IchorFigure

Bryan Phillips who blogs at LiveOaks has published a book called Individual Rights and Government Wrongs. Check it out at his book's page here: http://individualrig...mentwrongs.com/

Well I did a search for "campus" and no related threads came up so here it is. I'm also not sure if this is the best forum for this thread, but it seemed as good as any. Here's the e-mail announcement from ARI: http://campus.aynrand.org/ Looks pretty cool. It's great they really are surrounding themselves and embracing modern technology to communicate their ideas. In this instance the AR Campus sounds like "open learning" some academic institutions have begun offering. I'll definitely check it out. Edit: Just so its apparent I don't work for ARI or anything, I only wanted to post this news.

Wow that's awful! It seemed like he was doing okay. How sad. I agree with other comments elsewhere that he was a total inspiration. When he was speaking you forgot where you were and got drawn into his words. He was a great man and the world was a better place for having him.

The sad reality is that I fully expect Obama to become like Jimmy Carter once he is out of office. Even then we will not be rid of him. He will still be meddling and telling the world what it should do for years to come unfortunately.

I think that you have copy and pasted the wrong words here, you'll want to be taking that to Richard Dawkins site. I'm not (and most Objectivists I'm familiar with don't seem to be) "obsessed" with religion. Maybe check out any of the dozens of topics here unrelated to religion before drawing your conclusions.

According to ARI's latest issue of Impact, Michael Berliner has a new book coming out in March 2012. It's based upon Leonard Peikoff's online video course Understanding Objectivism. The Understanding Objectivism course is $150 on the AynRandBookstore site while this upcoming book is $18. Seems like a great alternative for those of us who can't afford the full blown course. It can be pre-ordered already on Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Objectivism-Guide-Learning-Philosophy/dp/0451236297/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323454858&sr=8-1

I just had noticed that there was an older topic in this forum for Rand's work in French and as I was reading November's ARI issue of Impact it just happened there's a portion on AS in French. It came out in September and the article states it took five years to finish. The translation was spearheaded by Andrew Lessman president of ProCaps Laboratories and ARI assisted to advice the translation. It's up on Amazon.fr now as well as the Ayn Rand Bookstore online. http://www.amazon.fr/gp/product/2251444173/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d8_g14_i1?pf_rd_m=A1X6FK5RDHNB96&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=13MHS3XDXRJK3K7NQYHS&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=463375533&pf_rd_i=405320

Thanks for that article. I'm not technically knowledgeable enough to understand 100% of how DNS works, but it sounds like the law would make the internet less safe in that regard, no surprise. If anyone wants to read the bills themselves here they are. Just click the "show full text" button to see it. They're not too terribly long, and only a bit complex and full of qualifications: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3261 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-968

I've been playing this off and on lately so funny I see a topic here. I haven't finished it yet so I can't say whether the game's story winds up giving you more info about it one way or the other. I don't think the Elder Scrolls series aims to imply this kind of straightforward good versus bad. It's very much the opposite of games like Fable or Bioshock with their explicit good versus bad choices (terrible implementation and morality aside). Instead in Elder Scrolls you're free to do it all, usually with little permanent repercussions. For example there's a quest in this game where you decided to turn in or defend someone fleeing as a traitor. The game really doesn't give you the kind of info you need to make a solid decision, and either way you choose the results are nearly the same it's just your choice. And in the thieves guild and Dark Brotherhood quests it's not at all about making good decisions its just for the fun of getting to play the role of a manipulating thief or an assassin. So far in my experience the game gives you no good info to decide one way or the other (except, well on a personal level Imperials do nearly behead you lol). But on the whole both sides seem basically the same. Just two groups of medieval conquerors who want to stay in power. Sure you can draw some similarities to real world history and events. But I mean in the end Skyrim is a world where magic, monsters, and meddling powerful deities actually exist. So there's no good way to draw upon those kind of analogies. And ultimately I think the side you choose is left intentionally neutral so that it adds to replayability. Either way can be interesting and is up to your preferences. Edit: Also this should probably just be in the video games forum instead.

Which book is that?

