Discuss

Lets play a new game. I say something outrageous, you post comments about it. Here we go:

Russia, can go explode.

Check out this editorial!

From the LATimes, no less. From that bastion of such conservative writings from Barbara Streisand comes this editorial, about Clinton and his legacy. Note: I'm not really trying to say that this is a typical liberal view, and I'm not trying to say that because this conservative piece comes from a liberal paper, it is somehow more legitamate. I'm just making fun of the LATimes, basically, because I got the chance when it became topical because I'm linking to this article. There, I hope that clears things up.

Also, I like Clinton more after that Fox interview - it showed me that he was human. But just because I like him more, doesn't mean I'd vote for him any faster. He did a better job than I'm willing to give him credit for, but the places that he screwed up are causing us problems right now. A ton of the anti-American sentiment due to American "imperialism" in the world is due to the insane number of "human-rights" missions that Clinton sent our military out on (without enough support, no less!!!), and not to anything Bush did by himself. But every interview that I've seen with Clinton showed him calm and collected, seemingly in control of the whole process. But this time, he got animated, and it was great television!

A good NYT op-ed for the day

Following up on my thoughts about what to do with convicted suicide bombers from yesterday, LAWRENCE WRIGHT from the NYTimes writes about what we should do with Bin Ladin when we catch him. It's a good piece...

Why are we killing a failed suicide bomber?

Well, 'we' aren't, but our allies in the war on terror are. Jordan sentanced to death one Sajida al-Rishawi, a Iraqi woman, who was part of a suicide bombing attack on western hotels in Jordan a couple of years ago. Her bomb belt didn't work, so she went home, but she later surrendered herself to authorities. She didn't feel guilty, she just turned herself in after Al-Qaida took credit for a suicide bombing that involved four people, and the Jordanian officials said something like, "Uh, Ussama I'm not sure what you were talking about...we only found three bombs! So...there's someone else out there! After them, Ahmed!"

I'm not saying she doesn't deserve to die, I just question which action brings us and Jordan the best results. The crime she committed should have ended in her death anyway, so is it a punishment for us to to kill her? Is it going to be a deterant for these types of attacks in the future? Of course not. She wanted to die...so, what, precisely, are we doing that isn't exactly what she wanted to happen?

I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty (which probably has something to do with some Tolkien quotes)), but I'll concede that if anyone really deserves to die, it would be a suicide bomber. However, all I can see happening from killing one that we manage to catch is that we marytr them anyway, after we give them a chance to tell the world about their cause in a fair court.

I would prefer to use this opportunity for some propaganda of our own, thank you very much. Lets give her a fair trial (already happened), then, lets give her a humane jail cell for the rest of her life. I'm not talking about a fancy American jail cell, with netflix and fresh bread, or even a slightly less fancy Gitmo cell. I'm just talking about maybe a 10x10 concrete cell that is dry, with windows up high from which there is no escape. I'll even give her a chance to excercise everyday (a right that is given to all of America's prisoners, including those at Gitmo, but is denied most other prisoners in the world). I might be willing to give her books to read, or a craft of her choice (within reason) on which to work. There would be no torture, no beatings, just humane treatment and detainment of a prisoner that is dangerous to society. Of course, there would be media interviews...many of them.

There are two reasons for this - first, the interviews would serve the purpose of proving our humane treatment of the prisoner, thus giving the Terrorists no cause to say they've managed to change our culture one iota out of fear. It also would increase 'our' (by saying 'our' I of course mean the allies in the war on terror, because I would do this across the board, and we Americans will get blame for anything bad that happens anyway.) civilized stature in the world. The second thing this would do is absolutely humiliate the Terrorists. Not just the woman in jail, but all those who helped her, all those who promised her a quick pass to heaven, and all those expecting the same treatment. She would be a captive - a well-treated captive - but not free in any strech of the imagination. She would be denied a chance to be a martyr, completely and totaly. She would become just another failure for the side of the terrorist. She couldn't even get us mad enough at her to leave our own principles.

I think that if we start doing things like this it will have a greater impact on the world terrorist movement than our current strategy.

