Certainly. But if police pull over cars with "Weed is awesome!" stickers more often than "DARE to keep kids of drugs stickers", would you really be surprised?
To stick with the car analogy.... this wasn't the police pulling over the car because of a sticker advocating a law change. This was the Department of Motor Vehicles refusing to issue license plates until you provide lists of everyone that will ride in the car, where they are employed, if any of them are planning to run for office to change the traffic laws, and an itinerary of where you plan to drive in the next year, and a slip signed by the chief of police saying it is ok to let you have license plates. All because of the name of your group . . . and the fact that you oppose the current (administration) "traffic laws."
However, organizations with those kinds of names are likely to be engaged in political activity which should render them ineligible for tax exempt status.
I see. So you want government officials to make judgments based on the name of the organization instead of what is on the application? Instead of what they actually do? Interesting. Probably not a good idea though.
The fact that the IRS has permitted the LDS and Catholics to get away with using tax exempt resources to campaign does not mean that the IRS should be required to let everybody do it.
Under the law you can advocate for policy. If you don't like that, you try to change the law, not use the government to disadvantage your political opposition.
There do appear to be some abuses of power here,
That seems remarkably restrained. I think your eyesight is likely diminished by the targets of this being political groups you oppose . . . what what's a little overstep by the government if the outcome is agreeable, eh?.
But allow me to correct you - the IRS has admitted that it was wrong, over the line. They aren't hedging, why are you?
You find nothing truly troubling in the following?
. . . perhaps most troubling, those tea-party organizations were sent letters of inquiry demanding information that would seldom if ever be demanded of any other applicant in the process. The IRS demanded lists of donors, names of spouses and family members, detailed information about political views and associations — all of that “under penalties of perjury.” Many applicants dropped out of the process. The questions were remarkably invasive: For example, the IRS demanded to know not only whether political candidates participated in public forums conducted by the groups, but which issues were discussed, along with copies of any literature distributed at the forum and material published on websites. (The IRS has been less forthcoming with its own materials related to this investigation.) If the organizations collected dues, the IRS demanded to know how much they were. It demanded everything down to the résumés of employees. The inquiry was not limited to members of the organization, its executives, or its directors, but included even their family members: The IRS demanded to know — again, under penalty of perjury — whether any of their family members might be thinking about running for office. Its demand for the names of all donors — and all recipients of grants — is in violation of IRS policy. . . more
--------
but keeping an eye on organizations likely to be engaged in political activity isn't wrong.
That wasn't the job of the people at IRS involved in this, so yes, it was worng. Or do you want random government officials "volunteering" to keep the voters in line? You know, just until after the election is over? Or, hey, if it works, why stop? (You won't complain if the shoe is on the other foot, will you?)
If you still just can't quite bring yourself to identify this as a big problem, I'm tempted to suggest some supplementary reading material.
If your groups is named after the most famous tax revoult in the history of the country I would expect the tax man to pay special interest to it.
That tax revolt was against the previous regime (the British Empire), not the current government (United States of America). The Tea Party advocates for legislative reform of the tax code and containing spending, not revolts against the government. This is clearly a case of abuse of authority by a government agency intervening in the political process for the benefit of the current administration. You've got a pretty big evidentiary burden if you want to try to justify that.
What is so evil that this needs to be on every news feed in the world?
So you see no problem with an executive branch agency targeting the political opposition to the incumbent administration in a direct, focused way, apparently calculated to hinder their participation in the election process? You are unbothered by government officials illegitimately, and perhaps illegally, demanding membership lists? You have no sense that this sort of thing might undermine free and fair elections? You have no worries about government officials maintaining enemies lists? It strikes me that you have no useful comment to give on this matter.
“A large majority, 89.3 percent, suggested the national media played a very or somewhat strong role in helping to elect President Obama,” according to a summary of the findings. “Just 10.0 percent suggested the national media played little or no role. Further, 69.9 percent agreed the national news media are intent on promoting the Obama presidency while 26.5 percent disagreed. Some, 3.6 percent, were unsure.”
And 86.6 percent said they believe the news media try to influence public opinion and that they have their own public policy and political positions. This compares to 87.6 percent in 2008 and 70.3 percent in 2003.
