway?

I know, this is a utter mix bag of opinions, makes little head or tail. But this being a political thread, I thought it fun and nice to slap... many times as I could... Statians.

Makes me feel strong... makes me feel I got the power. For I am right, I am supreme and beholder of mighty truth. You don't agree with me, I'll invade you!

Power... the more you have... the more you want.

One day... power slaps you back... it bites back... no one person should hold power, all power as it is a monster which corrupts you.

Bless Statians! Lets not bless the world! Bless Statians because they are good people which don't dump their garbage, which don't pollute the entire world, which don't rape the entire world.

Think about it, Statians live because their profit from other. Imagine if 1.2 billion people suddenly lived like Statians? How long before the poles would melt? Would that be so wrong? I mean, if Statians have the right to destroy the world, why others wouldn't have that right too?

I want 1 SUV per every Chinese citizen!

Had to get this off my chest :)

Oh... a footnote. Some words used in this giant intellectual vomit can be quite offensive. But they are not used in that context although easily can be taken out of context. These words were used and so I have to also use them.

And, in all honesty, I could not have writen this if I would have been a Statian myself. I'm your worse nightmare... I'm french speaking! Not French... but still... that's close enough!

---

Some of you people are so full of themselves.

I mean, I read the thread and could almost puke.

Pictures, arguments, freedom, "we are the best", "god bless america", and so forth.

"Le nombril du monde"... should resume this thread pretty much.

Oh, where to begin?

The concept of a discussion thread is that not everyone will agree on everything, but that's okay. The title of the thread should have been some clue as well.

This is not the Had Ten Fingers At Birth And Still Have All Ten thread, which would be pretty boring.

Talk about freedom, people living in areas that look like even worse than third world countries, desolate towns and villages, abandon blocks, zones that looks like war zones.

This "self-pep-talk", trying to reassure yourselves that you are -always- doing what's right as if you do no wrong, ever.

There are myriad theories on how groups of humans can live best. These fall into two very broad categories: free enterprise and collectivism. In theory they are co-equal since a well-planned collectivist economy could distribute resources for the good of all while a free enterprise society would benefit from the ingenuity of all of its members. The collectivist model seeks to bring everyone to a more-or-less equal level of success, while the free enterprise model seeks to let everyone achieve his or her best with uneven results.

In practice these two models do not work equally well. Every collectivist attempt of any significant scope anywhere in the world at any time with any people has led to poverty, suffering, oppression and death. The system depends on entrapping the best performers so that they can make up for the worst performers. Since the best performers are generally the ones with the ambition to leave, the state is forced to prevent anyone from leaving... always resorting to force. The free enterprise system has not worked universally, but it is the only one of the two that has ever worked. At worst, a free enterprise system produces a leader who destroys all threats to his or her power, creating a dictatorship (you underlings can be capitalists and compete against each other so long as none of you threaten me). Successful free enterprise systems have had collectivist elements (social welfare programs) of modest scope, but the yield curve for increased effort is always positive so long as one's activities are predominantly legal.

No one has come up with the perfect system, but some are definitely better than others.

Send troops to fight, don't let anyone dare not agree, don't let anyone dare say its wrong for whatever reason if only loving your son or (in rarer cases) your daughter. No, because they are fighting for the ol' mighty freedom. The word of the century... freedom.

No one in US politics is taken seriously if he or she can't deal with debate. The presence of debate is not the issue in the US. There are, however, reasons why the anti-war movement has been broadly painted as unpatriotic. This is unfair since the attributes of a vocal minority are smearing the image of a much larger group of people who simply disagree with a policy.

The political debate in Washington DC has devolved into those who are doing something about threats to the country, and those who oppose every single attempt at action because they are afraid of who will get the "credit." To ensure that no credit goes to those in power, every single result is spun to sound like a dismal failure.

Anyone who said in late 2001 that there would not be another terrorist strike on US soil for four years would have been branded a lunatic.

Anyone who said in 2002 that war between the US and North Korea could be averted without caving in to North Korean demands would have been investigated as a North Korean spy.

Anyone who said in 2003 that the US would sustain fewer than 3000 war dead in the first month of fighting in Iraq would have been tested for drug use.

Anyone who said in 2004 that Iraqi elections would take place without signficant violence would have been asked what planet he was from.

However, all of these did come to pass. And the anti-war crowd has dutifully framed each of these successes as dismal failures. Objective observers of the debate have concluded that nothing will please the vocal part of the anti-war movement, and it is therefore generally dismissed.