Never, ever buy gas at Citgo

Citgo is the American department of the national oil company of venezuela. Besides being run by an idiot (more on this in a moment), oil from venezuala is much less effecient and ends up poluting more, even though it's cheaper to pull out of the ground and bring to america. The crude oil that comes out of the ground in venezuela needs so much refinement that only five percent of a barel can become gasoline that you put in the car. So, a little less than 95% of the oil from velezuela becomes by product, or gets used in more poluting ways even than gas in the car is.

So, if you're still following me, I'm about to talk about that idiot from venezuela who pretends to be president. I say pretends to be president, not because he doesn't actually sit in the office of the president, but because he really is a dictator. What's more, he sucks, and he keeps small things like free speach and decent jobs/economic systems out of the reach of the citizens of his country. He is so dedicated to becoming a regional power in south america that he is willing to do whatever it takes to his own people, to secure himself a seat of power in the region.

He routinely blasts america and americans. Liberals (like those idiots from NY and Mass. who worked with him directly and ensured him a bigger cut of the money from the oil he was selling) like to think that this is only because of our President, but Chavez doesn't really care who it is, only that our president is the leader of the regional hegemon in latin America (and, in fact, the global hegemon).

Take a look at his comments from the UN floor yesterday (from CNN):

""The devil came here yesterday," Chavez said, referring to Bush, who addressed the world body Tuesday from the same lectern. "And it smells of sulfur still today."

""As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world. An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: 'The Devil's Recipe.' "

Though I'm not sure what he just said here, I'm sure it's meant to be disparaging of our president.

Chavez held up a book by Noam Chomsky on imperialism and said it encapsulated his arguments: "The American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its hegemonistic system of domination, and we cannot allow him to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.""

Going straight to Chomsky got him a lot of points with the libs, I'm sure.

But anyway. The guy's a fool.

Here's what Bolton said about him afterwards:

"I think that [Chavez's] rhetoric today shows exactly what kind of man he is."

Bolton said: "We're not going to address that sort of comic-strip approach to international affairs.

"The real issue here is he knows he can exercise freedom of speech on that podium and, as I say, he could exercise it in Central Park, too. He's not giving the same freedom to the people of Venezuela."

Well said, John, well said.

Signs of an Environmentally Conscious Military

This is a B-52 with two of it's engines running on natural gas...I guess that makes them more of a cost and security conscious military than a clean one, but I guess it's better than nothings.

Thanks Op-For, for the picture.

In Other, more Serious News

The Panda's have started the revolution! Join with them against our human opressors!

What's that you say? This Panda was attacked by a drunk guy? They have drunk people in China?


Well, maybe the revolution against us hasn't quite started yet, but check out this headline: "Panda bites man, man bites him back."

I love it.

A Third Term for Putin is Just What Russian Needs Right Now

"The State Duma Council has put a bill that would allow President Vladimir Putin to stand for a third term on the agenda for November, Interfax reported Tuesday.

The bill, submitted by the regional parliament of Chechnya, would require a constitutional amendment. Under the Constitution, the president is limited to two terms in office."

Chechnya? Chechnya wants another couple years of Putin? I highly doubt it. Remember, he's the one that started to attack them again, and gave them a stupid PM, who is showing his credibility by sending on this bill.

Putin has repeatedly insisted that he will not seek a third term. Leaders of the pro-Kremlin United Russia party have also spoken out against the idea.

Please! Don't throw me in the briar patch!!!

A number of regional leaders and legislatures have called for amending the Constitution to allow Putin to remain in power for another four years.

Would that number be equal to the number that he's replaced with stoges in office?

There's more to the article, but not much and I can't stand it anymore.
If Putin rewrites the constitution to be able to stay in power, Russia won't survive.

Slave trade remarks.

I'm glad Bush put this in his remarks at the UN. It's a huge problem...

There's another humanitarian crisis spreading, yet hidden from view. Each year, an estimated 800,000 to 900,000 human beings are bought, sold or forced across the world's borders. Among them are hundreds of thousands of teenage girls, and others as young as five, who fall victim to the sex trade. This commerce in human life generates billions of dollars each year -- much of which is used to finance organized crime.