To be fair, I think his account is compromised. Either that or he has some form of multiple personality disorder. I think I like him best when he is English. At least he tends to be polite then.
. . . An amazing trend of nearly 500 years of declining interpersonal violence in England reversed abruptly in 1954 as violence began to increase dramatically. In 2001 Britain had the highest level of homicides in Western Europe, and violent crimes were at three times the level of the next worst country. “One thing which no amount of statistical manipulation can disguise,” the shadow home secretary, Oliver Letwin, pointed out in October 2003, “is that violent crime has doubled in the last six years and continues to rise alarmingly.” Indeed, with the exception of murder, violent crime in England and Wales is far higher than in the United States. And while the American murder rate has been in decline for more than a decade, the English murder rate has been rising. You are six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City. More than half of English burglaries are “hot burglaries”(someone is at home), while in America, where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police, only 13 percent are “hot burglaries.” As for the effectiveness of stringent gun control, since handguns were banned in 1998, handgun crime has more than doubled. Gun crime has recently been described as spreading “like a cancer.” Units of British police are, for the first time in their history, routinely armed, and American policemen are being hired to advise British departments.
I guess there is no way she could own a knife also. Or pepper spray, or a taser, or mace. Without a gun the elderly are generally helpless against a knife wielding rapist?
Knife fighting tends to be pretty physical. The mismatch between a 90 year old woman and a 20 year old man is pretty substantial, don't you think? As far as I know, pepper spray and tasers are illegal for private citizens to possess in the UK.
It is against the law to import:High voltage electric 'stun guns'. Pepper sprays, CS gas canisters and other self defence sprays. High-powered air rifles. Martial Arts weapons such as death stars and swordsticks. Knives that have a concealed blade or a sharp point such as belt buckle blades.
The withdrawal of a basic right of Englishmen is having dire consequences in Great Britain, and should serve as an object lesson for Americans. Today, in the name of public safety, the British government has practically eliminated the citizens’ right to self-defense. That did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years. Those include the strictest gun regulations of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. . ..
The Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (LNSGP) is an American organization that cites the National Socialist German Workers Party as its primary ideological inspiration, while also incorporating elements of Libertarianism and the Green movement. It has not been established whether LNSGP has any activity or existence other than through the website associated with the domain name nazi.org. . .
The LNSGP at present has no intention of gaining ballot access or fielding political candidates, and it has been suggested that it is a joke, e.g. in its entry at politics1.com,[1].
It's also a conveniently great excuse for the corporate slaves in Congress to decry those terrorist facilitators at Mega and The Pirate Bay.
I think there is a more interesting question. Kim Dotcom had a lot of support on Slashdot and across the internet when it was the US government pursuing him for allegations of criminal copyright infringement. How much of that support will evaporate now that he has been linked to Defense Distributed's gun project? I would think there will be at least some who will turn up their nose at this. There are a lot of progressives around here, and many of them are opposed to personal firearms ownership.
. . . current law already allows home hobbyists to build their own firearms provided they are for personal use only (and not for sale). Such guns are already “untraceable.” 3D-printing doesn’t change that basic fact — it merely allows a wider range of hobbyists without specialized machine shop skills to do what’s already legal. . . more
As it is Liz seems unable to produce a smile. Her frowning face isn't exactly the best way to promote our country and its heritage.
HM Queen Victoria seems to have done well without a cheery visage.
HM Queen Elizabeth is certainly able to smile, as you can see in the second photo as she contemplates an object of delight (to many), as well as cause them.
I'm quite certain that Barack Obama is quite clear that he is President and not King at the moment. I'm also reasonably certain that if asked he would be happy he is not a Prime Minister, subject to Prime Minister's Question Time.
Notice that you are suggesting that dishonesty is acceptable.
You misunderstand. The speech is given by Her Royal Highness as Head of State. The speech for the Head of State is written by the Government formed by the Prime Minister. It isn't an expression of personal opinion, but of state policy set by the Government.
I'm curious - do you have a similar view about the lies of Bill Clinton? Did he empower all American men to lie as well? Or are we all responsible before God and our conscience for our own actions?
