Slashdot Mirror
Feedback: Politics and the Internet Dog
From: Zach
Date: Tuesday, September, 26 2:45 p.m.
"Jon,
"First of all, politics will never "end" as long as there are people with different opinions and agendas, and finite resources. Politics is simply the art of how we all live together in a civil (or uncivil) society. The Internet may affect how it is played out, but it won't change the fact that it happens...
"As for the much-ballyhoed "apathy" of the American public, in some ways it's a rational response. People "know" that we have the best government money can buy, and that our reality field is shaped by corporate media giving us corporate candidates...So politics is not dead. What is dying is widespread, popular participation in politics. What this should be seen as is is not the Triumph of the Internet, but as the disenfranchisement of the average person."
From: Mike
Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 3:50 P.M.
"You ask:" Can anybody cite a single interesting or important idea or argument that's emerged from the months of campaigning in the current U.S. presidential race?"
The answer: "Partial privatization of SS, even as feeble as the proposals from either major party candidate are, is both important considering what is at stake (the likely crash and burn of the SS system, or horrific payroll tax hikes) and interesting in that this has always been a taboo topic."
From RobertDate: Tuesday, September 27, 2000 2:51 PM
"Without meaning to give offense, I think you're far off the mark with your 'Last Days of Politics' essay...politics is not about parties, it's about power. If you have political power, you can have things your way; if you don't, you're stuck at the mercy of those who do. This is why politics is so appealing to so many people; on one level it's basic self-preservation, and an another level, it's a narcotic. "
From: tig
Date: September 26, 2000 4:02 PM
Jon,
I have an idea for a symbolic Presidential campaign. The "campaign" would take place entirely on an Internet Web site. There would be no public appearances by the candidate. This campaign should probably be called an anti-campaign because the point of the Web site would be to highlight a significant problem with the current paradigm used to elect our leader.
The current process causes candidates to focus on making promises in exchange for votes. This vigorous campaign activity has been institutionalized by the party system. It has resulted in candidates giving too much attention to subjects that have nothing to do with what is written in the Constitution. None of the candidates show any interest in carrying on *The Great Experiment* as it was originally envisioned by the founders of this government.
The central premise of the anti-campaign would be to re-elect a virtual George Washington as the next president. The person to be elected would promise to do his or her best to make decisions as they believe George Washington would if he were alive today. The purpose of the symbolic campaign is to remind people of the origins of our political system. George Washington set the standards for behavior for a president. In recent years the presidents have been poor reflections of this noble statesman. He was a singular figure in the history of our country in many ways. I find it notable that he did not seek the office of president, he ran without opposition, he never campaigned for the office, and was not a member of a party. The actual person who would be elected to serve as George Washington would run anonymously under the pseudonym "The Internet Dog". This name is inspired by the 1993 New Yorker cartoon. This cartoon captures the essence of Internet equality. The goal of running completely anonymously is give focus to the ideas of the office, not the person. Critics may claim that electing someone without physically seeing them will not allow the character of the candidate to be viewed, but this is nonsense. The obsession with the physical appearance of the candidate is a 20th century invention. A desire to not let ego or personal traits enter into the vote is a very strong character statement.
From: Mark
Date: Thu, Sep 28, 2000, 12:01 PM
"Jon, ...I do have a comment on the changing political expectations of the generations. I am a computer scientist (26 years old, "gen X" I suppose).
Personally, the level of my political discernment is a direct consequence of my interaction with technology --- namely that as a programmer and mathematician, I approach politics with as much scrutiny and analytics as I do computation. I've come to expect more clarity in the law and I have a strong sense of what American citizenry should mean. I wonder if this critical thought is partially responsible for the change in political expectations. (The remaining cause can probably be attributed to the identity politics of libertarians, but that is an entirely different subject.)
From: "K"
Date: Sat, Sep 30, 2000, 8:37 AM
Katz,
It's late and I'm having difficulty forming even the simplest of sentence structures -- I've been awake over 26 hours now so I'm a little out of it. Before I begin, let me first say that I have a great deal of respect for you... Yet as I much as respect you, I cannot be so bold as to support the statement that politics are losing their place in society altogether. The current state of politics will no doubt remain unchanged so long as the public tolerates it.,..