There's a special evil in the abuse and exploitation of the most innocent and vulnerable. The victims of sex trade see little of life before they see the very worst of life -- an underground of brutality and lonely fear. Those who create these victims and profit from their suffering must be severely punished. Those who patronize this industry debase themselves and deepen the misery of others. And governments that tolerate this trade are tolerating a form of slavery.

The next part is something that discourages me:

This problem has appeared in my own country, and we are working to stop it. The PROTECT Act, which I signed into law this year, makes it a crime for any person to enter the United States, or for any citizen to travel abroad, for the purpose of sex tourism involving children. The Department of Justice is actively investigating sex tour operators and patrons, who can face up to 30 years in prison. Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the United States is using sanctions against governments to discourage human trafficking.

We only put them in jail up to 30 years? and we only made it a crime to travel on sex tourism involving children? The whole damn thing is disgusting. I hope we're putting them in the same jail cell as the tough guys with murder raps or aggravated assualt charges.

The victims of this industry also need help from members of the United Nations. And this begins with clear standards and the certainty of punishment under laws of every country. Today, some nations make it a crime to sexually abuse children abroad. Such conduct should be a crime in all nations. Governments should inform travelers of the harm this industry does, and the severe punishments that will fall on its patrons. The American government is committing $50 million to support the good work of organizations that are rescuing women and children from exploitation, and giving them shelter and medical treatment and the hope of a new life. I urge other governments to do their part.

We must show new energy in fighting back an old evil. Nearly two centuries after the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade, and more than a century after slavery was officially ended in its last strongholds, the trade in human beings for any purpose must not be allowed to thrive in our time.

A small section of a pretty good speech. He mis-spoke a few times, and had a bad verb tense (by 2004 unicef will have immunized all iraqi children, or something like that). He had good poise and good tone. He commanded respect...except from the person who allowed their cell phone to go off - twice.

Intelligent Life on the Left?

Well, this question is still up for debate, for the most part (heh)...but I did find some evidence for the affirmative, by way of OPFOR today:

In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.

Given these distinctions, there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise.

We are entering an age of unchecked nuclear proliferation and, it seems likely, nuclear terrorism. There is, therefore, no future in which aspiring martyrs will make good neighbors for us. Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies.

This is mostly right...and this is my experience on the ground...does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?

Reciprocity

this is from John Hawkins, and http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifit's something that I've been saying for a while, but since he's got more publicity than I do, he'll probably get listened to better than I:

Exactly what protections are our troops being provided by the Geneva Convention? No enemy we've ever fought or are fighting has abided by it. So, in real world terms, the Geneva Convention provides no protection for our troops whatsoever. If we completely withdrew from the Geneva Convention tomorrow, it would have no impact at all on how our troops are treated.


Granted, the Geneva Convention could be of use in the unlikely event that we were to get into a war with Belgium, Italy, Spain or some other Western European nation. However, isn't the argument we're hearing from Europeans and American liberals that we should treat the terrorists we've captured by the rules of the Geneva Convention (as a matter of fact, better than the rules require) despite the fact that they haven't signed onto the treaty? Since that's the case, why wouldn't the same rules apply to any signatories of the treaty that we fought with? Even if, theoretically, we were doing something as evil as kicking their captured soldiers into industrial paper shredders for fun, shouldn't they give our soldiers every benefit the Geneva Convention requires?

What's that, you say? If we don't do it for their soldiers, why should we expect them to treat our troops with respect? Great! Now why doesn't that apply to our troops and Al-Qaeda? If Al-Qaeda is torturing and murdering our troops, why should we treat their captured prisoners as well as, say, American soldiers that are thrown into the brig? Why should we treat some terrorist from Saudi Arabia who wants to kill American citizens like he's a uniformed soldier who follows the rules of war or worse yet, like he has the same constitutional rights as an American citizen?

Via Instapundit

It's International Talk like a Pirate Day

So, what would happen on college campuses if the President of the US (any POTUS) gave a speach on this day talking like a pirate - even if it was just five minutes long? What if s/he made a remark like a Pirate in front of the UN?