I would disagree. It's nice to think that royaly has some for of power in the country, but in reality they do not (at least, not in the UK).
Wouldn't it be fairer to say that the royalty, and in particular the monarch, does have meaningful formal power, but that practically it could only be used in extremis? Anything else would probably result in a constitutional crisis.
I'm thinking, for example, of the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Governor-General Sir John Kerr in Australia in 1975.
Richard Pipes of Harvard University has argued that in addition to these proximate causes, the fundamental cause of the collapse “was the utopian nature of its [the regime’s] objectives.” That is to say, the Soviet system from its earliest days pursued goals that were both unrealizable and unpopular, including the attempted creation of “the new socialist man.”11 Those utopian efforts demanded a waste of resources, vast amounts of coercion and fraudulent political propaganda. Martin Malia of the University of California at Berkeley made a similar point: “Of all the reasons for the collapse of communism, the most basic is that it was an intrinsically nonviable, indeed impossible project from the beginning. However important in its genesis were the heritage of Russian backwardness and authoritarianism, or the personal ruthlessness of Lenin and Stalin, it is Marxism that was the decisive factor . . . making communism the historically unique phenomenon it was. And the perverse genius of Marxism is to present an unattainable utopia as an infallibly scientific enterprise.”
These Western assessments of the nature of communism—utopian or otherwise—have great bearing on the disputes and explanations regarding the collapse of the Soviet Union. Thus, one set of the responses to the collapse was shaped by the belief that it occurred because, as Malia and Pipes argued, the system sought to achieve utopian goals inspired by Marxism. In other words, the collapse occurred because theory and practice converged (i.e., Marxist theory compelled communist systems to pursue unattainable utopian goals). The theoretical foundation or blueprint itself was flawed, not viable, as Malia put it. Milovan Djilas, the Yugoslav communist politician who later became a critic of communist totalitarianism, also believed that “the [communist] idea itself contained the seeds of its own inglorious, future collapse. . . . Such visions may encourage us to sacrifice . . . but they are also opiates to the soul. . . . The idea dried up in proportion as the reality legitimized by it grew stronger.”13 . . ..
. . . The reasons leading to the collapse included both sets of factors: some of the ideals or theoretical propositions of Marxism were clearly adopted and zealously pursued but they had adverse, unintended consequences. For example the collectivization of agriculture retarded food production, and state controlled industrialization created a huge, inefficient bureaucracy, diminished incentives of the workers, and contributed greatly to the concentration of political power. Marx and Lenin (initially) believed that communist ideals would command broad popular support and therefore little violence or coercion will be required to implement them. They also believed that all forms of human misbehavior will “wither away” after the proletarian revolution and the seizure of the means of production. As Leszek Kolakowski put it, “Marx seems to have imagined
That might be a plus, particularly as it isn't all that rare for people on Slashdot to seriously accuse various people or groups of conspiring to try to bring about Armageddon based on some distorted understanding of Christian beliefs. Shamefully, that sort of thing tends to attract high moderation - at least it has in the past. Glad you aren't one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly. But if police pull over cars with "Weed is awesome!" stickers more often than "DARE to keep kids of drugs stickers", would you really be surprised?
To stick with the car analogy .... this wasn't the police pulling over the car because of a sticker advocating a law change. This was the Department of Motor Vehicles refusing to issue license plates until you provide lists of everyone that will ride in the car, where they are employed, if any of them are planning to run for office to change the traffic laws, and an itinerary of where you plan to drive in the next year, and a slip signed by the chief of police saying it is ok to let you have license plates. All because of the name of your group . . . and the fact that you oppose the current (administration) "traffic laws."
Read it and weep. (Bottom paragraph, page 1 of article.)
What was that Ben Franklin said? A republic, if we can keep it? I think someone is putting grease on the handles.
However, organizations with those kinds of names are likely to be engaged in political activity which should render them ineligible for tax exempt status.
I see. So you want government officials to make judgments based on the name of the organization instead of what is on the application? Instead of what they actually do? Interesting. Probably not a good idea though.
The fact that the IRS has permitted the LDS and Catholics to get away with using tax exempt resources to campaign does not mean that the IRS should be required to let everybody do it.
