The rule is meaningless, as the old rule required them to automatically force the leader to step down.
And when THAT was inconvienent, they changed it to the NEW rule. I find it somewhat ironic that the Republicans just met to relax their standards of ethical conduct re: their leadership, and you are holding this relaxing of their standards up as ethical superiority?
There's no assurance that they would not just meet and change the rule again if they felt like it. Rules which are non-binding, my friend, aren't really rules....
The Dems would do what is neccessary, when it is neccessary. You don't need a written rule to know what is right and wrong. This whole thing only began because the Republican party was trying to make the Democratic party look ethically inferior, and look how it has blown up in their face; they were forced to change their rule given the ethical problems they are having with leadership. Priceless!
Cycloptichorn
Quote:But the ethically responsible GOP still has a rule, the ethically challenged Dems do not.
I expect the Dems to soon adopt one soon, though.
Baseless opinionate, nothing more. Is this what we are reduced to?
There is NO advantage to having rules that you can change whenever you want! It's not really a rule, is it? Therefore; there is no moral superiority present.
Especially given the, shall we say, colorful personal and professional problems many of the GOP display...
CYcloptichorn
James
Though you head in the right direction, "It's simplicity, stupid", you end up where george comfortably sits...don't get alarmed, folks, nothing new here we haven't seen a thousand times before. This is a happy confidence, warranted upon a first principle of national faith that America cannot become a bad place. It cannot because it is America. That's the guarantee.
What is the nature of this 'simplicity' you speak of?
Quote:The American people have decided that simpler is better. If it sounds good and feels good it must be true, Good vs. Evil, Us against Them. They seem to feel comfortable with the president's "gut feelings" that tell him what is "morally clear", after all what could be simpler than a gut feeling or intuition? No thinking necessary, emotions only need apply.
How is this different from a relinquishment of self-governance through the acceptance, mainly unquestioning, of Authority?
And very - very - much more to the point, what does it mean or portend when THAT state of affairs is desired by,
and is actively promoted by, a coterie of individuals whose desire is centralized and undilluted power?
From David Gergen, Republican, professor of public service at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and editor at large of U.S. News & World Report and who has served as a White House adviser to four presidents.
Quote:The Power of One
By DAVID GERGEN
Published: November 19, 2004
NY Times
Give the man his due: George W. Bush is emerging as one of the boldest, most audacious presidents in modern history.
Whether he is also wise is a question that will preoccupy us for another four years, but the reshuffling of his team in recent days makes clear that he intends to stretch the powers of his office to their limits. Woodrow Wilson once wrote that "the president is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can.'' President Bush comes Texas-sized.
By sending members of his White House staff to run three of the most important departments in the government - with perhaps more such appointments in the offing - Mr. Bush is centralizing power in the White House in ways not seen since Richard Nixon. Nixon had his troika of Bob Haldeman, John Ehrlichman and Henry Kissinger to run the government. Mr. Bush seems destined to run the government with his own troika: Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Condoleezza Rice.
Moreover, he believes he has a mandate for a revolutionary agenda. Conservative presidents, as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. has argued, tend to be consolidators - men like Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon and even Ronald Reagan, who largely accepted the expansions in government made by their liberal predecessors. Mr. Bush is the first conservative whose policies would gradually unwind major commitments like Social Security and progressive taxes. It is increasingly clear that Mr. Bush embraces the view of Winston Churchill: that great leaders should set great goals. The president apparently intends no less than to overhaul government, achieve long-term Republican hegemony over American politics and ensure long-term American hegemony over the world.
In restructuring his team for the second term, Mr. Bush is also acting well within his rights. As long as he doesn't name his horse as proconsul, a president is traditionally accorded the right to choose anybody he wants in his cabinet, including members of his White House staff. Heading into his second term, Nixon named one member of his staff, Mr. Kissinger, as secretary of state and appointed five members of his staff to sub-cabinet posts; Reagan nominated two members of his staff, James Baker and Edward Meese, to key cabinet spots; and Bill Clinton also promoted a member of his staff, Alexis Herman, to the cabinet. Former members of the White House staff who have been good administrators have generally served well in departments. The ability to speak with their leader's voice has always enhanced their authority.