They are not dismissed because they disagree, they are dismissed because they have no positive ideas of their own... all they do is disagree. When things they insisted on previously are proposed by the administration, the anti-war fringe opposes them or says that they are unimportant. To see examples of this, look up news archives on the run-up to each Iraqi election and compare the same people's statements after the elections.

It use to be we would shed blood for faith, mostly Christians and Muslims fighting to take over the world, good old conversion, nothing all of us being exactly the same since there's no place in this world for a multitude of gods.

The US has enshrined religious pluralism in its Constitution, which is a lot more than most other nations.

There's the talk about the dreaded Mexicans, them' invader your borders, evil they are, evil! And yet, what the economy of the southern states relies on? Cheap labor, yeah, there's that word again.. "cheap". Fight them, keep them out, but not too many out, makes sense, makes nice profit. If that doesn't work, might as well built some nice companies there, convince them there's no benefit in crossing that border, pay them cheap of course, nothing compared to what a worker doing the -exact- same thing across the border is paid for.

Illegal immigration and border control are not quite the same issue. Controlling the border is a specific national defense goal which would have the side-effect of stemming the flow of illegal immigrants.

In my personal opinion, businesses in the southern US that depend on illegal immigrant labor deserve to go bankrupt, along with the local governments that turn a blind eye to the problem.

Of course, when you are standing in the wrong side of the road, when all the lights are aimed at your direction, you must have a way to defend your action. Build a wall, it's nice, it's logical of course... "Defend our borders, I say!". But, down the logical and emotional gutter, walls are still walls, keep people in, keep people out.

The only reason that there is no wall is because the US thought that controlling the easy smuggling routes would deter illegal border crossings. Instead, people have shifted tactics to crossing the "natural wall" of inhospitable terrain in the southwestern deserts. Thus, a more formidable barrier is needed.

Now why so many people want to go across that border? Wouldn't be because the standards of living is so high because the Statians (as I prefer to call americans since I'm living in North America which means I am an american) profited from centuries of living off the world, feeding off the world.

People want to cross that border because the ecomony in Mexico is a hellhole. Even the Central Americans who transit Mexico keep on moving because Mexico's economy is in a pathetic state. Mexico's president goes on and on about how big a benefit immigrants can be. If they are such a benefit, why doesn't Mexico find a way to hold on to the immigrants from its sothern neighbors?

Boosted their economy with slavery, that helped a lot (oh... did I say cheap labor again? Dreaded word!). When it became a wee bit too difficult to live with that gross human indecency, for slavery remains slavery, people actually chaining other people... yeah, wouldn't that be nice if we could erase bad history? When it became intolerable for some to live with others doing that (not that they believed that blacks (or niggers or negros) we equal in any way, shape or form to whites), slaving other humans, you had a little war, kill some, not that many of course, small cause, freedom? No way... freedom?

Western Civilization (generally Europe and the Americas) is the only civilization in the history of the planet to cease using slaves by an internal decision. In non-Western cases, the end of slavery resulted either from a slave rebellion or some external influence (such as a pre-condition of entering the World Trade Organization). Granted, the internal decisions to end slavery in the West were not unanimous. Blood was shed over it (not whether to have slavery or not, but over whether the federal government could impose its decision on the individual states).

Yes, Statians against Statians, free the slave but keep them out still, for after all, they do remain black, color doesn't change, flags do, but not color.

Until the late 60's, still having to ride in the back of the bus, most people would have preferred behind the bus actually. Couldn't even drink at the same fountain, those filthy blacks! Imagine if we were to share microbes with them... shudder?

Race relations in the US are far from perfect. They're just better than in most other places in the world.

Slavery was nothing new when it was instituted by Europeans in North America and neither was racism... but North America was the first systemmatic combination of the two. It's still being unravelled today, but the cause is not being helped by race-bating activists who claim that every black American who fails to reach his/her wildest dreams was held down by racism. Some people just aren't successful. Live with it and target the real racism that still exists.

Came a phrase at one time, early in the 20th century "Le nègre blanc d'Amérique", white slavery. People from Quebec going to the Northern states, trying to find jobs. Now of course, the threat wasn't quite the same, white man, white man, doesn't too problematic. Yet, slowly but surely, one by one they were driven out, threats, they were. They came with their religion, damn they! They spooked french, my god! They were underpaid... well, that's ok, we'll sweep that off and under the rug. Conditions of living, nothing that bad compared to the desolation, the hatred, the violence, the utter violence against blacks, but still conditions far from those of their neighbors.