Normally, I think the approval ratings among college students would sky-rocket for at least a month (until we all forgot about it). However, I think that if Bush does it, they'll just make fun of him some more.

I think it would be interesting and fun if the president took notice of pop-culture days like International Talk Like a Pirate Day, especially if he happened to be on a campus that day, though I don't think it would change anything substantialy in the long run.

But what would happen if Bush said "Arrgh Mateys! Sudan (or possibly Burma) needs to walk the plank!" At the UN today? No one could possibly disagree with him...(heh)...and it should give him a boost among college students, but it won't. But what if Clinton did it?

I guess I've concluded that appearance counts much more than substance among college students. Not that that's a new thing. Though I really do want Bush to Talk Like a Pirate in front of the UN today...I mean, come on - it is an International holiday.

One irrelevant old man talking about another who isn't

"I should have been as tough as Putin": Gorbachev

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said on Tuesday he supported tough measures taken by Russian President Vladimir Putin and wished he had adopted them.

Gorbachev, whose political reforms led to the collapse of the communist empire, said he should have squashed the challenge from Boris Yeltsin, his arch-rival and subsequently first Russian president, by sending him into diplomatic exile.

And he said separatist outbreaks that plagued his last years in power should have been crushed by taking their leaders to court.

"I have reviewed my values and made conclusions," Interfax news agency quoted the father of perestroika as saying during presentation of a new book "In the Politburo of the Soviet Communist Party."

The Pope got used

He was used by muslim extremist to further their cause; he was selectively quoted, then ignored when he explained himself. Yes, of course it's partly his fault. However, the situation should not be happening the way it has been.
Lets review, shall we?

Here are some recent headlines:

Pope Benedict: 'God's Rottweiler' Turned Softie? - at ABCNEWS.com - Wed, Apr 19, 2006

Pope Benedict Confounds Critics with Kinder, Gentler Image - at Deutsche Welle - Wed, Apr 19, 2006

Then, he quotes an emperor from the 14th-15th century as an example of the kind of speach people need to avoid, and he gets blamed for espousing the beliefs of the guy. How is that fair? His speach was about the dangers of fundamentalism and violence for all religions. He was calling for greater dialogue and communication.

Then, he gets selectively quoted by someone trying to sell newspapers/make the pope look bad, and now there are people telling muslims that the pope hates all muslims and wants to start another crusade. I can't blame the people for getting pissed off, but I do blame the people ignoring what the Pope was actually saying and then ignoring the clarifications put out by his office and him.

It's very ironic that a speach designed to help avoid religious conflict has help to fan the fires of fundamentalism and extremism.

Check here for more coverage, it's where I found all my facts.

Rove is evil

This guy keeps getting attacked, so there must be something to all the allegations, right? Well, I don't know the guy, but I have a hard time believing he's evil. He's pragmatic, and that probably gets plenty of people correctly mad. But that doesn't mean his goal is to do bad stuff to people.

This article attacks him for protecting the subscribers to a web site he runs (georgebush.com) from a spammer. I see this as a good thing, evidently others do not.

Here's a quote, and you'll see what I mean:

Rove said through White House spokeswoman Dana Perino that he "vaguely remembered" the spam onslaught, but did not recall making phone calls or e-mailing subordinates about it. He also said he could not recall whether he or any member of the White House or campaign contacted the Department of Justice about it.

However, e-mails, phone records and transcripts of secretly recorded phone conversations turned over to defense attorneys make it clear that Rove, in January 2005, was personally involved in finding the culprits who spammed the Bush campaign site.

Doesn't that evoke feelings of plame-war to you? It essentially says: He lied about what he said, and phone evidence proves it. My response - he didn't lie...he said he didn't remember calling anyone, not that he didn't call anyone. If he did call people (which I guess he did), then good for him. Anyone can report an illegal use of their mailing list to the authorities, and if more people did, then more spammers would go down in flames, and the companies that hire them would get in trouble. (so much for helping big business, Rover)

If the FBI took this case a bit more seriously than most reports, then that was their business. I can understand their reasoning, and I might be inclined to agree with them. However, Rove didn't have to ask them to take special care in this case for it to get special attention. The targets of the spam and where the e-mail addresses came from made the case garaunteed to get extra press attention when the story broke, thus giving the FBI good press for stopping annoying spam, and causing some spammers, at least, to think about what they're doing and the chance that they will also get caught.