Unfortunately that's my experience so far too. There's surprisingly little info about it. There are a number of things about it that make me uneasy enough to not support it however. For example holding the hosts like ISP, the search engine company, or site host accountable for ensuring no protected content is placed without permission at all. As well as the government ordering the ISP's to try and obscure and deny access to "rogue" sites outside the U.S. that host pirated content. Law is quite difficult and complex to apply to concretes, but I don't think that would be the proper way to go about protecting IP rights. And it would only cause unintended consequences and give the government its foot in the door to telling ISP's what they can give access to.

I've only just learned about the SOPA / Protect IP bill being considered in Congress. You can read more about it here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111115/15040016780/sopaprotect-ip-would-be-hideously-bad-video-gamers.shtml http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/at-web-censorship-hearing-congress-guns-for-pro-pirate-google.ars This is another clash between new technology and applying the rights of life and property to them. Do you think the bill is proper or is it dangerous?

Good news I'm still reading the Logical Leap now, it's more difficult to digest than I'd expected.

Alex Epstein debated a representative from Greenpeace recently on energy and environmentalism: http://www.livestream.com/theundercurrent/video?clipId=pla_05433196-7e87-4b44-b225-69a93fd6588c This video is not a proper debate per say. It's a panel discussion of financial experts with Yaron Brook: http://arc-tv.com/navigating-the-markets-three-years-after-the-financial-crisis/ ARC recently linked this on ARCTV. It picks up slow, and the first speaker is utterly slow and boring and contributes nothing. The second man is some bureaucrat, and there's a woman involved in company policies who constantly looks like she's about to burst into tears. After they all speak and give their uncontroversial, say-something-that-says-nothing opinions Yaron absolutely steals the show. It's worth listening to the others dry boring opinion just so the contrast is that much better. It nearly borders into debate territory when all three of the other speakers begin looking chided, and seek safety in each others groping support. The bureaucrat was part of the team that put Dodd-Frank together and gets taken to task properly. He defends it saying "its distilled collectivized wisdom and choices of the market in a law". Oy.

"I read a book by John Daniel (a three volume series) entitled: "Scarlet and the Beast"." Looks like paranoid freemasonry conspiracy theory mongering from a simple Google.

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/26/141659992/occupy-wall-streets-most-unlikely-ally-the-pope For Objectivists this is par-for-the-course. Jesus was a socialist and so is the Pope. I guess Bill O'Reilly will be switching over to MSNBC.