You have a very narrow view of history. In the US South before the Civil War, a lot of swampland had to be drained before plantations could operate on the land. Clearing a swamp in pre-industrial times was dangerous.

Slave-owning plantationers would not use their slaves to clear swamps because the slaves were valuable assets. Most swamps were cleared by Irish immigrants. A dead slave cost the owner the price of that slave while a deal Irishman simply stopped collecting wages. Although having slavery in the mix at all is abhorrent, the issues are not as black-and-white (no pun intended) as you seem to think.

Fighting for freedom, killing people is quite fun. Makes you proud, makes you ride on a wave, testosterone. Ahhh yes, Kurds being massacred, doesn't speak about the countless bodies killed by Statians soldiers around the world. No way, how many.. mmm.. 3 millions dead or wounded in Vietnam (i know, I won't venture too far with that one). How many raped? How villages burns? Looted? How many tortured to death?

This is straight from John Kerry's congressional testimony. Not only did he never produce any proof, he painted himself into a corner: by admitting that he took part in the atrocities, he is either guilty of war crimes or perjury.

War crimes don't have a Statute of Limitations.

But that's long ago, this doesn't happen anymore, Statians have grown up since then, matured. Statians don't torture people anymore, they don't rape people anymore, they don't make people piled up on-top of one and other totally naked with dogs biting at them (shouldn't go to far with that -one- single bad example... no). These are exceptions, Statians fight the evil of terrorism, around the world. Brutally attacked and destroy Iraq, where they were no terrorist groups before, open the border up for so many they can't be counted (never can actually be counted... those terrorist census are somewhat rare).

I've posted Iraq's links to terrorism several times before. Iraq was not linked to the 9/11 attacks, but many apear to have difficulty separating the two concepts.

It is actually to the US's long-term advantage that all of the jihadists are sucked into Iraq so that they can be killed. There is a lesson in this for the Iraqi insurgents as well... in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces, things are relatively peaceful. In 4 provinces, people get caught in the crossfire between jihadists, Baathists, and Iraqi/coalition forces. The Baathists and jihadists can only maintain their insurgency if they have support from the local populace. Many in those 4 restive provinces have started turning in the Baathists and jihadists to the authorities, meaning that a phychological corner may have been turned.

Oh...but I hear Osama... the bad dude. He's enraged, he does like Statians (wonder why?). Rage is nice, makes you blind, makes you do anything, murder being one of them. You kill mine, I kill yours. You have a few bombs, a few guns, I got atomics, you'll see!

Al Qaeda's plan was to provoke the US into an intrusive invasion of the Muslim world that al Qaeda could then use to fuel the overthrow of at least one moderate (US-collaborating) Islamic government. So far, two nations have fallen, neither by al Qaeda's choice. The US is proving itself to have the staying power to make changes in its own national interest, even when the going gets tough. Nations in the area are moving closer to the US's view of al Qaeda, not al Qaeda's view of the US.

Oops.

Fight... fight for Iraq's freedom? Yes... freedom? Concept is somewhat difficult to grasp, even if Statians believe that they have actually pretty much define the word by now. Don't like those religious fanatics in Afghanistan, lets free the country, lets help the poor fighting, killing, it's fun!

Doesn't speak a word for "Let people decide their right and their wrong". Let us decide for them.

The Taliban government was legally recognized by three other nations on Earth. The rest of the world saw the Taliban as an illegal regime opporessing the people who happened to live there.

It's unfortunate that the Afghan's had to wait until their quest for freedom (recall the rebel Northern Alliance?) coincided with the national interests of a superpower.

The real strategy behind Iraq, a good one, some oil but not only oil, gotta position yourself, extend your power, makes it easier to strike all over the world.

We actually agree on this. The US is no different than any other nation: it seeks the capability to manipulate events around the world to better serve its own interests. The US simply has more capability to do this overtly. Most other nations settle for sending in spies.

This same world which is slowly living by the rule of Statians which, themselves (not all but many) live by religious fanatic rules themselves. Christians are terrible monsters too, probably worse than Muslims for they did rule this world with an iron fist for too long. But again, it's all about conversion, whether religion, whether economy, whether social. Easier when the guy living next door believe and live the same way you do.

My initial reaction on 9/11 was that whoever did this has unintentionally ushered in an age of US hegemony over the world.