To say that politics are insignificant is to deny the power of the government. If you wish to reaffirm the power of our government, "forget" to pay your taxes. I assure you the government will take notice and spring into action. The government is, and will always be, in control. We cannot allow ourselves to disregard the ignorance of recent legislation regarding the Internet. We cannot allow ourselves to forget that "they" are in control, not us. The fact that there is such a distinction between "they" and "us" is a problem in itself. The bottom line is, this is not our Internet. As of now, legislation lags behind and the 'net remains, for the most part, lawless; like any frontier. But in order for it to become settled and for communities to flourish, government will step in and laws will be made. Privacy/anonymity will be lost and accountability will be ensured. .. In order to protect technology from restrictive legislation, we have to pay attention to politics.
I believe it is true that politics will have to be reborn to fit into the new culture.
From: Chris
Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2000 2:48 PM
"Jon,
Regarding your "Last Days of Politics" comments: I like this line of thought...I think the future of freedom and the survival of humans is grounded in the notion that "There is no one right way to live." No matter how many programs, band-aids, social policies, financial interventions and celebrity rock-star benefit concerts you throw at the world's problems, they will always just be small sticks trying to slow the flow of a large river.
"The politics of the future will be about "what works." They will no longer be centered around individuals with health care plans and tax cuts, but will highlight the ways of life that are thoroughly, provably successful and sustainable. That applies to everything from education to environmentalism, from economic models of society to social norms of human relationships."
From: Mark
Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 2:06 PM
"Sir,
"I spent several hours a day online and watch politics carefully. I do not see the Net worming its way into politics (and thus destroying it as you seem to posit) but rather the other way around -- politics is beginning to worm its way into the Net. The Net, from the earliest stages that I was involved in, has been a very Libertarian place. Largely populated by techies, idealists and college kids, the majority who took the time to go online were not deeply connected to politics in any way. Instead, we tended to be the ones who felt that so long as government was not noticing us, we were the best off.
"Now, however, the Net is the country. And politics is becoming one with the Net...While on the Net we see all thought possible, with the two parties we see only thought acceptable to the majority. The fact is that the Net does not change common sense or the cultural thought of the American populace."
From: Kara
Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 1:47 p.m.
"50/50 disagree. Politics as we know it, I think, are definitely out the window. Nobody with half an eye open has much interest in voting...I guess I'd rather things just became more direct. Some honesty in our leadership. (Hello, I'm RJR Nabisco, and I'll be dictating your fiscal policy for the term.)"
From: JoeC
Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 11:32 PM
"Look at energy. The harnessing of energy has created modern life, it is the backbone of society. It has grown amazingly powerful institutions, technologies, etc. The political process protests these old technologies and power structures, more accurately they own them. Even though we have the means to completely revolutionize how we use energy using the Net, and other new technoligies, here we are once again in the midst of another fossil fuel crisis -- insane."
From: Marcelo (from Italy)
Date: September 27, 2000 10:43 PM
"The reason politics is not very interesting, is because we are pretty much happy with the current status quo; but, given the complexity of our civilization, it is naive to think that you can live well under bad government. If there was a candidate proposing the banning of all computers (I'm just being ludicrous to make a point) politics would suddenly end. That would be the hacker's top priority."
From: Gordon
Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 11:34 PM
"The way you describe it, a revolution is coming, where by doing nothing, something is done. While this may work if we can get people educated, the general populace can still be easily sucked in by personable politicians and leaders. When enough people hold the essential meme of anarchy -- that explicit authority is not necessary for free society to function), we will wake up and find ourselves in a truly free world."
From: Tom
Tuesday, September 26, 2000 6:07 PM
"...Though I disagree that politics is finished, I think you have hit on a legitimate phenomenon. I believe it was Boaz who first observed that more and more people are entering the "grey market," where things not quite illegal but not quite sanctioned exist. he used the examples of homeschool, gated communities and Internet medical advice (IIRC) to show that more and more private citizens, and not just the rich were "seceding" from official society. No public education, no public police, no state-licensed sawbones. As the major parties blend together, descending into the pit of the demagogue, the public is "on its own," finding solutions to the problems they perceive."