Presidents of the past would also sympathize with Mr. Bush's desire to quell rebellious voices at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency. For more than half a century, White Houses have resounded with complaints about the striped pants set at Foggy Bottom and renegades at Langley. Foreign service officers are especially out of step with the incumbent president: a rising star in foreign service confided a week ago that on a scale of 0-to-10, colleagues in the service would give a 9.5 grade to Colin Powell and a grade of 2 to the Bush administration. Bringing the foreign service on board will be one of the toughest challenges facing Secretary Rice.
The fact that Mr. Bush is acting within his rights does not mean, however, that he is also right. Critics mostly worry that the reshuffling of the national security team signals an even harder, more militaristic line toward the world. That is probably true, but one cannot discount noises from within that the president wants to turn more toward diplomacy. Every White House remembers, after all, how L.B.J. warned his staff after a landslide election in 1964 that they only had a year to get things done domestically. If you were Karl Rove working with the president, wouldn't you want a couple of years of relative peace on the foreign side so that you could concentrate on the domestic agenda now? (Yeah, let's fix Iraq, but for goodness sake, don't bomb Iran or North Korea ... at least not yet.) So, the jury is still out on where security policy is heading.
The more immediate danger is that Mr. Bush and his troika are falling into a trap facing other re-elected presidents: hubris. When presidents win their first elections, they and their teams think they are king of the hill; when they win re-election, they too often think they are masters of the universe. As Richard Neustadt pointed out, even the best of modern presidents, Franklin Roosevelt, fell into the trap when he was first re-elected in 1936. He immediately started overreaching, as he tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 and tried to purge Southern Democrats in 1938. F.D.R. nearly did himself in during his second term.
In Mr. Bush's case, his administration has already shown ominous signs of "group-think'' in its handling of Iraq and the nation's finances. By closing down dissent and centralizing power in a few hands, he is acting as if he truly believes that he and his team have a perfect track record, that they know best, and that they don't need any infusion of new heavyweights. He has every right to take this course, but as he knows from his Bible, pride goeth before. ...
Gergen, who I'm sure you know, is as balanced and careful a Republican as any, a true moderate, and the tone evoked here (and the specific alerts) are unprecedented in anything I've read or heard from him previously.
When george, and yourself, and others buy into this first principle I've noted up top, you hollow out the notion and rationale for 'vigilance' in democracy to the point where it becomes handmaiden to those whom your vigilance ought to target.
Larry434 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:But the ethically responsible GOP still has a rule, the ethically challenged Dems do not.
I expect the Dems to soon adopt one soon, though.
Baseless opinionate, nothing more. Is this what we are reduced to?
There is NO advantage to having rules that you can change whenever you want! It's not really a rule, is it? Therefore; there is no moral superiority present.
Especially given the, shall we say, colorful personal and professional problems many of the GOP display...
CYcloptichorn
Well, cyc, all rules are subject to change. And that includes the Senate filibuster rule that will soon be changed as it applies to judicial nominees, IMO.
Hell, even the Constitution, the ultimate rule of law can and has been changed numerous times.
The constitution is nothing more then just a piece of paper now. We have managed to get ourselves into the one position the constitution was meant to prevent.
One voice absent of dissenting opinion. An arogant, foolish, and abhorent voice as well.
don't fret jr. this too shall pass. most likely in about 4 years.
blatham wrote:
Though you head in the right direction, "It's simplicity, stupid", you end up where george comfortably sits...don't get alarmed, folks, nothing new here we haven't seen a thousand times before. This is a happy confidence, warranted upon a first principle of national faith that America cannot become a bad place. It cannot because it is America. That's the guarantee.
What is the nature of this 'simplicity' you speak of?
How is this different from a relinquishment of self-governance through the acceptance, mainly unquestioning, of Authority?
And very - very - much more to the point, what does it mean or portend when THAT state of affairs is desired by, and is actively promoted by, a coterie of individuals whose desire is centralized and undilluted power?
When george, and yourself, and others buy into this first principle I've noted up top, you hollow out the notion and rationale for 'vigilance' in democracy to the point where it becomes handmaiden to those whom your vigilance ought to target.