Ok, that doesn't work, it's easier to make belief he lives the same way you do but you do prefer that he doesn't earn as much as you or the entire system will fall apart.

You have this backwards. Individuals aspiring to make more than their neighbors is not the same things as wishing bad fortune on their neighbors. If my income goes up 30% while my neighbor's goes up 10%, we are both better off, but I've done a better job of realizing "success" however one defines it.

Iraq is on fire. Cities devastated, people hungry, people without electricity, water, education. The entire country is a chaos zone.

No it's not. Read past the headlines at some point. The problems are largely contained in 4 of Iraq's 18 provinces, with occasional excursions to other areas.

The iron fist monster that lived before the Statians came, well, he would murder (had quite some expertise at it too), but somehow, his country was doing well, people eating, drinking, educated (yes, real education).

Saddam was basically secular, so women were better off in Iraq than other Islamic nations, if one is comparing men and women in a given nation. It doesn't excuse his other behavior. This is like saying that Hitler made the trains run on time, so he couldn't have been all bad.

But he's a monster, he's evil, he's a monster. He says that Statians are bad (he's probably right!), he says they'll take over the world (damn it I think he's right again!), he says that Kurds are less than human beings (wait, didn't Statians say the same thing about the bl... oops... won't say the dreaded word!). So might as well kill Kurds since no one wants them. Iran doesn't want them and kills, its fine by Statians, Turkey doesn't want them and kills them, its fine by Statians.

Race relations are poor in most of the world. The problems in Israeli-occupied territories are a direct result of Arab intolerance toward Palestinians. Palestinians who fled Israel were gathered in refugee camps... some families are in their third generation in those camps and still denied citizenship. Since Palestinians saw no place else to go, they fough the Israelis. Had the surrounding nations took in Palestinian immigrants with even half the opportunity that the US extends to its illegal immigrants, decades of violence would have been avoided.

Over time, every one people has to choose. Do fight or do we let ourselves, our culture slowly die? Kurds are courageous, not more, not less than any other people. Some decided to fight, some decided to live under other people's rule. But when you come as an invader, when you tell people they should do this or that, you pretty much tell them you are the beholder of sacred truth. Tell Afghans they have to get rid of Taliban because they are bad. But they do nothing, strangely enough? Why do people like pain so much? Let people decide their wrongs for themselves or they never will grow. Now, Afghans have become puppets, Statians puppets.[q/uote]
The people living under the Taliban were incapable of thowing off their oppressors, but it wasn't from lack of trying. Same with the Kurds and the Shiites.
[quote]They are discovering this other word which is so often thrown around by Statians "democracy". Evil word again for Statians know not the meaning of the word, no one actually really knows the meaning of that word. If you consider that there will always be opposition, take us, here in Quebec, 49.2% voted to separate, 50.8% voted to stay, 50% of the population must live and abide by the other half's rule? Is this actual democracy or polite dictatorship?

Democracy meams rule by the majority. If a town with 103 men and 90 women decide that women will have no property rights and it passes, well that is democracy. When most people mean when they say democracy is representative republic. A republic operates under laws, not the whims of those in charge. A representative government is accountable to the people (at least in theory).

Evade a country, wipe why you believe to be wrong, put a new system in place and hope to g... err hope that the people will accept this new way of life. So they can spend a lot, so they can rape the earth around them a lot, so they can profit a lot, so they can lose their own culture a lot.

Of course Taliban's are thugs, brutal beings. But then again, aren't Christians thugs too? How many cultures around the world Christians have annihilated? Wipe all previous belief, place a new one in, make everyone good little christians. Don't me wrong, I like using Christians as an example, but all religions are the same, they collide, they built real walls which separates humans from other humans. The real evil is god, these gods, these walls, these beliefs. You're god is wrong, mine is right. You're going to hell, I'm going to heaven, what's heaven's address anyway?

This is precisely why the US has forbidden the federal government from establishing a national religion. I am much more comfortable being a non-Christian in the US than I would be a non-Muslim in Iran.

I know, this is a utter mix bag of opinions, makes little head or tail. But this being a political thread, I thought it fun and nice to slap... many times as I could... Statians.

Makes me feel strong... makes me feel I got the power. For I am right, I am supreme and beholder of mighty truth. You don't agree with me, I'll invade you!

You've managed to make an entry in a database. Not much of an accomplishment.

If the ideas you communicate actually convince someone to take your side, that would be an accomplishment. But simply ranting doesn't confer power.

Power... the more you have... the more you want.