From JakeDate: September, 28, 2000 5:40
"You could be right on this one. I suppose it had to happen. But you still suck, and I intend to block you again after sending this."
YOu know why? Because people always want pwer and to be in control. To qoute Homer Simpson:"in theory communism works" but nobody, including Marx could figure out what to do after that big revolution, because noone ever wanted to give up the power. Let's face it, humanity is a power hungry monster.
There will always be somebody out there trying to prove they are right and to get the power. Do you actually think that politicians want to seve and spend their lives representing the interests of the common man, BS!!! They just want the power associated with political office. Politics can never end.
-"Those who fought today will die tommorow."-
I tend to agree with the general tenor of the replies. Politics isn't going to dissapear, since it's the interaction of people (and control, as one very enlightened fellows says). Instead, it's going to be transformed. Already, you can see politicans trying to extend their control to the net. The question is, are they going to succeed? That's what we have to work on.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
GW Bush: Al Gore is a liar. Vote for him and his big government will tell you when you can use the restroom.
John Q. Public: Sheesh...two liars, who if elected will ruin my life. Guess I'll forget to vote yet again!
"Government is really good at only one thing, and that is to break your leg, then hand you a crutch and say, 'Look, if it weren't for the government you wouldn't be able to walk,'" - Harry Browne
No More Years! No More Years!
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
I think that many Americans are desperately *hoping* that political manuevering as we know it today will cease to exist, but the very institutions that we criticize are so fundamental to our system of government that reforming them is virtually impossibile.
Take Social Security for example. There is no question that social security will go bankrupt, it is only a question of when. As with any pyramid scheme, a linear increase in the number of people who are in a position to benefit from the system means that there is an exponential increase in the number of people who will ultimately not be able to reclaim their initial investment. It is taking longer and longer to seniors to reclaim their lifetime investment in social security because the scam has been running for 50 years.
However, it would be impossible to simply dispose of social security. Millions of Americans are depending on social security to fund their retirement; on average, individuals spend over 100% of what they earn. How can people with no savings ever retire? We would need to phase SS out over a period of 50-100 years with lower contributions/benefits every interval until the system is eliminated entirely. However, the dynamics of our democracy require a change in leadership every 4 years and the current partisan tendencies of the legislature would make it very difficult to convine 25 separate legislatures/executives to agree to the terms of the original arrangement. If there is merely one period of dissension, the proposal must be trashed.
Politicians are therefore limited to a very small number of programs that they can implement in individual terms. Consequently, the issues that campaigns cover is only a small range of issues that politicians feel confident addressing. Of course, the ability to hire a smart group of people to create a platform does not mean that one is a skillful leader or is capable of dealing with crises as they develop.
We can hope for reform, better leaders, or a better system of government, but I have yet to hear one convincing proposal of how these drastic changes could be carried out. In politics, as in philosophy, we cannot escape our past no matter how hard we try. We can be early adopters of new technology and ways of thinking, but we cannot expect society to follow suit. We hail every new development as "revolutionary" in the vein hope that it will somehow improve our present situation, but it rarely does.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
There already is a web anti-campaign. The candidate is a potted plant! Vote Ficus 2000!!
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Some info on Katz's visit to the University of Minnesota. Also, more info on the classes he's teaching while he's here.
--
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
Social Security has grown to become something that it was never intended to be. When SSNs were created they were not to be used as identification, but only for SS tax purposes. So why does your credit card company and bank want it? Every time I hear a commercial or someone say "You can't retire on social security" I want to reply "That's because that is not intended to be a retirement fund". Social security was born for the sole purpose of ASSISTING people on retirement to help cope with inflation. Many people today don't even think about thier future much less plan for it. Of all the people that I've met recently from my high school days, I think I am the only one remotely planning for retirement.
Privatization of social security would be a good way to make a company fail or get social security reform without being a black mark on a candidate's record (since it was a third party that did the horrible things, not them)
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
Right. Let the bollocks end here (some chance). Social Security is not any sort of pyramid scheme, because it is not an investment scheme of any kind. Social Security is a transfer payment between the working generation and the retired generation.