I don't think that America cannot become a bad place. Instead I consider it very unlikely - functioning democracies, not in the grip of inward-looking ruling elites, very rarely succumb to this fate, compared to other forms of government. I don't believe we are immune to serious errors - we have made them before - however, I am confident we will, as James Morrison has suggested, form syntheses of competing forces to resolve them.
The lessons of history remain valid (though it is sometimes difficult to decide just which lesson most applies). Recognizing the analogies that can exist with previous events is indeed useful in analyzing contemporary events. The history of the Pelloponesian War is relevant here. Athens made many mistakes, including a measure of hubris, arrogance, and greed. However, despite them all, Athens preserved the values of freedom and democracy, while her enemies, Sparta in particular, stood only for force and murder.
Gergin's piece was interesting. However I believe he is overlooking another likely possibility in his analysis. Previous two-term Presidents have generally ended up consolidating all real power within the White House and working around and behind the various bureaucracies of the State & Defense Departments and the various related intelligence agencies. Certainly Roosevelt and Nixon did this as a matter of routine and both Reagan and Clinton did this as well. I believe it likely that Bush is attempting to directly take on the several entrenched bureaucratic establishments, shape them to his will, and govern through them. If he succeeds, this will instead counter the recent trend towards the centralization of executive power in a White House disconnected from the other organs of the Executive Branch of government. A good thing, in my view.
Chicken Little sat dreaming of a Chicken dominated world beneath a giant oak. An acorn fell and woke Little with a start. "The sky is falling! Oh my goodness, the sky is falling! We'll all be crushed, its the end of the world! I knew when Farmer Jones bought that new tractor, that he was messing with the foundations of the world! The sky, the sky!" The chicken yard was in an uproar, though the horses, cows, pigs, dogs, cats, and even the mice who lived in the barn failed to become excited. "Those stupid farm animals have been misled by Farmer Jones", thought Chicken Little, "now we will all die horrible deaths".
We've heard that the President is an idiot, and a dark genius directing a vast conspiracy to destroy the United States. He has been compared unfavorably to Saddam Hussein, and Adolf Hitler. Some want us to believe that Bush is in league with Osama Bin Ladin, and may even have conspired with him to bring down the Trade Towers. We are told that the administration willfully and knowingly shut its eyes to the dangers of terrorism, and should have done more to protect our security. Without pausing to take a breath these anti-administration partisans then complain that homeland security is destructive of civil liberty. The Patriot Act, we are told, violates the civil rights of every American. The President is condemned for using military force against the terrorists and those who provided them training, logistics, sanctuary, and encouragement. "It's a new Imperialism", cried Chicken Little, "Bush will never allow these poor victims of his greed to ever have self-government again."
The invasion of Iraq if we are to believe the nay-sayers, is not much different than the Nazi invasion of Poland. All of the information that Saddam was an evil man who had broken every promise and covenant upon which the cease-fire was granted, was a deliberate lie spread only by the President of the U.S. Bush must have known that Saddam had no terror weapons. The conservative media made-up all those stories about Saddam paying large sums to the families of suicide bombers. In reality the Iraqi People loved Saddam, and they would have prospered if only the sanctions were lifted. The French, Germans and Russians are more compassionate than President Bush, so they entered into deals with Saddam to help his People by sending large stocks of munitions and other critical items of military utility. The UN may have been expelled from Iraq when their inspections began to dig deep, but Iraq had nothing to hide and UN officials had nothing to gain by letting Iraq continue to violate the conditions of the cease-fire. Yep, the President was determined to attack Iraq as early as 1999, to seize their oil and exact harsh vengence on Saddam for trying to murder the elder Bush while he was the President of the US.
We have heard predictions that any attack on Iraq would result in millions of casualties, ecological disaster, and regional ruin. An American military attack would kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Opponents of the Administration weren't satisfied that the Iraqi government fell in short order, and with minimal casualties. They merely shifted their accusations that the Administration would never turn over government to the Iraqi People, but would steal every drop of oil for the next hundred years. When the terrorists (who never existed we are told) began conducting wide-scale attacks on Coalition forces, that was proof that everyone in Iraq hated the idea of liberation from the Ba'ath Party. Infusion of terrorists from other parts of Southwest Asia, is down-played. Attacks on the Interim Iraqi government, the Iraqi People, and those who are working to re-build the country, we are told, is more proof that the Bush Administration has failed.