One day... power slaps you back... it bites back... no one person should hold power, all power as it is a monster which corrupts you.

All beings, from viruses to presidents, work to acquire the power to remake the world to ensure their survival. Social creatures like humans have systems where even those will less-than-megalomania can lead successful lives.

If you have no power, you are morally no more important than table salt.

Bless Statians! Lets not bless the world! Bless Statians because they are good people which don't dump their garbage, which don't pollute the entire world, which don't rape the entire world.

Think about it, Statians live because their profit from other. Imagine if 1.2 billion people suddenly lived like Statians? How long before the poles would melt? Would that be so wrong? I mean, if Statians have the right to destroy the world, why others wouldn't have that right too?

I want 1 SUV per every Chinese citizen!

Had to get this off my chest :)

The prosperity enjoyed by the Western economies is what throws off enough "spare time" to research cleaner ways of doing things. The alternatives are to live in caves or to engage in economies robust enough to figure out how to clean up their own messes.

Oh... a footnote. Some words used in this giant intellectual vomit can be quite offensive. But they are not used in that context although easily can be taken out of context. These words were used and so I have to also use them.

And, in all honesty, I could not have writen this if I would have been a Statian myself. I'm your worse nightmare... I'm french speaking! Not French... but still... that's close enough!

If individual words become forbidden in discourse, regardless of context, it is the begining of the Orwell's "Thought Police."

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

If individual words become forbidden in discourse, regardless of context, it is the begining of the Orwell's "Thought Police."

I'm impressed you took a shot, Octagon. I just couldn't see wading into that screed. 8^]

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Score:

Octagon = 1 Even Barbacue = 0

I would have awarded Octagon more points, except it wasn't a fair contest. Perhaps if this guy hadn't been so chemically impaired (what do they drink on Pitstain Island?) he might have presented a rational argument.

Score:

Octagon = 1 Even Barbacue = 0

I would have awarded Octagon more points, except it wasn't a fair contest. Perhaps if this guy hadn't been so chemically impaired (what do they drink on Pitstain Island?) he might have presented a rational argument.

Actually... dude, he made the effort, he made -an- effort to reply. You, on the other hand, all you have is a pity personal attack. So, as far as being a winning or losing, I think I'd score you in the second option.

:]

---

I'm impressed you took a shot, Octagon. I just couldn't see wading into that screed. 8^]

Typical answer coming from someone who isn't able to use his brain :)

---

Score:

Octagon = 1 Even Barbacue = 0

I would have awarded Octagon more points, except it wasn't a fair contest. Perhaps if this guy hadn't been so chemically impaired (what do they drink on Pitstain Island?) he might have presented a rational argument.

Actually... dude, he made the effort, he made -an- effort to reply. You, on the other hand, all you have is a pity personal attack. So, as far as being a winning or losing, I think I'd score you in the second option.
:]

Take a look at my posts in this thread and others: I have often responded to such arguments. In this case, there seemed to be no need for me to repeat the logical, straightforward points made by Octagon, especially when your post showed so little evidence of intelligence. Rush was right, your rambling post was nothing more than a screed . . . "dude".

Oh, and as for personal attacks, that was, after all, the whole point of your post, wasn't it? Let me quote your first line, "Some of you people are so full of themselves. [sic]"

The concept of a discussion thread is that not everyone will agree on everything, but that's okay. The title of the thread should have been some clue as well.

The concept of political debate is just that, nothing else.

In theory they are co-equal since a well-planned collectivist economy could distribute resources ...

Humaing beings don't live on theories, they don't eat on theories. They live with food and money to buy the first.

How ever you explain the rules, how ever you explain the system. These living conditions remains unacceptable.

No one has come up with the perfect system, but some are definitely better than others.

I'll agree, not one system created by mankind is perfect or anywhere near that.

No one in US politics is taken seriously if he or she can't deal with debate.

I'm sorry but I totally disagree with you there. There is no such a thing as a debate in the US right now as far as the politcal branch is concerned. This is a mild debate going on, but nothing, no one dares going to the microphone and say that troops shouldn't be in Iraq, troops should have never been in Iraq to start with.

No one is also saying that Bush lied, which he did and even (finally) admited it. Not that I needed to know he lied as we all knew he lied (most of the civilize world at least). You even had a French ambassador with enough balls to say it in the UN. Thank god there's nothing you can do against France or you would have invaded it a long time ago. There's just that tiny problem... the atomics... makes invasion somewhat complicated. But that is hard to take, someone standing up to you and telling the entire world that the war against Iraq is based on crap facts.