In other words, Social Security is an institutionalised, pooled version of the practice of having the younger generation take care of the generation which has retired. Since this practice (elders being fed by youngers) has been in place since the beginning of human civilisation, I think we can agree that it is not "unsustainable" or "doomed to collapse" per se.
In fact, there is simply no alternative to this intergenerational transfer. If a retired generation is consuming, but no longer producing, then the younger generation will have to consume less than it produces. We can call this difference "tax", we can call it "Social Security" or we can call it "dividends and coupon payments", but it makes no difference at the macro level. Claiming that "saving" and "investment" will "solve" the "Social Security Problem" (sorry for multiple scare-quotes, but it wasn't me who introduced so much shit into the terminology) is just bowing down to the Gods of the Marketplace, invoking a few buzz-words and then carrying on the same. Taking a non-marketed future liability and changing it into a marketed claim on the future doesn't create any new capital; nor could it.
Furthermore, there is no problem. The ratio of retired to working is only one part of the picture. The ratio of interest is the "dependency ratio"; that of the total non-working population to the total working population. This ratio is nowhere near the boundaries of its historical range; nor is it projected to be during the current demographic forecasting horizon.
Keynes said that "Economics is a difficult thing, but nobody will believe it". If proof be needed for this statement, look at the number of people who think they understand Social Security.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
From Jon's orig post:
The sci-fi writer and futurist Arthur C. Clarke once wrote that he hoped he would live to see the day -- and he believed he would -- when politics in its present form would cease to matter. "The time will come," he wrote in an essay, "when most of our present controversies on these matters will seem as trivial, or as meaningless, as the theological debates in which the keenest minds of the Middle Ages dissipated their energies." " Browsing on the CNN and Washington Post political Web sites and watching cable news, it seems to me that Clarke may live to see that day, at least for a part of the world -- the tech nation, many high school and college students, people under 40. **i.e. demographics of Slashdot readers, more or less** Journalists, boomers, CEOs and the elderly may still be paying attention to the strange ritual being conducted by the Republicans and Democrats, but from this perspective smack in the middle of an ascending and vibrant alternative culture, nobody else appears to be.
OK, we don't care about politics, but the post on Al Gore and GW and inheritance taxes generate 1100+ comments, and the one on presidential candidates and filtering software is pushing 600 comments right now. Needless to say, most of these comments, including mine, are probably stupid, redundant and/or redundant, but this still seems to indicate a (quantitative) level of discussion unseen in other slashdot stories. I can't find one story in the past week breaking 500 comments (many that come close are also about US politics). OK, some of the crap Katz wrote got lots of comments too - but even that was election-related. (I actually like his stuff, but I feel obligated to use at least one instance of profanity in an post about John Katz.)
It's kind of hard to believe that the Slashdot folks find politics irrelevant. I think the real challenge to the political structure comes from it's inabiltity to control information anymore. Think MojoNation, HQed in the Caymans. There's no way any legal system will have any effect on those guys. Will this make the rest of the system irrelevant? Probably not. Non-information resources are finite and we have to have some system to distribute them....
The Net is certainly transforming the political structure. When I hear my wife, - a woman I love dearly but her belief that good technology ended with Tetris is a thorn in my side - state after the debates that she wants to "look up the candidates web page to see what the details of their plans are", I see how things are changing.
The problem is, its going to take a generation. Napster is a hot topic on the net - while the "average citizen" knows or cares little about it. So is the issue with my.mp3.com, online privacy, copyright, and so on - things the average (read: not heavily online) citizen) usually doesn't regard as important.
Over 2/3's of the voters are over the age of 40 (simply by the fact that if the average life-span is 100, then we have more people over 40 than anything else). I think this is an important thing to take in. If you look back at every major political movement - civil rights, women's vote, opinions regarding gays and lesbians, new technology - it takes about 20 years for the next generation to fully understand it. By the time that we're in our 40's and 50's (which I imagine is still 20 years out for the majority of slashdot readers) there will be a majority of people interested in issues like online copyright and privacy, or the detail that we can gather on our political candidates.