Hi guys, this issue is very important to me and so I hope it's acceptable here to make lengthy posts. A new Michigan repeal bill represents the latest and best hope in this unique time to get rid of the D.R.A. I think it's crucial to get as many people as possible to advocate for its repeal and not let this opportunity go to waste. That's why I've written the following essay. It's long, but I feel it is necessary because so few people have ever cared to articulate or examine the D.R.A. in any depth. My essay was written for Michigan, but the fundamentals of it can apply to any state that now has a D.R.A. or any state that will pass them in the future. Currently that means Michigan, Texas, New York, and New Jersey. Thanks for reading. TIME TO END MICHIGAN'S DRIVER "RESPONSIBILITY" CASH GRAB FEES 1 Introduction and History Like any state, driving in Michigan is full of hazards: bad weather, potholes, and endless road construction. But chances are if you're a Michigan citizen you or someone you know is familiar with another type of danger, one that is potentially much more ruinous. That danger is the pernicious threat posed by the Driver Responsibility Act. If you've never heard about the D.R.A. then consider yourself lucky, because once you have encountered its cruel and unusual extortion your very livelihood is held forfeit. What is the Driver Responsibility Act and where did it come from? The first Driver Responsibility law began in New Jersey. Pragmatic lawmakers desperate for cash got a look at the revenue it brought in, setting the example for the nation. Since then New York, Michigan, Texas, and Virgina have also passed essentially similar laws. While other states such as Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island have flirted with ideas for passing their own. (And with nearly every state in need of money you can bet politicians everywhere will be eyeballing its gold filled pinata). Late in 2003 the then Governor Jennifer Granholm was in need of a budget proposal that addressed the massive state debt (which notably has remained). Significant cuts to spending however were apparently considered inconceivable. So Governer Granholm and several (mostly Republican) lawmakers cut a deal to create the Driver Responsibility Act. The bill was Introduced into the Senate by Republican Jud Gilbert- backed by 5 Republicans and 2 democrats- which then sailed with little opposition through both houses and became law. While Governer Granholm and the Democrats are typically assumed responsible for the bills creation, it is clear that both parties should be recognized for taking part in its inception. Michigan's incarnation of its Driver Responsibility Act itself attaches hefty fines to traffic violations that are assessed twice over two years. Most routine incidents fall under its list that will trigger a fine, ranging from lack of proof of insurance, accumulating 7 points for any sum of petty traffic tickets. On the other end of the scale are things like drunk driving and vehicular homicide. The fines for outstanding points on your record alone starts at $100 for 7 points, up to $500 for 15. Fees for other things range from $100 up to several hundred dollars. Once assessed the person has a deadline of 30 days to pay the fees in full or get their license revoked. 2 Purpose of the D.R.A. and Challenging Common Defenses for It As usual the premise of the law is right in its name. The idea being that the eponymous "irresponsible" drivers should be punished financially by paying more. The D.R.A. has been law for 8 long years now and it's high time to question its supposed purpose as well as examine what it has accomplished. There are typically 3 main justifications used in defense of the D.R.A. law. Among those are the suggestions that a D.R.A. protects drivers, makes roads safer by incentivizing compliance with laws, and which supposedly leads to lower car insurance rates. Let's take a look at the first defense, that it protects drivers. Anyone who can read though the brief bill itself can see that the law does nothing to introduce new or unique protections which had been lacking. The Act is a straightforward set of fines for existing traffic violations intended to discourage by financial punishment. All the actual requirements for legal protections arise from basic rights like property laws, and in the case of civil disputes, tort laws. Threats from factually objective danger such as vehicular homicide, fleeing a crime, and drunk or reckless driving are already covered implicitly under basic rights and are already properly enforced by law and police without the D.R.A. At best then the law is redundant, however that is the least of its flaws. Next let's see about the suggestion that a D.R.A. lessens traffic violations in general as well as car insurance costs. Using Michigan's own Senate investigation conducted from 2004-2007 I need only to point out that pertinent rates of offenses rose in nearly every instance in each new year. That includes everything from the serious to the mundane: manslaughter, felonious driving, fleeing the police, driving while impaired, no insurance, or driving with a suspended license, and accumulating 7 violation points. Due to their nature, the serious types of offenses involving death, fleeing police, or felonies are a relatively small portion of violators who by character are more likely to disregard laws to begin with. While looking at the comparatively massive increases in mundane offenses indicates an obvious connection to regular citizens who are either too poor to cope with the ensuing snowball of fines or otherwise are uncharacteristic violators. From 2004-2005 offense rates for accumulating 7 or more points on a license skyrocketed from 7,600 up to 40,000 and have since settled above 36,000. That is five times as many! The rates for persons driving with no insurance rose 26% from 8,000 to 24,000. And driving on a suspended, revoked, or expired license all went up as well. From a combined 60,000 up to 150,000 cases, which is 2.5 times as many violations. Clearly the explosion of petty offenses is linked to an inability to pay fines which trigger withdrawal of licensing and result in the average citizen taking more risks getting to work. Here I'll conclude with the acknowledgement of the report itself by saying: Despite legislators' goal of decreasing violations, Michigan motorists have been committing serious violations at an increasing rate since 2004. Many violations have seen large increases over the last four years, but one of the most notable is the rise in "driving with a suspended license" This rise is likely due in part to the licenses suspended for failure to pay assessed driver responsibility fees. Evidently, the cost of the driver responsibility fee in addition to the reinstatement fee has increased the number of drivers who take their chances driving without a valid license. (Driver Responsibility Fees: A Five Year Checkup by Elliot Wild, page 1) In its wake the D.R.A. has left a severe multiplication of driving offenses. Offenses not by the usual suspects, but by ordinary citizens simply incapable of meeting payments. Thus the D.R.A. creates these new criminals. But has it lowered the rates of car insurance premiums by keeping those nasty "irresponsible" drivers off the road? In 2004 Michigan had an average combined vehicle insurance premium of about $840.00. Back then Michigan ranked as the 13th most expensive in the nation. Today in 2011 those rates have risen about $1,600 up to $2,500 to weigh in as champion with the most expensive car insurance premiums in the U.S. Nearly triple what it once was. It is shamefully clear that the passing of the D.R.A. has at best done nothing at all, and at worst exacerbated problems in every aspect it was supposedly intended to improve. So what then was its actual intended purpose? Beneath the wafer thin venear of posing as a benefit to society, its role is clear: for this state floundering in irresponsible debt to get its hands on your money. Born itself out of bi-partisan budget negotiations between Governer Granholm and lawmakers, it was a way to dole out boatloads of what amount to taxes while pinning it on easy scapegoats; the "irresponsible" drivers. Going back to the Senate's D.R.A. evaluation, the law appears to loot around $60 - $100 million per year, while between 2004 and 2008 it confiscated about $380 million total from the public. Here is the sole reason why an unjust law such as the D.R.A. has remained in force for so long. It is a prized cash cow to milk the masses. Notably at the same time however Michigan's spending and debt have both increased, making even that $100 million a year look like peas. Debt from 2004 into 2009 increased from 61 to 76 billion, and has since become 72 billion in 2011. So much for an attempt at a budget that would make Michigan fiscally tenable. 