However, all of these did come to pass. And the anti-war crowd has dutifully framed each of these successes as dismal failures. Objective observers of the debate have concluded that nothing will please the vocal part of the anti-war movement, and it is therefore generally dismissed.

I'm not too sure I understand you there. Do you know what Anti-war means? It usually means... ANTI-WAR. Thus, prostestors against wars will never be satisfied until there is no such thing anymore. Why would an anti-war protestor have any other desires but that one alone? There's no debate there, if I tell you that I don't want troops oversea, I don't have to debate with you on that one, you'll tell me you want them and I'll tell you I don't. I will protest until the very last day, until there is not war anymore.

They are not dismissed because they disagree, they are dismissed because they have no positive ideas of their own...

No "they" are not dimissed. You are dismissing them, anyone *for* the war is dismissing them but no one against the war is dismissing them. I am not too sure why you take that illogical course there, maybe you think it could fly by me, is all I can guess.

To see examples of this, look up news archives on the run-up to each Iraqi election and compare the same people's statements after the elections.

Oh please! Lets not talk about an election there. You think the results are valid? There is a foreign invasion force which still occupies the country! You think for a SINGLE moment that the citizens there are voting out of freewill? Any recourse there which looks anywhere like democraty is a outright lie. There is no democraty at gun point. There is no democraty when there is a 60 ton tank right next to you.

The US has enshrined religious pluralism in its Constitution, which is a lot more than most other nations.

This as always been there problem. Between what is writen and between what is done. There is a huge bridge there to cross, one which hasn't even been built yet.

In my personal opinion, businesses in the southern US that depend on illegal immigrant labor deserve to go bankrupt, along with the local governments that turn a blind eye to the problem.

Your personal opinion doesn't change a thing. You won't change the fact that these States makes a pile of money out of these "illegals". They are proud of that fact, I would even venture as far as saying this is modern slavery. Albeit, changed, but man, many of those "illegals" which I actually call HUMAN BEINGS live in squallers, out of town, desolated conditions.

People want to cross that border because the ecomony in Mexico is a hellhole. Even the Central Americans who transit Mexico keep on moving because Mexico's economy is in a pathetic state. Mexico's president goes on and on about how big a benefit immigrants can be.

Again, when you rape the world, when you invade countries (how many countries did the US influence in Central America and South America? The word "influence" is mild compare to what I have in mind which murder, assassination, government overthrows, and so forth. Long live the CIA!

Western Civilization (generally Europe and the Americas) is the only civilization in the history of the planet to cease using slaves by an internal decision. [quote]

You make it sound like everything is nice and beautiful, lets not even talk about the KKK, lets not even talk about the hangings, the murders which took place long after the end of slavery but ended not racisms itself. The US is a specialist in double-talk.

[quote]Race relations in the US are far from perfect. They're just better than in most other places in the world.

What other nations? You think race relation in the US is somehow the center point on which we should guide the rest of the world with? If that was the case, I guess the world would have come to an end a long time ago!

You have a very narrow view of history. In the US South before the Civil War, a lot of swampland had to be drained before plantations could operate on the land. Clearing a swamp in pre-industrial times was dangerous.

Its kind of funny there. I see an undertone to your arguments. You don't awknowledge at all the plight of slaves, in fact, you turn it around and talk about the Irish, which surely had a bad time but nothing at all compared to human slaves. The Irish were whites, don't even try to make me believe their conditions were far worst than those of the black trade.

You talk about humans as if they were data. You don't even seem so much attach to your own history.

Human slave, some, fled to the North to escape slavery. They thought they would live as free people in the North. True and false, they couldn't be "legal" slave, but they still could be slave and they would still be segregated. My ancestors are racists, just probably as I am too as I don't believe I am not racist. I believe that there is still ground for me to work on there, for I do not understand why I do not feel comfortable around some black people. It is unexplained a feeling, but it does exist and I admit it exist.

In a way, I think every single human being on this planet is a racist. We kind of love it actually as it guide our hatred of one and other. We invente religion to seperate us, we invente color of skin to seperate us. We do everything we can to seperate us.

I let go of being dettached from what I write. I speak out of my own precepts on life, I don't refer to a book or some well worked theory. Because I talk about humans, I know us not to be logical beings.