For those fighting, keep it up - it will take time to build. For those voting, keep informed and inform your friends as well - if you don't tell them, they won't know. And for candidates looking for my vote - be afraid. I'm watching you closely, and those coming after me will watch even closer.
John "Dark Paladin" Hummel
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
To paraphrase The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...
"Anybody who wants to be president should be imediately disqualified from seeking the job..."
Or as I like to think of it...
Nobody who wants that level of power can be trusted with it.
As long as the government has the money and the power to exert the level of control over society that it does today - things will only change for the worse. Take away the power (Libertarians) and nobody will bother throwing money at the government.
How many times do people have to say this before it soaks into everyone's thick skulls?
"Wasting" votes is what the damn Republicans and Democrats want you to think. If you vote what you really believe, rather than voting for the lesser of two evils (the two front-runners in the current incumbent pollitical parties...) then you are wasting a vote. Why? Because if enough people do as you should, vote their feelings, then perhaps enough people will vote for that candidate (or another) and cost a clear victory for the other two candidates at the least. If there's enough states that come in tight instead of being a shoo-in, then maybe the politicians will sit up and take notice that they're screwing up in the eyes of the electorate. And who knows, the candidate you vote for might just actually take that state after all. That would really send a message to the politicians.
It's not a wasted vote to vote Nader, Browne or any of the others. Vote what you believe in!
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
...if it sticks.
I was reading the Onion/AV Club interview with Emo Phillips (read it here), and he mentions a theory, that we still have that chimp portion of our brain that tells us, we may be the leader of the pack, until we get to middle age or so. Then the other monkeys perceive weakness, and tear apart the leader to make room for another. That particular gene memory turns on around middle age, and we start laying low, and getting out of the way.
I've been thinking about age issues lately (only 23 myself), and wondering why there are age limits built into the Constitution (I believe you have to be 40 or so). Originally, I thought it was because you were supposed to be older and wiser, but in light of this possible genetic memory, is it something else?
Many may have noticed that revolutionary, genius-level work seems to be done in a person's youth, and they become less revolutionary as adults. Linus invented Linux at a young age, Einstien discovered relativity fairly young, Alexander did all of his conquering before 30, and most of the slashdotter's are probably on the young end of the scale.
Is it possible that politics is the realm of the older types? That young people are much more self-assertive, interested in controlling themselves, and pushing their limits, rather than asserting control through cultural means? Think of just about any government, and it's the older who lead, and the younger who do stuff - go to war, innovate, riot, and act idealistically.
It's not just "artifical" governments like the US, but even natural ones - most primative tribes are lead by the elders, the Mafia bosses are often the oldest ones, the President of the company is often the oldest one there, etc.
Anyway, I don't have time right now to develop this line of thinking, but I would like some feedback, whether it strikes a chord or not. And, if you could, attach your age.
I see the point of the person who modded this up as funny. The American system of public service is rather a classic example to the world of how _not_ to do it.
Hey guys, let's stop folks leaving to start their own businesses! They're too afraid of losing their medical insurance benefits, and couldn't guarantee to pay for any major illness/injury to themselves or their family if they were self-employed. Hell yes, why not? We don't need free enterprise, after all.
How's about making your quality of medical care dependent on your income? Sounds neat - no-one unemployed really needs a hip replacement, do they? Or cancer treatment. Let the cheap bastards die!
Anyone fancy making your right to a fair trial dependent on your income? Sure thing - you wouldn't be a crook, a murderer or a rapist if you were rich or came from a rich family, would you? It's only poor folks who do that. And if the victim is poor, they're obviously lying anyway.
I just hope you were trolling there. If you were serious, it's too scarey for words...
Grab.
Or do you really think that Social Security funds Storm Troopers?
Taxes fund Storm Troopers.
Yeah, Storm Troopers.