I'm just tired of reactionary calls of "He's EVIL!!!" whenever Rove does something. Sure, lots of people don't like him, lots of people disagree with him, but that doesn't mean that whatever he does is automatically bad.

Here's something fun

Vote in the straw poll. If you find a good candidate on the list let me know.
I'm kinda still holding out for Condi, but I thinks that's more wishful thinking than reasonable analysis of the current situation.

Here's the link.

A boring day at the office

There's no good news on the wires from Europe today. Which, of course, means that it's a great day for the people in the countries I cover. No bombs, no work for me.

This is a nice change of pace, especially after yesterday's excitement in Turkey.

It looks like the terrorist's hurt themselves this time, with a bomb they meant to explode at a police station blowing up early, in a parking lot outside an elementary school. Lots of kids died, even though the explosion was pretty late at night...but this is swinging public opinion against the bastards (oops, I mean insurgent nationalists), which means the whole thing is not entirely bad. The thing I don't get is why they were trying to bomb a police station in one of 'their' cities - that strategy (designed to put pressure on Kurdish politicians who were working with the turkish government to bring an end to fighting and find a way for the Kurds to live in turkey more comfortably) failed pretty miserably the last time they tried it.

Of course, it could be a plot from the turkish government. But if it is, it's a pretty stupid plot. They're trying to get into the EU, not the union of authoritarian underhanded governments, and people will eventually figure out what actually happened. So I don't buy the theory. The bomb was too crude anyway.

That's it for now. Enjoy your quiet wednesday.

A slight difference of opinion.

Kyrgyz police: Major's Story 'confused'...

Rants and Raves: Kyrgyz police blind...

Basically, the police in Kyrgystan are complaining that the US Army Major who was recently abducted and returned was confused about the details in her story...mostly because she didn't really speak to them much. She gave them her story, and was then taken to a hospital in Germany (I think). The people who found her said that her face was bruised...but the police deny this. Then they say she only looked tired, while the people who found her say she was in clothes much too big for her. The police evidently don't believe that her necklace was stolen because she still had her wedding ring. While this may be their best point, I'm going to wager that it's much easier to rip a loose necklace off of a newly married US Army Major than it is to rip her finger off - which is probably what it would take to get that new ring away from her.

I dislike petty bureaucrats getting in the way of getting the job done.

Remembering 911

Today is the fifth anniversary of the most recent "day of Infamy". It's the fifth anniversay of one of the most significant days of my own young life. On 9/11 I was in New York, like many others, and I watched as the towers fell. That's why I jumped at the chance to remember and honor the victims the way this project is attempting to.

I recieved the assignment to remember Marianne Simone, and here is what I found out about her. Enjoy the reading, and remember one of the lives that was extinguised by an act of madmen.

Marianne Teressa Simone was 62 on 9/11/01. She was a mother of three, and a grandmother of 6. She devoted her life to her kids for 20 years before circumstances forced her to get a job, when she found one in the Twin Towers. She worked hard, and evidently well, because she was promoted several times. She survived the first bombing and continues working at the towers until 2001.

She was a lover of fun times, yet she had sage advice - "Her daughter, Teresa Hargrave, said she always seemed more like Lucille Ball. "She was comical," said Hargrave, 39. "When she was in a room, everyone was laughing." Simone was the one discoing with co-workers half her age at company functions, singing Italian songs about "love or mama" at barbecues, and entertaining her grandchildren with her own silly sayings, such as "molli-colli-folli," meaning "smelly." But Simone was also known for her more serious sayings - when someone lost a job or had a disappointment, it was "One door closes, another door opens," and when a friend needed encouragement, her daughter recalled, "She would say, 'Whatever you feel you can do, you can do.'""

Here is another newspaper article about her.

Please take a moment to pray for her family, and to remember her and the many other victims of 9/11.

Here is a link to the project.