This is straight from John Kerry's congressional testimony. Not only did he never produce any proof, he painted himself into a corner: by admitting that he took part in the atrocities, he is either guilty of war crimes or perjury

Again, you're doing the exact same thing. You took my words... carried them on to Kerry? Which I am not too sure I see the connection there. I talked about millions of people murdered or butchered or raped or wounded. I talk about women, children, elderlies, men, some armed, most unarmed.

65,000 dead. Well armed soldiers
3,000,000 citizens of a forein country murdered or wounded.

Now... doesn't that actually makes you think a bit about them?

Are they just numbers to you?

Is that too far ago? 30 years or so back?

Where I live, in 1970, they were soldiers out in the streets, I was so young but I can never forget their weapons, they arrested many of my follow citizen out of the simple desire to quail what was to them a "treath" but what was to all of them a lie. When you are at the other end, when you are at the receiving end of violence. Your view point changes, even if too your to understand why these men are carrying these weapons, why do they hate us so much.

But I wasn't burn alive or partially, my mother wasn't raped. Fathers would be beaten and tortured, but that would mostly end there. No villages burn, no chemical sprayed on our forests and cultures. Nothing to that nature.

War crimes don't have a Statute of Limitations.

True and false, the US will not abide by the international court. We all know why, it is because they love to torture human beings. Thus they cannot sign on. Many war crimes took place in Wolrd War II, some by US soldiers, many war crimes took place in the Vietnam war, some again by US solders. Few if not none we were ever tried.

I've posted Iraq's links to terrorism several times before. Iraq was not linked to the 9/11 attacks, but many apear to have difficulty separating the two concepts.

Iraq wasn't linked in any way, shape or form to any known terrorist attacks. Hussein never alloud these groups to come and settle in his country. But again, that was another lie which Bush used at his own discretion.

The Taliban government was legally recognized by three other nations on Earth. The rest of the world saw the Taliban as an illegal regime opporessing the people who happened to live there.

Should it matter how many people around the world doesn't like the Taliban? How many people around the world liked Pinochet? How many people around the world like the Khmer rouge? And that's just a few, those monster still carried on, nobody really cared about the Chilians nor the Cambodians, did they?

No. There is a difference between liking a regime and doing something about it. It is not your right to dictate another country how they should live by. If Afghans didn't want the Taliban, it was up to every single afghan to take on the Taliban and liberate their own country from this kind of dictatorship. You only learn what is good for you if you are subjected by this. It is not up to me to dictate terms to a foreign country, not am I hypocrite enough to say that the US actually went their to eleminate the Talibans, they used the Talibans as a shield, a political and popular shield while they could go after the training camps.

To debate, I don't have to attack you on a personal level (not that I am saying you did), I just have to do my best and convey my points to you. I can be open about your points or totally closed to them, that is my responsibility. But, by making this one single effort in writing this, consuming valuable time. It shows that, on a basic level, we care about freedom and speech.

I know how easy it is to carry on and just insult, it is the small man's way of doing thing. When he cannot actually take the time and write back his emotions or frustrations or simple questions. It is far more easier to just "plonk" a person than to actually respond to a person.

yvan

---

Oh, and as for personal attacks, that was, after all, the whole point of your post, wasn't it? Let me quote your first line, "Some of you people are so full of themselves. [sic]"

Don't bull me dude. All you did is attack, nothing else. You have the balls to talk about intelligence and act like a cromagnon! This wasn't AT all a personal attack and you know it damn well. You see a SINGLE name there? You see one person's quote there? So stop the bullshit and either talk or shut up if you can't say something intelligent.

Now, since you don't contribute to anything but crap, I'll filter you. That way, I won't have to be subjected to your lack of intellience ever again.

---

Your personal opinion doesn't change a thing. You won't change the fact that these States makes a pile of money out of these "illegals". They are proud of that fact, I would even venture as far as saying this is modern slavery. Albeit, changed, but man, many of those "illegals" which I actually call HUMAN BEINGS live in squallers, out of town, desolated conditions.

Yvan, this Barbra Streisand is why I didn't reply in detail. You are ideologically opposed to anything I might say, and you make vast generalizations that are far too large to have any real meaning.

Your use of the term "modern slavery" in addressing the situation above is an example of this. "Slavery" is control of a human being, initiated against their will, enforced by violence or coercion, for the purpose of taking their labor. It defines a type of relationship between humans--the use of force against one person by another. It does not apply to simple reality or the universe at large.