3 The D.R.A. is Unjust and Wrong So far I have discussed how the law came into being and how it is ineffective, even damaging, as a law. Commonly one of the only arguments you will hear regarding the D.R.A. is that it should be condemned for charging a person twice for a single offense, and punishing the poor the most. Both of these things are true and entirely damning, however it is not enough. As long as that is the only opposition that can be summoned against the D.R.A. it stands little chance of successful repeal. I argue that it is out and outright unjust and wrong. Wrong for the poor, or the rich, or for Michigan, or for the nation, at all period. And because it is wrong in principal it is also wrong in theory and a monstrosity when put into practice. The only function of government is to protect every person's individual rights so that they can be free to consider their choices, and then act to pursue the means of living their life. The so-called Driver "Responsibility" Act like the vast amount of laws existing today does the exact opposite of that. Instead it compels a person against their freely chosen evaluations and planning to pay large and arbitrarily denominated fees so that the State may continue throwing money into it's void. For any person scraping by with barely the means to pay for their basic living expenses any random misfortune or a bad day of driving could result in being fined via the D.R.A. These brand new extortions thrust into their life will now compete for their already scarce time, effort, and money. In a lose-lose situation they must attempt to choose between paying for rent, food, daily costs, and now the impending snowball of fines which threaten to bring their whole livelihood crashing down. The ones who have little choice but to risk putting off the fines will then typically lead to their license being suspended, which will likely lead to yet more fines. In the end the person can't legally drive, and if they can't drive, they can't work. And if they can't work they have to look to either the government or charity to continue living. I'll only indicate the perverted irony of the government demanding cash to sustain its huge amounts of spending on the welfare state, which then breaks and strangles their ability to live, as they helplessly have no option but to turn to that same government welfare. Of course unlike a person who has gone into financial debt of his own accord, government cash grab fines are not purged by a bankruptcy. Even having your life wholly destroyed by the D.R.A. means the fees still remain as a poisonous cloud preventing them from even the opportunity for beginning over. This is the true reality of the maliciousness behind the D.R.A. The example above demonstrates why it hits the poor the hardest. They are usually people who were either born less well off, or the young attempting to financially begin their adult life. But as I suggested the D.R.A.'s wrong approach means that it is impractical and poisonous for everyone regardless of status. Whether a person has $100 to his name or millions it hardly matters. That crucial portion of the person's life, time and energy represented by that saved money is coldly siphoned away by the D.R.A regardless. Since the injustice of the law is directly connected to its impracticality, it's useful to detail what that means for the economics. Officials have noted that fines assessed under the Act only bring in about a 50% actual collection rate.A law like the D.R.A. views the public as a font of walking money to be plundered. It expects people to just cough up results "somehow" magically out of the blue. Nevermind whether you have the money, just pay- or else! But in fact people are not uniform robots who can continue to prosper under any impossible circumstances. The 50% fine collection rate reflects this. For any honest person who understands how the law operates it is an obvious and logical conclusion the D.R.A. not only creates, but it then perpetuates and engenders poverty. (This is the same flawed view that politicians use when they establish high taxes and project it will rake in X amount of revenue, only to be "surprised" when it results in shortcomings due to crippling or driving business away.) While its true that the Act punishes a person unjustly by charging them for the same thing twice, consider that a third punishment is also in play. The forgotten and most important punishment is reality itself. A truly bad driver who chooses to take irresponsible and risky actions while driving will suffer the consequences in due course. The results are a ruined car, injury, higher insurance rates, a law suit, or whatever the particular incident involves. Traffic violations then are the true second punishment, while fines imposed by the D.R.A. are actually a third. If Johnathan Swift were alive perhaps he would propose a fourth punishment by law that introduces new and even more severe fees for failing to pay D.R.A. fees. But let's not give them any ideas. What can be said for a law that is admitted by its own enforcers to not work, ruins lives, inculcates poverty, drives up car insurance prices, and only serves as an enormous tax without having to pronounce the "T" word. It's disgracefulness in action plays out as its massive unpopularity among voters as well. The D.R.A. has come under not one, not two, but four different attempts at its repeal, from Democratic and Republicans alike. To be specific, Democratic Senator John Gleason introduced a repeal in 2007. Followed by Republican Edward Gaffney in 2008. Followed by Bettie C. Scott a Democrat who proposed her own only in 2010. This year Bruce Caswell, a Republican Senator, has presented his own D.R.A. repeal. This most recent attempt has already passed through the Michigan Senate and is now in committee limbo in the House. This Bleeding State Tax Cashgrab must go, and it is long past due for it's repeal. It's very significant to consider Virginia's case of enacting a D.R.A. law. Passed in 2008, Virginia's Law was met with such outrage and opposition from the public that it was repealed completely after only 6 months. The Virginian's saw what a terrible piece of work a D.R.A. represents and took action to throw it out. The lesson is that it has been done before, and we can do it in Michigan. The sad fact is that no one in the media will likely mention it or the D.R.A. That is why I wrote this article. Someone needs to be calling attention to the grotesque injustice and rally for its repeal as soon as possible. Senator Caswell's bill to repeal the D.R.A. is our latest and best shot at rejecting the corrupt law in our state. What must be done is to agitate, insist, and inform the politicians in the Michigan House that we support this repeal. The House representatives need only to pass it. For the moment it is stuck in the traffic committee but with enough prodding and provoking we can remind them we won't let it simply rot and be forgotten to become failed repeal number five. So here I urge you to consider the issue carefully. If you agree like I do that the D.R.A. is a monstrosity then here's how you can help to fight for its repeal. 4 What You Can Do As of this writing bill 0166 to repeal the D.R.A. is under review in the House traffic committee. It could be weeks or months before it is submitted for amendments and put up for a House vote. During the time we now have it is crucial to help build support for its passage. It is true that two of the guiltiest culprits for enacting the D.R.A. are now safely out of the reach of their constituents backlash. In particular, Jennifer Granholm's and Jud Gilbert's terms are at end. However while Jud Gilbert (the D.R.A.'s primary sponsor) is not up for re-election he is still a sitting House member who will have to vote on its repeal. You can contact his office via his congress page here and shame him for helping create such a law. His last rotten shot at redemption is to help get rid of it. Otherwise all you need to do is simply contact your Michigan House Representative and tell them you are urging them to vote for the D.R.A. Repeal bill 0166. Click this link to find your district representative and email them. Please do not assume that if your representative is a Republican that it is good enough to assume all Republicans would support it. Keep in mind how often repeals have been tried and failed in the past. Every ounce of support helps! Even if a representative were convinced you can help give them confidence their voters are behind them and that it is the right and just thing to do. If you would like to view Bruce Caswell's bill to repeal the D.R.A. you can view the PDF document here. Or follow it's progress here. Ideally, I would hope for a D.R.A. repeal like Virginia's which throws the whole law out and refunds the victims. Unfortunately Senator Caswell's repeal does not include refunds, and after modification in the Senate it keeps fines for violent or objectively dangerous violations. However I still think it is the best opportunity presented at this time to reject the majority of this bad law. The content of this writing is entirely my own, so I give anyone free permission to copy, reference, or quote any portion or all of it. So long as it helps to end the D.R.A. Send portions of my article to your friends, or family, or activist groups. To anyone who assists me in this cause I'm grateful for any of your efforts. Thank you.

