Bush's Speech and Iraq Policy

Last night I wrote a general statement about Iraq policy in an e-mail. I'd like to start by posting an adaptation of that here, followed by updated comments since hearing Bush's address tonight.

Spreading "democracy" is destined to fail without other subsequent conditions being met. The simple ability to elect a government does not guarantee freedom, security, and prosperity. In fact, it can do quite the opposite. If the people of a country do not have the right values, they have the ability to elect awful leaders. After WWII, we saw a lot of Arab nationalists taking power in several Middle Eastern countries. They downplayed the role of Islam in government and were generally thugs and strong-men. Despite this, fundamentalist Islam remained as the undercurrent of popular opinion. By removing these Arab nationalist strong-men and bringing democracy to the Middle East, we achieve the exact opposite of that which we want. Since the people are motivated primarily by fundamentalist Islam, they will elect leaders that reflect this interest. Thus in Afghanistan we see Sharia law and a Constitution largely based on Islam. In Iraq we see a slightly watered-down version of this, with the religious majority of the country in power. In the Palestinian territories we see the fundamentalist group Hamas popularly elected into power. In Lebanon it seems highly possible that the fundamentalist group Hezbollah will gain popular support and rule the country. Are you starting to see why democracy is not an inherent good?

What exists in Iraq now is a very weak government that is propped up only by our presence there, and does not actually reflect the popular will of the country. Most of the will of the country is either behind Sunni terrorists or Shi'ite militias, both killing each other and us in the process. I do not think it that far off to call the current situation a civil war. The only way to really obliterate the insurgency is to be absolutely ruthless. In 2003, extremist Shi'ite militias took control of Falljuah and occupied the city. (Correction: Fallujah is Sunni, not Shi'a. I mixed it up with a similar occurence in Najaf and Karbala, two centers of the Shia. Thank you Jason for the correction!) Our response was weeks of negotiation followed by a very timid threat that we would enter the city if they did not leave. We gave them ample warning, they left, we performed some "operations" and "took back" the city. We scattered these forces, only to have them prop themselves up elsewhere. They actually came back and re-took Fallujah, and we did the same kind of thing. The only really effective way to stop such an insurgency is to absolutely crush every hope that the opposition has. They have to be absolutely convinced that nothing they can do will achieve their objectives. We have not come even close to doing this. We have been afraid of civilian casualties and causing too much damage, and thus have never engaged in the kind of military operations necessary to crush an enemy. Instead, our primary strategy has been to pour ridiculous sums of money into the country in the attempt to create jobs and economic prosperity. But economic prosperity is impossible without first having the rule of law and well-protected security. We virtually ignored the security situation and poured all our effort into reconstruction prematurely. Not only was the reconstruction INCREDIBLY half-assed, but it was impossible to achieve given the security situation.

As I see it our only option for victory is to be incredibly ruthless. We assassinate Al-Sadr (the biggest leader of the extremist Shi'ite militias) and every other Islamic cleric that advocates violence of any kind. We move into several cities and decimate insurgent bases of operation and weapons caches. But most importantly, by being ruthless in hitting these targets, we must scare the living crap out of anyone that even thinks of supporting the insurgency. I am talking absolute Machiavellian tactics here. To do this we would have to completely abandon the notion (for the time being) of reconstructing Iraq. Reconstruction is not possible until the enemy has been completely wiped out or has such an utterly devastated morale that they see no point in further fighting. So in summary, we completely abandon all notions of creating a democracy and reconstructing the country economically, and turn it back into a severe war zone until the insurgency is crushed. At that point, we could consider economic reconstruction, and only at that point.

Here are my thoughts about President Bush's address to the nation tonight:

I have mixed feelings about Bush's address tonight. Surprisingly, there were several aspects of his speech that I found to be encouraging. While I am skeptical of the actual implementation of these positive suggestions, they do sound encouraging. For example, Bush openly recognized the fact that our rules of engagement and general counter-insurgency strategy have been utter failures. He specifically recognized that we did not have a commitment to hold territory once we "cleared" it of insurgents and that in many cases we would not even disrupt certain insurgent bases of operation for fear of offending Iraqis. I am very encouraged by his promise to eliminate these restrictions and to place securing actual territory as a prime objective.