Whoever claimed the US is a democracy? I don't think we have. We're a republic. Simple, easy, but NOT a democracy. Democracy is rule by the poor and stupid. If you don't like the fact that a large portion of policy is decided by the United States, then please oh please, take this responsibility away. The United States is the leading provider of information technology, entertainment, and culture for the entire planet. I'm sorry if we've inconvenienced you with our society, but I think we've provided a great deal of support for a broken Europe after the second world war. If our ways "make the world a worse place" then for God's sake DO something. But until then, c'mon get fscking real.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
The Supreme Court is just a bogeyman that both parties bring up to make you fear the other. The fact is, more liberal justices have been nominated by conservative administrations, and more conservative justices by liberal administrations, in recent history. Abortion ain't going anywhere. They just like to beat that drum to make you afraid and vote for them.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/aint.html
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
>this intergenerational transfer.
Wrong.
The simple, logical, and moral alternative is for individuals to take responsibility for their own actions; and not to assume that they can goof off their whole lives and and expect to become a parasite in soceity's bowels when they finally realise how bad they fscked themselves.
I've done the math; first as an exercise demanded by my college ecomonics professor against what I EXPECTED to be earning when I entered the work force; then on my own, once I did enter the work force.
Even if I make the totally unrealistic assumption that my income will never increase between now and the time I turn 65; the 5% gross that I drop into my 401K will return, by an order of magnitude, far more than I would be eligable to receive were I drawing social security. I beleive 12x was the exact factor... and that's just withdrawing intrest after I turn 65... that's WITHOUT touching so much as a cent of my principle!!!
And that's JUST the 401K, which I basiclly drop money into and ignore. That does NOT include my other investments which I manage more proactively. Nor does it include the vesting (current, or future) of my options. Nor does it include increases in salary and the corresponding increase in 401K contributions. To be fair, it does not include inflation either; but I'm confident that I'll beat that curve as well.
Were I able to opt out of social security and keep the money the government confiscates with each paycheck, I would do so in a heartbeat. I'm already doing better, with a SMALLER initial stake. If I invested that extra cash every month, I could damn near live like a king once I'm retired (or retire early, and just live like a duke).
I'm only 24 right now, so no matter who wins, Gore *OR* shrub, I have zero confidence that social security will be there for me to collect once I'm 65. But, you know what? I don't care. In fact, I welcome its demise... better sooner than later. I'd applaud if it were abolished NOW.
Thing is, I'm taking responsibility for my OWN life. I do *NOT* expect, nor want, the government to babysit me.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
That sure sounds trollish. You make the assumption that somebody with different ideas will not be able to get anything done because they will be "bombarding" congress with insults? So the right thing to do is to vote for somebody who you don't agree with, but will "get something done". So doing something that is bad is better than doing nothing? Because, in your mythical system, people in congress will fight for you? Let me ask you this: how will people in congress fight for your issues if you don't elect people who represent you?! See the recursive problem?!
Then you go on to childishly insult Nader.
Nader isn't the *only* Green candidate. There are Green senate candidates also. And guess what? That is how you change the system. Not by sitting on your haughty ass saying to freshmen that voting their conscience doesn't matter, and that they should just lay down and vote for one of the pre-fabricated candidates. THAT is wasting a vote.
If you have any question about what Nader would do in office, why don't you go to his site and find out: http://www.votenader.org
Yes, perhaps he might not roll over like a wimp and pander to big interests. I guess that's the "cost" of change.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Summary: the prediction that Social Security will go bust assumes that economic growth over the next 75 years will be less than half what it was for the last 75. There's no justification for such a gloomy prediction, and if it comes true, then how can the stock market do any better? The article also addresses streetlawyer's "dependency ratio" argument.
Even if it turns out that Social Security is underfunded, Congress could patch the system perfectly well by making more income subject to Social Security tax (right now, wages over about $70K/year, and all capital gains, are exempt from the tax), by allowing in more (young, working) immigrants, or by pushing the retirement age up a year or two.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Second, as streetlawyer pointed out, any way you slice it, today's retirees depend on the productivity of today's workers. Thought experiment: You have a 401(k) consisting of nothing but Microsoft stock. Suddenly, all Microsoft employees quit, and Microsoft can't find anyone else willing to work for them. What's going to happen to Microsoft's stock value?
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com