Bush would be defeated by an overwhelming majority because of all his crimes and perfidious efforts to transform America into a Police State. Whoops! Well, Kerry was incompetent and too moderate. No, the radical Christians (who make up a miniscule part of the electorate) voted to make their own brand of Christianity the State Religion. No, no, the Republican Party hacked the voting machines. No, no, the American People are a bunch of ignorant sheep who will believe anything they are told ... except the certain truths spoken by the "intellectual" elites in the large urban centers. Wait a minute, the radical left was too moderate.
The Constitution is a dead letter? Come on. Are the two houses of Congress in operation? Has the Bill of Rights been scrapped? Is the press still publishing whatever they wish? Has anyone been arrested and imprisoned for speaking against the administration? Has there been a wholesale round-up of all Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists? Who has been denied the right of Due Process, or been compelled to give testimony against their self-interest? Has the Supreme Court been abolished, or been made subject to Executive fiat? Didn't we just have a free and open national election? Is the Democratic Party afraid that it will be outlawed? What rights and privileges have you personally lost?
"The sky is falling! We'll all be crushed!" Why do you think so? "Because, it's possible. Because there is a potential for governmental abuse. Because there are terrible people in the world who obviously hate Americans, and would like to kill as many of us as they can. Because, a whole lot of celebrities told me so. Because, conservatives are all filthy rich people who hold all of the power and are determined to sink the rest of the world into abject poverty and misery. Because, those who I agree with are not in political ascendence. Because, because...."
blatham
Re:
Quote:"Though you head in the right direction, "It's simplicity, stupid", you end up where george comfortably sits...don't get alarmed, folks, nothing new here we haven't seen a thousand times before. This is a happy confidence, warranted upon a first principle of national faith that America cannot become a bad place. It cannot because it is America. That's the guarantee. "
"Bad" is subjective and is, politically speaking, usually defined by partisan filters: It depends on what side of the aisle one hails from. My own "happy confidence" stems from the very examples cited by your own source, David Gergen. His examples of past administration's, of all political stripes, attempt at power consolidation enjoyed some successes but they didn't get everything they wanted. The system works but, as I alluded to in my last post, judging it with a momentary "snap shot" of political realities at any given time is bound to be disappointing for one side or the other. The Dems now feel the coming of their political apocalypse while the White House feels it is backed by the American public's "Mandate" so that it may push through every thing it wishes. Neither is right in their assessment. Permanent Tax cuts, abortion prohibition, Constitutional definition of "Marriage", Federal Judiciary appointments, foreign policy
all of these discussions could fill volumes but President Bush's "mandate" is not what he would has us believe. On each one of these issues, those who feel the president is in step with them may not feel so given other individual issues. Permanent tax cuts? Fine, but leave the gays alone and don't you dare take away my right to chose the fate of my body
and so on. But, as Gergen cites, Woodrow Wilson's: "the president is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can.'' Bush surely will try to overreach and in the process experience the fate of Nixon, Clinton, et al and be checked and perhaps reversed by the next administration. My confidence is not misplaced as years of American government has served this country well. I may personally not like any particular issue pursued by this administration but to damn it to irrelevance and ignore the feeling of at least fifty percent of my fellow citizens would be a "relinquishment of self-governance" I could not countenance. As a citizen I must speak out when necessary but after the community decision is made must stand by it. As citizens we cannot selectively choose which laws to obey or support. But in America the hope resides in that opinions are not "The whisper of a voice never heard" and that "The Sun will come out tomorrow". Simply put, things can and will change.
With that last statement in mind, the GOP's perceived mandate, with its control of Congress and the White House is also a potential curse. This "mandate" is felt by individual Republicans and conservatives. They may now feel this mandate applies to all their beliefs, it does not. They may feel it is time to push their individual agendas, it is. But witness two things: The GOP movement in Congress to change the rules so that members may continue to work while under criminal investigation and the movement to disallow filibusters. The first presents ethical problems the second removes the protection of minority opinions which some say are obstructionist, but that is what checks and balances are all about. GOP members in Congress should be careful what they ask for since they will have to live with it when they loose their majority, and we all know that will happen at some time. The political pendulum will swing. In addition, the mandate coin is also two sided. Those with such a "mandate" may perceive the freedom to act freely but that freedom also comes with the responsibility to answer to the electorate at the end of the day. When given such power, it becomes difficult to point fingers when the chickens come home to roost at election time.