However, I am skeptical as to how much these new rules of engagement will be implemented. Bush's speech tonight was far from promising ruthlessness. The rhetoric was partially there, but I question how tough we will actually be on the insurgents on the ground. We have to absolutely demonstrate that they will be decimated and that they will have no quarter. Up to this point, we have done nothing of the kind. At this point, I do not think we have the political capital to implement such a ruthless campaign (if we ever had it in the first place, which is suspect). If we were fighting for a really good cause, these kinds of tactics would be justified. But what would we really be killing all these people for? To create a democratic Iraq that will ultimately be dominated by Islamic fundamentalism and will stab us in the back anyway?

So in summary, I'm intrigued the military suggestions that Bush has recommended, but while I'd like to be optimistic, I'm skeptical that they will have any effect at this point. Too little too late.

What are your thoughts?

Education and Healthcare Redux

So I've had a bit of a crazy week. Things have finally calmed down some and I can get back to writing here and responding to all of the thoughtful comments that I've received. There were so many comments on my post on education and healthcare that I thought I would respond to them all in a post. I'll start with healthcare.

Doughnutman: We probably pay the most and have one of the worst returns because we have the worst of both worlds. I would not be surprised if a completely socialized system of healthcare was actually better than what we have now. We pretend that we have a market system of medicine, so high costs are blamed solely on capitalism. Corruption, patronage, and laziness are thus easier to get away with. If we have an entirely socialized system, there will be no one else to blame. A good analogy would be Hamas before achieving government power in Palestine. As long as they were not part of the system, they could avoid accountability.

You make valid points about the weaknesses of our system, but I do not accept the premise that things would improve under socialized medicine. Look how government subsidy of any industry works. Sure, access improves: more people are able to receive the service or good that is being subsidized. But, quality plummets. Move to Canada, where you'll wait online for months for access to basic medical care because bureaucracy and inefficiency are rampant. And doctors will be happier?! Give me a break. Their freedom to practice medicine as they see fit is completely taken away and their hands are tied behind their back. Under socialized medicine, doctors become slaves. Yes, I do not exaggerate. Slaves. If I granted the assumption that socialized medicine was more effective (which I do not), nothing, would make it ok to violate the fundamental rights of EVERY individual, including doctors. I do not care if socialized medicine would save 1,000 babies per year, or any other ridiculous statistic. It does NOT justify trampling on anyone's rights.

As for the comments by Anonymous and Mark, Cheers!

Now onto education. I'm very happy to see comments by two public school teachers! Miss Judice, you are absolutely right about the fundamental problem of teachers who focus almost solely on preparing their students for standardized tests. I'm sure that you recall studying for a test that you did not care anything about, memorizing what you needed to know, and then forgetting most of the material shortly after. At least, I remember much of my public school education being this way. When teachers do not have to worry about the satisfaction of parents (who are paying for the education), but rather "teaching" their students to parrot out enough material for a meaningless federal test, it's no surprise that the quality of education suffers. Parents and other individuals that are forcibly paying into a public education cannot withdraw their support when they think the education being offered is poor. Thus, there really is very little economic pressure for educational reform. Now, I do not make the claim that infusing more economic pressure through the free market would completely rehabilitate educational philosophy. But, at the very least, it would make some improvement. Parents who are paying directly for their child's education are going to have a more vested interest in whether their money is being well-spent. I'm preaching to the choir here with you I think, but it's good to reiterate.

You make another great point about the length of education. Did you ever feel in high school that you were being taught the same things that should have been taught a long time ago? I felt this way a lot, particularly in English and History classes. If earlier education were much improved, the kind of branching off that you talk about would definitely be a possibility, and quite beneficial to many students. If school curriculums (curriculi?, lol) were ordered like Lisa VanDamme suggests, students would be much better off.