I love Peter Schiff and we are arranged to get married. There, I said it. Seriously though this is a great vid it contains just about every false argument you'll find from protestors all in one condensed place. Here's a mini timeline of their arguments: The first man uses a common argument that high taxes and the govt. spending on WWII ended the depression. A common false Keynesian economics argument. Peter argues the high tax rates were such that few even paid them and the wars end boosted the economy. The same man next argues that the wealthiest producers would still prosper and produce just as much with high taxes and restrictions. An argument that amounts to blind robotic Determinism. "Someone else would have done it anyway". He assumes people will always produce wealth magically just "somehow" no matter what the burdens are. He mentions the "croney" Bill Clinton who helped repeal part of the Glass-Steagall Act which placed restrictions between banks and investment banks. Statists cling to this one factoid because it's the one single tidbit of deregulation they can point to and blame the free market amongst the massively regulated banking industry. At 5:00 another man asks a question but I can't make out his statement. But at 6:50 he makes the non-sequitor that the alternative to a powerful statist government is anarchy and no government which Peter is not advocating. 7:20 someone asks "where should we be protesting then". He replies the White House, the Fed, Congress. "But does it really matter where if the idea is (inaudible)". Uhmm yes, it does matter. 11:00 the same man blames the short-term thinking of business. Which is totally true but when you subsidize their failed short-term irrationality you reward it. So the answer is to punish irrational short-term business thinking by letting them fail. 15:40 "Which one regulation repeal caused it". Again, the only example is the precious Glass-Steagall Act. Then at 16:30 the same self-righteous man has the nerve to straight up tell him he wants to force him to take his money. Peter's reply "I would stop working, see you next February". The rest of the video is either redundant or inaudible. The impression I'm left with is that O.W.S. protestors (the better among them) are terribly ignorant of history, economics, politics, and human nature.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_TRADE?SITE=MABED&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT I read about this last week but I still don't see a topic for it, so here it is. Obama signed a trade agreement with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. I've had a hard time finding particular facts about what the agreement actually does or enables. As far as I can tell so far though this seems like an overall good step. Apparently they were originated under Bush 2 and then left by the wayside until now. Concerning Obama's gain in all of this I can't really figure it out. Typically there's nothing that monster doesn't do to suit his ends. But U.S. unions oppose free trade because it "hurts" American products. So what's in it for him? Is this a little bit of an attempt to pull his popularity out of the gutter and pragmatically please the new congressmen around him? Are these trade deals useful or are there hidden catch-22's that actually hamper or create new immoral disasters?