While there are poor humans, and some of those people choose to enter the United States illegally in an attempt to better their lives, they are not slaves, nor is this "modern slavery." The term simply doesn't apply. Yet you use the term anyway. This suggests to me that you aren't interested in discussing the problems rationally, it suggests you just want to rant about your perceptions of injustice.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Yvan, this Barbra Streisand is why I didn't reply in detail. You are ideologically opposed to anything I might say, and you make vast generalizations that are far too large to have any real meaning.

Ok, I'm not following you at all there with the "Barbara Streisand" remark. I know her to be an actress and singer but I fail to see what's the relation to what I said?

And what I wrote isn't a generalization, is what as come to be accepted as modern slavery. The term speaks for itself, I didn't say they were beaten to death, I didn't say they were whiped until unconcious.

I said it is what it is perceived as modern slavery. People living far below the standard of living of others. People living in intolerable conditions. People living with ridiculous wages. That is what I call "modern slavery". I'm not too sure what idealism as to do in this, but I would say that I do not agree with the fact that should be paid less than anyone else just because they are Mexican.

But, it is your opinion of how you see me, I cannot change this opinion of yours if this is what to believe is your reality, your own interpretation.

In fact, I'm not even sure why you say you can't respond to an argument because you see the author of being such way. When I read something, either very logical or flawed, I do not ask myself "Will this author actually accept my opposing him?". I write and hopefuly, we'll exchange and, afterward... AFTER we've exchanged, I will decide if the process was futile or not.

But... hey... if that's how you work. It's ok with me. As long as they are no insults, I can deal with the fact of how you perceive me. That's very good intelligence and I do command you for that.

yvan

---

As George Orwell predicted in his book Animal Farm...

'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others'

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Ok, I'm not following you at all there with the "Barbara Streisand" remark. I know her to be an actress and singer but I fail to see what's the relation to what I said?

BS. 8^]

And what I wrote isn't a generalization, is what as come to be accepted as modern slavery. The term speaks for itself, I didn't say they were beaten to death, I didn't say they were whiped until unconcious.

Accepted by you maybe. Either way, it's a sloppy term that doesn't really apply. I didn't say anything about being beaten or whipped.

I said it is what it is perceived as modern slavery. People living far below the standard of living of others. People living in intolerable conditions. People living with ridiculous wages. That is what I call "modern slavery". I'm not too sure what idealism as to do in this, but I would say that I do not agree with the fact that should be paid less than anyone else just because they are Mexican.

That's fine that you call it "modern slavery" but it's difficult to carry on a rational discussion when the terms are defined so loosely as to have nearly no meaning. People living in misery, in bad conditions, or with low standards of living are just poor, they aren't slaves unless other humans have enslaved them for their labor.

To address your specific point, they aren't paid less because they're Mexican, they're paid less because they are in the U.S. illegally. They are willing to accept lower wages in return for not being reported and then deported. The employers are willing to keep their mouths shut, because it keeps their labor costs down. They can leave at will. They can return to Mexico at will. They can refuse to work for what is offered.

But, it is your opinion of how you see me, I cannot change this opinion of yours if this is what to believe is your reality, your own interpretation.

I am only commenting on the terms you choose and the tone of your post.

In fact, I'm not even sure why you say you can't respond to an argument because you see the author of being such way. When I read something, either very logical or flawed, I do not ask myself "Will this author actually accept my opposing him?". I write and hopefuly, we'll exchange and, afterward... AFTER we've exchanged, I will decide if the process was futile or not.

Of course, but sometimes that is evident from the beginning.

But... hey... if that's how you work. It's ok with me. As long as they are no insults, I can deal with the fact of how you perceive me. That's very good intelligence and I do command you for that.

I have no interest in insulting you. I may disagree with your position, but I won't attack you or anyone else personally.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

As George Orwell predicted in his book Animal Farm... 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others'

That's hideously out of context.

Other than under the law, no one is ever equal in any way to anyone else.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

As George Orwell predicted in his book Animal Farm... 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others'

That's hideously out of context.

Other than under the law, no one is ever equal in any way to anyone else.

Tell that to OJ Simpson and a homeless person, I bet they have
completely different experiences with our so called justice system.
Money talks, justice walks.

---

Account frozen...

Tell that to OJ Simpson and a homeless person, I bet they have
completely different experiences with our so called justice system.
Money talks, justice walks.

Their legal rights are the same. That by no means suggests that they can both afford the finest legal defense on earth.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

And now... Another thought comes to mind...


newspeak:
n : deliberately ambiguous and contradictiory language use to mislead and manipulate the public


____________
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future...;)