I want to rub Putin's Belly

Just kidding (but did you get the reference?)

We should be watching this. I hesitate to sound the alarm, because I don't know how reputable this website is yet, but we should see some more stuff in the days ahead if it's true.

Putin just made a grab at even more power to fire his governors. Great. Just what Russia needs...more authoritarianism.

Burma

The world needs to get mad about this whole situation.
We need to pay attention to places like Sudan and Burma because they are hotspots for poverty and people that lack options, but have reasons to hate the developed world. This is just one more place that Al Queda and it's ilk find fertile fishing grounds for would-be terrorists. But that reason only applies if you need a personal gain involved with helping people. The people living in these countries have an extremely hard life, and most of them die. Facts are facts, and these facts suck.

UPDATE: Here's another write-up. And some pictures.

Hawkish Democrat

I'm looking for some input here, and when I explain the situation, you'll understand why.

I started an internship in DC (here) this week, and one of my jobs is to attend relevant hearings. (I spent the whole day on the Hill. :) ) I was attending the House Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, and I came across a pleasant surprise. The ranking member (that means the oldest Democrat on the committee when the Republicans are in charge) went off on a rant about how weak we look while we're dealing with Iran, and he essentially called on the president to stop being such a weenie. I want to know if this is for real, or if this is just election season comercial taping. (Homepage, Wiki)

You decide...and let me know what you think. I'd love comments from anyone who's familiar with this guy to tell me what's going on.

I mean, he made me feel liberal...

Ahmadinejad Visits the States

What do you think about this? I think he should obviously have gotten a visa...I mean, he's a former state official, and he's going to be coming to speak to us. I wish I could go to one of his speaches. Not because I respect the man, or really think I can learn a lot directly from his speach. But it would be really interesting to me to hear his view of history from the other side (something which would have to say is probably the wrong side, but I'm not perfect either). The academic reasons for allowing him to come here are tremendous.

And, it's not like he's going to win any new converts to supporting Iran. The people who already hate America will love to listen to him...but no one new will be convinced by his visit. They might be convinced to have a more open mind about the whole thing...but I don't think it's bad to think about all sides before making a decision.

I can see people worrying about security while he visits. And complaining about the exemption from the standard fingerprinting procedure for his visit. However, how much is he really going to accomplish here? He'll be followed by the press (at least)...and even if they do want to discredit this administration (a pessimistic view of events) breaking a story about him spying is too great an accomplishment to ignore. Plus, there will also me a government escort.

I can understand Mitt not wanting to use public funding to protect him and transport him. I respect that, and I probably agree with it...but I also agree with Mayor Mumbles (of Boston) who decided to provide the police escort anyway, using city funds (but not for the reasons he thought it was a good idea). It's not like you want to take any chances with his life...there are a lot of crazy people who might try to kill him...and as much as I might like that idea emotionally, it would just be a bad situation for us. Mumbles just wants to stick his finger in the governor's eye.

There is the argument that we don't really want him to get a chance to speak to the assembly at the UN...but again, it's not like he is going to convince anyone that he hasn't already convinced.

To top it all off...rejecting his visa request would have opened a can of worms as well...we'd have to justify it, or look bad in the international community. Rejecting him is a pleasure that just isn't worth the risk.

Some good news in an overall bad story

Turkey dislikes us (20% approval) more than twice as much as it dislikes Iran(43% approval) ...and it barely prefers Europe to Iran (45% approval). I can understand why they wouldn't be crazy about Europe right now - Turkey should be part of the EU soon, but Europeans aren't taking them seriously.

But the 20% approval is disappointing, even if it isn't completely surprising. Turkey used to be one of our biggest supporters, but I guess opinions are changing on the heels of the lastest Kurdish bombing campaign.

However, there was this gem tucked away at the bottom of the article (and I can't fault the placement of the paragraph, even though I rue the reasons it was placed at the bottom.):

"When broken down by age, the findings showed younger Turks have warmer feelings toward both the United States and the European Union than the national averages."

At least the young people who will eventually be in control like us better than the national averages. I'd like to know more about this, but that isn't the story here, so I'll have to wait.