Would that would be a nondisclosure agreement? If so then I think you're right that it would be proper to bring him into court. But only between him and the informants and their companies.

Was he getting private info from other companies by unlawful means? If so then probably. All I get out of reading articles in the media though are vague accusations of "insider trading".

It's at the very end of chapter 7. That part is about Roark and Mike's friendship forming. It's just showing how they have a mutual understanding.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEDGE_FUND_INSIDER_TRADING?SITE=WYCHE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT "Rajaratnam's punishment fell far short of the 24 1/2 years prosecutors had requested." "sentenced Thursday to 11 years behind bars - the stiffest punishment ever handed out for the crime." "Rajaratnam's lawyers had argued for 6 1/2 to nine years. Defense attorney Terence Lynam asked the judge to show compassion because of Rajaratnam's illnesses, saying: "He does not deserve to die in prison." "The Rajaratnam probe relied heavily on the most extensive use of wiretaps ever for a white-collar case. Prosecutors captured conversations in which he and his accomplices could be heard gleefully celebrating their inside information." So basically this guy has been sentenced to die in prison because he is wealthy and violated some undefined and unmentioned standard of what equals "inside trading".

So much the worse for their cause.

Ha, clever. So I'm waiting to see if there's going to be like counter-occupation protesters. Has this taken place yet? If I lived in a big city where these were taking place I'd sure consider doing it.