Justin, it's going to be extremely difficult to transition from what we have now to a good educational system. Our system right now is so abhorrent and pitiful in my eyes right now, that I see any improvement as a very long-term process. As with most government programs, simply pulling the plug is probably not a good idea. It's like trying to get off a drug addiction to heroin. Going cold turkey is usually more harmful than being on the drug, so rehab centers first put their patients on lesser drugs to gradually make them better. What exactly the "lesser drug" is for our educational system, I do not know. But perhaps the best course is to create a new kind of private school that can eventually replace our failing public schools. Lisa VanDamme has done just that. Her educational philosophy is essentially that there is a necessary order to conceptual knowledge that must be followed in order to actually teach children. Take science for example. In most classrooms, Newton's Laws of Motion are explained in the following way. The teacher takes a piece of chalk, goes up to the blackboard, and writes down the laws. The students are told to copy these laws and memorize them. There will be a quiz tomorrow. What is actually learned here? There is no understanding about why Netwon came up with these laws or the logical progression from earlier science. They are to be taken as floating abstractions, accepted as truth by faith. To boot, students are asked how they "feel" about this knowledge. On what basis could they have any valid opinion, given how the material has been taught? Sadly, this pattern is followed not only in science but in just about every academic field.

As for teachers, a fully private educational system would hurt some teachers and benefit others. Success in the field would be largely based on merit, not the circumstance of which school district has the most political pull via unions or school boards. Given how incredibly valuable education is, I think good teachers would be well-rewarded for their efforts, most likely more than they are now. Having a private education system would force parents to readjust their economic priorities somewhat - spending less on luxury items and more on what is really important. As it stands now, they take it for granted that their kids will receive an education, since they are forced to pay anyway. But when forced with the possibility that their kids will not be educated, they will focus more of their money on rewarding those who do educate well. Also, if I was running a school, I would definitely do away with the nonsensical standardized testing that goes on there now. Multiple choice?! This rewards only what the child can memorize best, and leaves no lasting knowledge at all. I would make all tests short answer and essay. As for your criticisms of No Child Left Behind, they are dead on. Republicans (or Democrats) in charge of educational philosophy and administration...terrible idea.

Busy Schedule

I appreciate the explosion of comments in the past couple of days! They have all been well-said and interesting to read. I intend fully to respond to all of them in the near future. Going back to work has made my schedule a little more hectic. Plus, I got a wonderful present from Route 287 in the form of a flat-tire this evening. I may be completely tied up trying to take care of that tomorrow, but hopefully I will get home early enough in the evening that I can respond to all! Thanks again.

New Years Resolutions

I think one of our greatest holiday traditions is having New Years Resolutions. Granted, people should have goals all year-round, and should be ambitious in achieving them. But, this end of the year tradition reminds us of our goals and perhaps by sharing them with each other, we all get a little boost in ambition.

So in that spirit, I would like to share my New Years Resolutions:

1. Get into grad school (St. Johns in Annapolis, Maryland is my preferred choice).
2. Continue to work out well and even step up my routine.
3. Join a squash league.
4. Continue to publish daily on this blog - I love writing like this.
5. Make more time to read, starting with Tara Smith's two books: Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist.
6. Start taking piano lessons, and maybe trumpet lessons as well.
7. And this should go without saying...go into NYC a lot to see the New York Philharmonic at Lincoln Center! :-D

I'd like to hear yours. Comment! And, happy new years!

Economic Arguments Against Public Education and Medicare

I've barely received any comments far. For shame. C'mon people. Even if your comment is one sentence, I want to see it and will appreciate it.

I've been writing a lot of e-mails lately. What follows is from another e-mail where I am explaining why public education and medicare are economically harfmul. I pretty much covered my moral arguments against them in my first post, and most of you who know me are pretty familiar with them anyway. (However if you are curious, please ask).

It would take a much more extensive argument than the one that follows to fully demonstrate the economic harm of government-subsidized industry, particularly in education and healthcare. But, I think what follows is a pretty good summary.

I want people to be educated, healthy, and not suffering. But as I've said, the ends do not justify the means. The benefit of society NEVER outweighs the rights of the individual.

Economically speaking, there is no reason to assume that effective social programs could not be created on a private basis. Take your assumptions about public and private school specifically. Why is private school often so expensive? Is there something about the very nature of education that will always make it expensive, or is there something currently in the nature of the market that makes it expensive? Private school is so expensive because it cannot compete in a free market. Since education is not thought of as a for-profit business, but rather this right that everyone has, no one is really thinking much about the quality of education. There is very little or no economic competition between schools.

What is a major reason for decrease in price in a highly-valued product or service? Profit. As demand for the good or service increases and profit increases, price is reduced to make it more available to a larger quantity of people, thus yielding more profit. When competition is introduced, the company that can sell the best product at the lowest price often wins out. Other companies must either match the quality or price or go out of business.