Under the law you can advocate for policy. If you don't like that, you try to change the law, not use the government to disadvantage your political opposition.
There do appear to be some abuses of power here,
That seems remarkably restrained. I think your eyesight is likely diminished by the targets of this being political groups you oppose . . . what what's a little overstep by the government if the outcome is agreeable, eh?.
But allow me to correct you - the IRS has admitted that it was wrong, over the line. They aren't hedging, why are you?
You find nothing truly troubling in the following?
The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting
. . . perhaps most troubling, those tea-party organizations were sent letters of inquiry demanding information that would seldom if ever be demanded of any other applicant in the process. The IRS demanded lists of donors, names of spouses and family members, detailed information about political views and associations — all of that “under penalties of perjury.” Many applicants dropped out of the process. The questions were remarkably invasive: For example, the IRS demanded to know not only whether political candidates participated in public forums conducted by the groups, but which issues were discussed, along with copies of any literature distributed at the forum and material published on websites. (The IRS has been less forthcoming with its own materials related to this investigation.) If the organizations collected dues, the IRS demanded to know how much they were. It demanded everything down to the résumés of employees. The inquiry was not limited to members of the organization, its executives, or its directors, but included even their family members: The IRS demanded to know — again, under penalty of perjury — whether any of their family members might be thinking about running for office. Its demand for the names of all donors — and all recipients of grants — is in violation of IRS policy. . . more
--------
but keeping an eye on organizations likely to be engaged in political activity isn't wrong.
That wasn't the job of the people at IRS involved in this, so yes, it was worng. Or do you want random government officials "volunteering" to keep the voters in line? You know, just until after the election is over? Or, hey, if it works, why stop? (You won't complain if the shoe is on the other foot, will you?)
If you still just can't quite bring yourself to identify this as a big problem, I'm tempted to suggest some supplementary reading material.
Sorry, my mistake.
What else would you expect? Did you really think that the people who did this were going to discipline themselves?
Reading at the second link, it shows this:
I think you managed to find something mistyped.
And, I'll add, I'm sure that whoever did this would have ended up in hot water if they'd targeted groups that supported President Obama.
I quite agree with you on that point.
If your groups is named after the most famous tax revoult in the history of the country I would expect the tax man to pay special interest to it.
That tax revolt was against the previous regime (the British Empire), not the current government (United States of America). The Tea Party advocates for legislative reform of the tax code and containing spending, not revolts against the government. This is clearly a case of abuse of authority by a government agency intervening in the political process for the benefit of the current administration. You've got a pretty big evidentiary burden if you want to try to justify that.
What is so evil that this needs to be on every news feed in the world?
So you see no problem with an executive branch agency targeting the political opposition to the incumbent administration in a direct, focused way, apparently calculated to hinder their participation in the election process? You are unbothered by government officials illegitimately, and perhaps illegally, demanding membership lists? You have no sense that this sort of thing might undermine free and fair elections? You have no worries about government officials maintaining enemies lists? It strikes me that you have no useful comment to give on this matter.
The problem isn't government. The problem is the passive, benighted electorate that tolerates it. We, as a population, get the government we deserve.
To be fair, the media has its thumb on the scales.
News Consumer Study: Media Helped Elect and Continue to Promote Obama
“A large majority, 89.3 percent, suggested the national media played a very or somewhat strong role in helping to elect President Obama,” according to a summary of the findings. “Just 10.0 percent suggested the national media played little or no role. Further, 69.9 percent agreed the national news media are intent on promoting the Obama presidency while 26.5 percent disagreed. Some, 3.6 percent, were unsure.”
And 86.6 percent said they believe the news media try to influence public opinion and that they have their own public policy and political positions. This compares to 87.6 percent in 2008 and 70.3 percent in 2003.
To be fair, I think his account is compromised. Either that or he has some form of multiple personality disorder. I think I like him best when he is English. At least he tends to be polite then.
Gun crime in the UK increased after the ban.
Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control
This may be helpful:
Self-Defense: An Endangered Right
. . . An amazing trend of nearly 500 years of declining interpersonal violence in England reversed abruptly in 1954 as violence began to increase dramatically. In 2001 Britain had the highest level of homicides in Western Europe, and violent crimes were at three times the level of the next worst country. “One thing which no amount of statistical manipulation can disguise,” the shadow home secretary, Oliver Letwin, pointed out in October 2003, “is that violent crime has doubled in the last six years and continues to rise alarmingly.” Indeed, with the exception of murder, violent crime in England and Wales is far higher than in the United States. And while the American murder rate has been in decline for more than a decade, the English murder rate has been rising. You are six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City. More than half of English burglaries are “hot burglaries”(someone is at home), while in America, where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police, only 13 percent are “hot burglaries.” As for the effectiveness of stringent gun control, since handguns were banned in 1998, handgun crime has more than doubled. Gun crime has recently been described as spreading “like a cancer.” Units of British police are, for the first time in their history, routinely armed, and American policemen are being hired to advise British departments.
I guess there is no way she could own a knife also. Or pepper spray, or a taser, or mace. Without a gun the elderly are generally helpless against a knife wielding rapist?
Knife fighting tends to be pretty physical. The mismatch between a 90 year old woman and a 20 year old man is pretty substantial, don't you think? As far as I know, pepper spray and tasers are illegal for private citizens to possess in the UK.
Are stun guns legal in the UK?
Besides that practical problem, there is another:
Self-Defense: An Endangered Right
The withdrawal of a basic right of Englishmen is having dire consequences in Great Britain, and should serve as an object lesson for Americans. Today, in the name of public safety, the British government has practically eliminated the citizens’ right to self-defense. That did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years. Those include the strictest gun regulations of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. . . .
Read this bit of madness - and there are far too many cases like it: Five years in prison for acting in self-defence
There are attempts at reform, but there doesn't seem to be enough movement.
A rather different example: Elderly Woman Shoots at Intruder
Since combining libertarian with "National Socialist" essentially results in a oxymoron, I'm going with it being a joke.
Libertarian National Socialist Green Party
The Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (LNSGP) is an American organization that cites the National Socialist German Workers Party as its primary ideological inspiration, while also incorporating elements of Libertarianism and the Green movement. It has not been established whether LNSGP has any activity or existence other than through the website associated with the domain name nazi.org. . .
The LNSGP at present has no intention of gaining ballot access or fielding political candidates, and it has been suggested that it is a joke, e.g. in its entry at politics1.com,[1].
Man, do I. When was that? Like a month ago? Time files. Or better - time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
Simply not true - gun ownership among criminals in the uk is pretty low.
Nonetheless . . .
Joyce Lee Malcolm: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control
It's also a conveniently great excuse for the corporate slaves in Congress to decry those terrorist facilitators at Mega and The Pirate Bay.
I think there is a more interesting question. Kim Dotcom had a lot of support on Slashdot and across the internet when it was the US government pursuing him for allegations of criminal copyright infringement. How much of that support will evaporate now that he has been linked to Defense Distributed's gun project? I would think there will be at least some who will turn up their nose at this. There are a lot of progressives around here, and many of them are opposed to personal firearms ownership.
NOW THEY'RE SCARED. NERDS WITH GUNS!!!!
Nerds with guns? What an idea.
Some Techies Hear Call of the Shooting Range
Eric S. Raymond's Home Page - Eric's Gun Nut Page
Exactly which gun control law does this circumvent?
Why 3D-Printed Untraceable Guns Could Be Good For America
. . . current law already allows home hobbyists to build their own firearms provided they are for personal use only (and not for sale). Such guns are already “untraceable.” 3D-printing doesn’t change that basic fact — it merely allows a wider range of hobbyists without specialized machine shop skills to do what’s already legal. . . more
But does it sound better than Klingon Opera?
As it is Liz seems unable to produce a smile. Her frowning face isn't exactly the best way to promote our country and its heritage.
HM Queen Victoria seems to have done well without a cheery visage.
HM Queen Elizabeth is certainly able to smile, as you can see in the second photo as she contemplates an object of delight (to many), as well as cause them.
I'm quite certain that Barack Obama is quite clear that he is President and not King at the moment. I'm also reasonably certain that if asked he would be happy he is not a Prime Minister, subject to Prime Minister's Question Time.