Even so, the community mandate felt by Republicans now may rob them of one of their most valued assets: their ability to close ranks and win one for the "Gipper". There is no longer a need to "take one for the team". The collective goal of electing G.W. Bush has been accomplished. Indeed, George Bush may now find trying to work with Republicans in Congress just as difficult as with Democrats (Witness the difficulty Bush is having with pushing the Intelligence Community restructuring bill through that body). Some Republicans are already looking towards their next election --some may even have their own White House ambitions. G.W. Bush is not one for nuance but he will have to work within a system whose life-blood is just that. He and his apostles will have to deal and compromise. But the beauty and hope in the American system is that, not only must compromise be made, it also must be respected and the resultant contract with the American people kept.
For the liberals and Dems there may be little joy in Muddville, but they can, at least, take heart in that there is always next season in America. The democrats merely need to select their "Mighty Casey" with care.
JM
James
Your thesis is... "it can't happen here". Or...''the American political system cannot fail". Or..."things can't go too bad for democracy and liberty, that simply cannot happen in America".
This is nationalist hubris, and it's a danger because it does not allow that internal threats of significance might ever evolve. One can put to rest all injunctions to be wary, ie., "the maintenance of freedom and democracy requires constant alertness". It also puts the lie to any claim that a free press (or anyone else) might have a watchdog role to play in your nation. If the system will always self-correct, then no one needs to do much of anything except watch TV or head out shopping.
Let's not make the mistake of assuming that there are but two possible scenarios...democracy as we've know it vs full-blown totalitarianism. Let's instead make the assumption that many possible midpoints might exist on a scale. The centralization of power in the hands of a few non-elected staffers under Nixon was such a point. The illegal use of the CIA by Casey and North and others under Reagan was another such point. The white house sequestering of the CIA to ignore its own analyses and to forward known or suspected falsehoods to the electorate as happened in the runup to the war is another such point (made far more worrisome now with the removal of dissenting voices and the arrival of a toady at the top.)
Any there are many more.
You are comfortable, you tell me, with your confidence that it will all work out. Fine. But I'm not.
Nor are many other thoughtful and educated citizens. To wit...
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17511
asherman
Almost good to see you again. The reunion would have been a tad better though had you refrained from stuffing your post with so many strawmen that it really ought to be wrapped up with bailing wire and tossed into a hayloft.
blatham wrote:James
Your thesis is... "it can't happen here". Or...''the American political system cannot fail". Or..."things can't go too bad for democracy and liberty, that simply cannot happen in America".
This is nationalist hubris, and it's a danger because it does not allow that internal threats of significance might ever evolve. One can put to rest all injunctions to be wary, ie., "the maintenance of freedom and democracy requires constant alertness". It also puts the lie to any claim that a free press (or anyone else) might have a watchdog role to play in your nation. If the system will always self-correct, then no one needs to do much of anything except watch TV or head out shopping.
Let's not make the mistake of assuming that there are but two possible scenarios...democracy as we've know it vs full-blown totalitarianism. Let's instead make the assumption that many possible midpoints might exist on a scale. The centralization of power in the hands of a few non-elected staffers under Nixon was such a point. The illegal use of the CIA by Casey and North and others under Reagan was another such point. The white house sequestering of the CIA to ignore its own analyses and to forward known or suspected falsehoods to the electorate as happened in the runup to the war is another such point (made far more worrisome now with the removal of dissenting voices and the arrival of a toady at the top.)
I don't think that anyone advocates putting all this in automatic and sitting back and watching TV. Our political process is intensely competitive, and, despite all the false hype, our elections reasonably fair and open. Our press is indeed free, both absolutely and relatively to those of many of our constant critics, most notably Canada and France. Our self-correcting mechanisms are intact and functioning.