There's another analogy that helps: the introduction of new technology. When a new technology first comes on the market, it is incredibly expensive - and only the select few can purchase it. Over time, as knolwedge of how to produce the product/service grows, it becomes cheaper to manufacture. That is, companies can create the product more efficiently and thus at cheaper cost. New companies emerge that have discovered how to make the product/service cheaper and can get more profits by beating out their competitors with lower prices. This continues as a cycle until a piece of technology that once seemed incredibly expensive and available only to the elite is now a commonplace item. There are countless examples of this that it is not necessary to make a list.

Now, what is one of the most highly demanded and needed services in the country? Education. If schools were run as for-profit businesses, I guarantee you that the price of education would plummet. Education treated as a for-profit business would have the same effect as in any free industry, but to an even large degree given how much of a demand there is for good education. By artificially subsidising education through government, this process is completely wrecked. In a market, businesses are rewarded directly by market success - it is a completely objective measure. In a government industry, "success" is measured and rewarded by less objective, more artificial means. For one thing, there is a lot of back-scratching based solely on political pull, and not the reflection of any actual merit. A state politician wants to gain popularity, so he pledges more money to education. This does not reward any specific merit, in fact it only encourages lethargy and inefficiency. Actual merit is not the key - knowing the right politicians is.

Is it any surprise that our public schools are failing? In any normal business environment, if we hire someone to do a job, and they fail miserably, we fire them. In the realm of public education, if a school fails miserably, we throw more money at them! What does this accomplish? Does this address the cause of that school's failure in any substantial way? Some schools may fail because they lack funds, most schools fail because of more important problems like bad teachers or bad educational philosophy. Furthermore, there is no possibility for the financiers of public education to remove their funds if they think that a school is doing a terrible job! The money that finances public school is taken forcibly from taxpayers, and they have no say in the educational philosophy of the school, the curriculum, or the teachers. And even worse, teachers are given tenure for no reason other than simply having been at one school for a designated period of time! This is not a reward based on merit or effective results but rather just simple patronage!

Are you starting to get the point? Everything about our educational system encourages not competition, ambition, and merit but rather the exact opposite. To the extent that some schools are able to muster these qualities is a testament to the merit of certain teachers and certain schools fighting against an educational system that encourages anything but. It is for the very reason that education is so incredibly valuable to every individual that it must be completely private! If we really want to give the best education, it must be one that is based on merit and competition, not political patronage.

This is only a portion of my economic argument against public education. I'm sure that you can imagine what my moral argument against it would be. I believe that I have partially mentioned it before, but I will summarize again here. The individual who's money is forcibly seized (which is a crime in itself) has absolutely no say over how that money is to be used. Specifically, he is forced to support ideas that he may loathe, or even find to be evil. That is an utter perversion of morality and justice.

A similar economic argument must be made for healthcare. Most people do not want to think of hospitals as for-profit businesses, but that is exactly what they must be. Any good or service cannot be created out of thin air, no matter how much we would wish them to be. If it were up to my whim right now, not a single person in the world would be sick, and all would be healthy. But this is obviously not the case. The goods and services needed to treat the sick and ailing cost money.

Specifically, as the quality of life in this country has improved so drastically, we are now able to live much longer than we ever could. But, this creates an unintended problem, it now costs much more to live, because in order to extend our lives in the way that we have, we must use all sorts of technologies and medicines. As our life expectancy continues to get older, and as we have more people who are old, overall medical costs become higher and higher.

So what is the most important thing needed to get prices to come down? Greater efficiency. Like with any other industry, we have to become more efficient in our production of medical goods and services. How do we do this? We do it through research, innovation, and ultimately implementation into the market. But, we have to be pushed hard to become more efficient. That is, if market forces dictate that prices are going to skyrocket and we're going to lose profits and be unable to continue our business, we must become more efficient. The facts of the medical market are in fact telling us this.