Notice that you are suggesting that dishonesty is acceptable.
You misunderstand. The speech is given by Her Royal Highness as Head of State. The speech for the Head of State is written by the Government formed by the Prime Minister. It isn't an expression of personal opinion, but of state policy set by the Government.
I'm curious - do you have a similar view about the lies of Bill Clinton? Did he empower all American men to lie as well? Or are we all responsible before God and our conscience for our own actions?
I would disagree. It's nice to think that royaly has some for of power in the country, but in reality they do not (at least, not in the UK).
Wouldn't it be fairer to say that the royalty, and in particular the monarch, does have meaningful formal power, but that practically it could only be used in extremis? Anything else would probably result in a constitutional crisis.
I'm thinking, for example, of the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Governor-General Sir John Kerr in Australia in 1975.
1975 Australian constitutional crisis
Maybe, so long as they don't mind their parents, brothers/sisters/wife, and children going to a prison camp where they are unlikely to emerge alive.
Just a few more additions -
When Good People Do Bad Things
Political Culture with Thomas Sowell: Free Markets and Marxism
Dr. Sowell was a Marxist for a decade.
Leftists Will be Shot in the U.S. When Marxists come to power
How A Failed Commune Gave Us What Is Now Thanksgiving
RESULTS OF COMMUNISM / SOCIALISM
Reflections on Communism Twenty Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall
The Divergence between Theory and Practice
Richard Pipes of Harvard University has argued that in addition to these proximate causes, the fundamental cause of the collapse “was the utopian nature of its [the regime’s] objectives.” That is to say, the Soviet system from its earliest days pursued goals that were both unrealizable and unpopular, including the attempted creation of “the new socialist man.”11 Those utopian efforts demanded a waste of resources, vast amounts of coercion and fraudulent political propaganda. Martin Malia of the University of California at Berkeley made a similar point: “Of all the reasons for the collapse of communism, the most basic is that it was an intrinsically nonviable, indeed impossible project from the beginning. However important in its genesis were the heritage of Russian backwardness and authoritarianism, or the personal ruthlessness of Lenin and Stalin, it is Marxism that was the decisive factor . . . making communism the historically unique phenomenon it was. And the perverse genius of Marxism is to present an unattainable utopia as an infallibly scientific enterprise.”
These Western assessments of the nature of communism—utopian or otherwise—have great bearing on the disputes and explanations regarding the collapse of the Soviet Union. Thus, one set of the responses to the collapse was shaped by the belief that it occurred because, as Malia and Pipes argued, the system sought to achieve utopian goals inspired by Marxism. In other words, the collapse occurred because theory and practice converged (i.e., Marxist theory compelled communist systems to pursue unattainable utopian goals). The theoretical foundation or blueprint itself was flawed, not viable, as Malia put it. Milovan Djilas, the Yugoslav communist politician who later became a critic of communist totalitarianism, also believed that “the [communist] idea itself contained the seeds of its own inglorious, future collapse. . . . Such visions may encourage us to sacrifice . . . but they are also opiates to the soul. . . . The idea dried up in proportion as the reality legitimized by it grew stronger.”13 . . . .
. . . The reasons leading to the collapse included both sets of factors: some of the ideals or theoretical propositions of Marxism were clearly adopted and zealously pursued but they had adverse, unintended consequences. For example the collectivization of agriculture retarded food production, and state controlled industrialization created a huge, inefficient bureaucracy, diminished incentives of the workers, and contributed greatly to the concentration of political power. Marx and Lenin (initially) believed that communist ideals would command broad popular support and therefore little violence or coercion will be required to implement them. They also believed that all forms of human misbehavior will “wither away” after the proletarian revolution and the seizure of the means of production. As Leszek Kolakowski put it, “Marx seems to have imagined
That might be a plus, particularly as it isn't all that rare for people on Slashdot to seriously accuse various people or groups of conspiring to try to bring about Armageddon based on some distorted understanding of Christian beliefs. Shamefully, that sort of thing tends to attract high moderation - at least it has in the past. Glad you aren't one of them.
Peace