Of course there are many possibilities between the freest democratic republic and a totalitarian state. France, for example, employs far more central governmental control of the education, indoctrination, public information, and legal processes that govern and control the lives of its citizens than those of any of what they sneeringly refer to as "Anglo Saxon" countries. It is quite unfathomable to me that you don't direct more of your attentions to that state with its enduring authoritarian tradition than ours. In comparison the the functioning of that highly centralized government the incidents to which you refer in the Nixon and Reagan administrations are quite trivial. Bush is now rather systematically taking on the inappropriately autonomous elements in the bureaucracies of the CIA and State Department so he can truly use them in formulating and carrying out policy, instead of conspiring to work around them as others (most notably Roosevelt) did. What's wrong with that?
The analytical products of the CIA are not holy writ. The responsibility of the President to form independent judgements, based on all the information and analysis he can get, as well as his own judgement is clear and unambiguous. I can assure you that CIA estimates are far too often deliberately ambiguous and qualified, mostly to protect the interests of the bureaucrats involved. I suspect the President was holding the CIA close during critical times so he could deal with it decisively at a more propitious time. This is skillful governance, not inappropriate control of information.
These matters are merely quite obvious issues of convenience for partisan politicians whose real disagreements lie elsewhere.
I am not sure where this article about Bush's latest nominee, but maybe it will fit in here.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050112/ts_washpost/a2102_2005jan11&e=1&ncid=
Quote:Michael Chertoff, President Bush (news - web sites)'s nominee to be secretary of homeland security, is widely hailed for his intellectual heft and tireless work habits as a federal prosecutor and judge. But he also faces criticism as an architect of some of the most controversial elements of the Bush administration's domestic war on terrorism that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
As an assistant attorney general in the months after the attacks, Chertoff helped oversee the detention of 762 foreign nationals for immigration violations; none of them was charged with terrorism-related crimes. A subsequent report by the Justice Department (news - web sites)'s inspector general determined that Justice's "no bond" policy for the detainees -- a tactic whose legality was questioned at the time by immigration officials -- led to lengthy delays in releasing them from prison, where some faced "a pattern of physical and verbal abuse."
"We're very concerned that Judge Chertoff views immigration solely through the lens of national security and counterterrorism, and that his record on counterterrorism needs to be closely examined," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, a civil liberties group.
more political positioning by the administration.
i say; "give 'em enough rope"...
DTOM......................
LOL
Bush seems to getting more trouble from his own party now that democrats are vitually powerless this term. So maybe he will have more trouble pushing his own ideas than I thought when the we lost so badly. (counting seats in congress and everything not just the presidential election of which he didn't beat by much)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=US&cat=Immigration
Quote:Republican to Lead Immigration Revolt Against Bush
Wed Jan 12, 2:56 PM ET Politics - Reuters
By Alan Elsner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Republican member of the House of Representatives vowed on Wednesday to lead a revolt against President Bush (news - web sites)'s immigration reform proposals and predicted that up to 180 party members would support him.
Bush in an interview with the Washington Times published on Wednesday said he plans to force a debate in Congress this year on his proposal that would allow some illegal immigrants to obtain legal work permits in the United States.
Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, who heads the House Immigration Reform Caucus, said he was determined to block the legislation. The caucus, which had 71 members in the last Congress, argues for stronger action to stop illegal immigration and a reduction of legal migration.
"Why is this so important to the president?" Tancredo said. "Is it just the corporate interests who benefit from cheap labor? Do they have such a strong grip on our president so that he is actually willing to put our nation at risk, because open borders do put our nation at risk?
I am not sure how I feel about the issue, but I just it important to note how the house of republicans is starting to divide which means that Bush might not have such smooth sailing as originally thought.
JustWonders wrote:DTOM......................
LOL
was it somethin' i
said ???
sorry, i'm really trying to feel the love for dubya, really.
but he keeps doin' stuff that makes me want to
:wink:
Hope you're staying dry, DTOM.
JustWonders wrote:Hope you're staying dry, DTOM.
doin' my best jw. hasn't been easy out here lately. i've never seen it rain so much and for so long here before. but the good news is that it was absolutely beautiful here today.
best get out your bumbershoot though. looks like it's headin' your way.