But on the whole, the medical industry is not trying to become more efficient. What has been the primary solution offered to solve this problem of increasing healthcare costs? Government subsidy. Government has increasingly stepped in to foot the bill for the increase in healthcare costs. In other words, hospitals do not have to worry about becoming more efficient, because the government bails them out. Are you starting to see the problem here? Now, hospitals don't have to act based on market conditions - they can do whatever the hell they want. All of a sudden, hospitals are ordering a lot of really expensive surgeries for patients with good medical insurance because hey, the government is footing the bill. You see...medical costs, instead of decreasing, begin to skyrocket. What incentive do they have to become more efficient in their service? They are making hand over fist and don't have to put a damn bit of effort into it - because the government has deemed that healthcare is a needed service and will foot the bill. While before, struggling hopsitals were doing everything they could to keep costs down because they needed to stay in business, now the nature of their market encourages them to spend as much as possible.

What has happened when healthcare costs increase even more as a result? There are calls for more government intervention! As I think you can clearly see by now, this only worsens the problem.

It's true that healthcare costs are increasing - but this is the result of natural market forces. Demand has been increasing with supply slow to catch up, thus, increased prices. The solution is not to throw money at the problem. As I've shown, this leads to disaster. The only real solution is to actually get supply to outproduce demand - which requires an actual increase in productive efficiency. This will never happen under government-subsidized medicine.

Thus, we must remove government subsidy from education and healthcare. Let's get them out of the rest of the market while we're at it...but that is another post.

Rational Mind as Ultimate Survival Tool

A quick but fun thought for today. Like my first post, this came from an e-mail. The recepient had claimed that though there are no innate ideas, there are innate structures in the brain that allow us to develop later through experience. Specifically, she referenced a study that suggests that certain part of the brain are stimulated specifically by religious belief. My response:

You're absolutely right that there are certain innate structures in the brain that form the foundation for what is developed later. It is really interesting to speculate on where these structures came from, especially this apparent part of the brain that specializes in religious belief. I'm a pretty firm advocate of evolution, and I think it explains a lot. There's a philosopher named Daniel Dennett who teaches up at Tufts University in Boston. He argues that the capabilities of our brain, and in particular, volitional consciousness, emerged from evolutionary pressures. Think about it this way. All animals act on instinct. They are hard-wired to interact with their environment in a particular way. Thus, if something radical happens in their environment, it is very difficult for them to cope. In a lot of ways, animals are very dependent on their particular environment. Human beings however developed an amazing capacity: the rational mind. We can gather and store vast amounts of information about of environment, and using this knowledge,change our environmental conditions in a fundamental way. Disease killed millions, we created medicine. Floods destroyed homes and killed many, we create dams and levees. The rational mind is the ULTIMATE survival tool! So this capacity for rational thought becomes hard-wired into our DNA and becomes the very essence of our species. (This stuff is so cool).

A really interesting question comes from this. Is there an evolutionarily beneficial reason for religious belief? Based on the line of reasoning I just gave, the answer would be an unquestionable no. If it is very beneficial for us to know as much about our environment as possible, then we would benefit most from knowing the exact causes of several environmental phenomena so that we can best avoid death and live the best life possible. If, on a very basic level, we simply attribute various environmental phenomena to a god or supernatural force, we learn very little about what is happening and are thus more likely to be aversely affected by it. In other words, religious belief is harmful from a survival standpoint! So if there are structures in the brain designed for religious belief, perhaps they will disappear over time since they are not evolutionarily beneficial! ;-)

(I should point out that this argument does not logically refute religious belief. It does make a pretty good case for a scientific understanding of the material world as opposed to a religious one. However, religion assumes that there is a world separate from the material, and this argument doesn't address that. Besides, I was kinda being facetious.) Cheers!

Various Thoughts

I'm sure that my last post was rather daunting, but I'd still appreciate comments!

This post is going to be a little more ecclectic since I have several things on my mind that are not really related.

I played in an online poker tournament for several hours this afternoon, and I did quite well! The buy-in was $4, with 180 players paid in. I reached the final table, and in quick order became the chip leader by a 2-to-1 margin with only two other players remaining. Then came a disastrously unlucky hand. I started off with an Ace and Jack off suit, a pretty good hand pre-flop in a three-player match, so I raised. I was called, and out came the flop. I flopped an inside straight-draw, so I bet. The other player called, so now we have the turn. Bam! There is my straight card. I now have a straight to the Ace. I bet hard. He goes all-in and I call. He has pocket 10's, with a 3rd ten on the board, giving him trip 10's. At this point I am ecstatic. I have a great hand, and I am about to knock out the 3rd player, guaranteeing me at least a $144 prize, or quite possibly the $212 1st prize (since I would have had a 4-to-1 chip lead). But, the last card comes out.....the board pairs Kings. He now has a full house, and I lose 3/4 of my chips. It was only a matter of time before I was done, and I finished in 3rd place, with a prize of $85.68. I was so close to 1st place....

I'd like to quickly comment on an amazing piece of music that I also heard this afternoon. Shortly after my tragic defeat, I heard the Adagietto from Mahler's 5th Symphony. It's an astoundingly beautiful piece, which is surprising, because what I have heard from Mahler has often been chaotic, undisciplined, and mediocre. But in this one movement (the fourth movement of Mahler's 5th Symphony, for those of you who are counting), Mahler presents a deeply clear, focused, and pristine work. If anyone else can point out works of Mahler that fit these characteristics (not like the rest of Mahler's 5th Symphony), I'd be happy to hear them! I was feeling a little frustrated that I did not capture first place, when, after the work was finished, the radio announcer immediately said "You feel better now, don't you?" I quite literally laughed out loud.

My final thought, randomly enough, has to do with our penal system. I was watching a very good episode of the science fiction television show, The Outer Limits, in the early afternoon. David Hyde Pierce (of Fraiser fame) plays a character named Dr. Jack Henson, whom I would presume to be a psychologist/neurologist/scientist of some sort. He is demonstrating his new invention to several Senators who will be voting on whether or not to use this invention for the federal penal system. A convict is "plugged in" to this invention wherein he experiences the full prison sentence that the court has laid down. A virtual prison is created in the mind of the convict, and the nature of his punishment is custom fit to his own mind. His body remaining in a chair for only a few hours, the mind of the convict experiences a full 20 years of his sentence. When he awakens, he discovers that he has been given a second chance and is now completely rehabilitated (or so Dr. Henson claims). The character is clearly distraught and confused, but off he is taken to soon be re-entered into society.

Another subject, Corey Isaacs, is brought in to demonstrate the effectiveness of the system once more. However, as he is brought in, he is repeatedly screaming, "I'm innocent! I didn't do it! Don't do this to me!" Despite reservations from his assistant, Dr. Henson puts Isaacs in the machine. Suddenly, Isaacs goes into cardiac arrest. Suddenly they realize that if they had just put an innocent man into that machine, it would have disastrous results on his health and would, in all likelihood, kill him. So, Pierce's character decides to go into the virtual world to pull the man out. He successfully gets him out and awakens in his lab, only to find the man collapsed on the floor and being given CPR. He is dead.

As Dr. Henson and his assistant try to figure out what has happened, he is arrested for the murder of Corey Isaacs. At his trial, he is convicted and sentenced to 20 years without the possibility of parole. He enters the very harsh prison environment to find only brutal conditions existing there. There is very little activity, food is scarce, and attempts at rehabilitation are feeble at best. After an escape attempt, he is put into a solitary confinement chamber bordering on sensory deprivation. There is very little room to move, no books or other input of any kind, and no sound. He has a clear emotional breakdown and screams, "If you treat men like animals they are going to act like animals!" As he tries to cope with this torture, he finally says that he will obey, he will do everything that he is told. In this moment you can see a man fall apart. If this is not the definition of cruel and unusual punishment, I do not know what is.

What follows is a grueling montage sequence of the next 20 years of his life in prison. As it ends, Dr. Henson is about to leave the prison as his 20 year sentence has been completed. Spiritually broken and enfeebled, he moves painfully towards the exit of the prison. He sees a reflection of himself in the wall panel, and both he and the audience realize that he has been through torture, and that he is a broken man. There is a flash of white light and he sees his reflection yet again, however, he is once again a young man. He looks around his environment to find that he is back in his lab, with the Senators thanking him for saving Corey Isaacs' life. They had their reservations about the project, but now they are convinced. Dr. Henson's invention will go into full federal service by next year! Dr. Henson convulses with shock and disgust and immediately moves to destroy everything in the lab. Shocked security guards quickly restrain him and remove him from the room, frantically screaming, "You can't do this to people! It isn't right! Don't let this happen!" Oh my god, his assistant says, he sentenced himself to life in there. End of episode.

One of the things that I love most about science fiction is its ability to say so much through analogy. I will comment on what is wrong with our actual penal system in a later post. Food for thought.

Comments welcome!