www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15392701/
He saved me the trouble of a lot of typing. I suggest reading all 4 pages, as they're pretty good and it's too hard to pick specfic quotes. They probably have the video, too (I saw it on air, and his impassioned speech is a bit melodramatic but not inappropriate).
The republican party and al-qaeda ought to just get a room already. Can we call this political marriage? It's like they're each others' campaign managers.
Quote:
It's like they're each others' campaign managers.
nah, perhaps that's too drastic to say. I wouldn't disagree though, that both the GOP and the terrorists seem to enjoy using the rhetoric of fear to sway people.
Yoda quote time! Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
So...he tries to scare people into voting Democrat by telling people the Republicans are the real terrorists in the country and are only trying to scare them into voting Republican?
By his definition, Time magazine and Al Gore are also terrorists because they are trying to frighten the public about global warming.
Terrorism - specifically, Islamic terrorism - is a real problem. And that he apparently doesn't see any difference between Al Qaeda and the GOP is frightening in its idiocy and lack of logical rationality.
One question to Olbermann: if Republicans are "advertising terrorism" (I see it as showing what our enemies want to do, personally. Did we not do the same in previous wars by showing our people what the enemies wanted to achieve, in the hopes that they'd be galvanized?), then why are terrorists supporting Democrats?
Quote:
The republican party and al-qaeda ought to just get a room already. Can we call this political marriage? It's like they're each others' campaign managers.
Dear God Vec, are you really insinuating that the political goals of Al Qaeda and the GOP are the same? Use of similar political tactics (do you really think this is the only time in history that a political party has used the words of enemies to make a point to their constituents?) does not make two different entities equal (but seeing as how Republicans behead their enemies just like Al Qaeda, one can't be too sure.../sarc).
Edit: Also, Olbermann is so unhinged that it hurts just to listen to him. "GOP is leading terrorist group?" That's not an argument. That's wordplay.
Why can't he? Cloudephants do it to everyone else all the time. It's high time they got called on it too. 
~Rico
Quote:
Dear God Vec, are you really insinuating that the political goals of Al Qaeda and the GOP are the same?
Well, political goals no. But they do campaign for each other, whether they intend to or not. Bush has promoted al-qaeda by hyping them up, saying stupid things like "crusade," starting war in Iraq (Afghanistan most people don't complain about because it made sense, and oh great the Taliban is rising there again), and generally playing into their hands. Now I can't vouch for their authenticity, but I did see a BBC documentary that claimed al-qaeda was losing influence before 9-11.
Quote:
By his definition, Time magazine and Al Gore are also terrorists because they are trying to frighten the public about global warming.
Technically yes. I'm not afraid of words, so I'll go with that, by his argument, anybody using fear as a motivator is a terrorist. I don't care whether someone is by some definition a terrorist or not though. The point is what they're doing. The use of federally funded agencies to hype up terror suspects who turn out to be pranksters or losers on drugs is corruption. Bush shamelessly campaigns on terrorism, and IMO, has no grounds to brag on the issue.
Wow, I was watching Bremner, Bird and Fortune last night on Channel 4 and it focused on Afghanistan and all the failed invasions of it. (+ Bremner's plus impressions of Dubya always good for cheap laugh)
But, there was a segment where Bremner is dressed as Osama Bin Laden and he talks about how more people choose to blow themseleves up for Al-Qaeda than for any other organisation thanks to the War on Terror. (basically what Vec said above)
Quote:
Just on this subject of counter-terrorism, sir, yours is the least competent government, in time of crisis, in this countrys history!
Tell me that such a statement isn't a scare tactic in and of itself.
The real question isn't about "scare tactics" when the subject is terror, we have to ask other questions.
Do the Democrats have a viable alternative to the current administrations actions to protect America? The answer is no.
Right now the economy is up, unemployment is down, gas prices are falling. The truth is that Dems don't have much of a platform to run on, so the bulk of campaigning is done to discredit Republicans.
Olberman admits that we live in dangerous times, criticizes the current administration, and offers no alternative.
Jimro
Quote:
The truth is that Dems don't have much of a platform to run on, so the bulk of campaigning is done to discredit Republicans.
Good god; are you joking? The quality of governance is way down these days. Would you rather have:
a) President boning an intern
b) President being puppeted by shadowy cabal of puppeteers that belong to the military-industrial complex with no particular mind of his own?
If a new executive will acknowledge its status and stop trying to screw the legislative and judicial branches of government, I would be _all_ _for_ that.
<i> Quote:The truth is that Dems don't have much of a platform to run on, so the bulk of campaigning is done to discredit Republicans.
Good god; are you joking? The quality of governance is way down these days. Would you rather have:</i>
That's what he's saying; all Democrats seem to have is bashing REpublicans. Wether or not the quality of the REpublicans in office deserves these attacks depends on one's own politcal views, so I won't get into that, but all Democrats seem to be talking about is how Republicans suck in office. I don't see them talking about why they'd be better that much, honestly. At least REpublicans have actions that they can point at and say "This is why we should be in office."
The only thing Dems point to when they say that is Bush.
Pundit,
I have not seen any evidence of option b any more than I saw evidence of a "vast right wing conspiracy" against Clinton.
Conspiracy theories make for good rhetoric, but not much else.
Of course good rhetoric can get you elected, or keep you in office.
Jimro
So who mentioned a "vast right wing conspiracy" in this thread? Oh wait.
I have several names for you:
Halliburton
Gilead Phamaceutical
the USS Condoleezza Rice
"Kenny Boy"
Quote:
Halliburton
Halliburton was the Clinton Administration's company-of-choice for war reconstruction efforts. When Halliburton was underbid on a contract, Clinton stepped-in and awarded a contract to Halliburton anyway. And Al Gore gave Halliburton an award for its outstanding service in war reconstruction efforts. Of course, that was before Dick Cheney became the Vice President.
I feel sorry for that horse, Halliburton. He died years ago, but they keep on beating him. (Seriously though, what's the deal with Halliburton?)
Quote:
Gilead Phamaceutical
Who?
Quote:
the USS Condoleezza Rice
The Secretary of State is part of a cabal of puppeteers...how? Please elaborate.
Quote:
"Kenny Boy"
Ken Lay? The Enron guy?
So he died of pulmonary distress and had his conviction abated. How is that part of a conspiracy?
Actually, I thought that post was a joke, the shadowy group of puppeteers thing. Seriously.
The Democrats have PLENTY of issues to campaign on.
Environment
Fiscal Sanity
Education
Human Rights
The republicans have, what, mildly disguised theocracy, corporate welfare, and an assertion that only they can protect us from terrorists, despite no evidence to back it up?
They like to ask what democrats stand for, it's like their mantra. What the %^&$ do republicans stand for? If they were ever able to make a claim to fiscal sanity, small government, states' rights, and protecting liberties, they have no credibility in any of those areas now.
*holds up his "Go Vec!" sign*
well I don't have any quippy cartoon, but I do have an opinion piece written by Hugo and Nebula award winning author Orson Scott Card.
www.ornery.org/essays/war...-29-1.html
Jimro
That's very thought-provoking. I tend to argue the cultural nation-building over military, but he has a point that many islamists would just use it to promote themslves. He also has a point that the U.S. has abandoned supporters and doing so is a bad idea that would create a power vacuum for islamists to fill. He makes shots at both political sides. Abandoning Iraq could turn islamists into a political fad. He conveniently avoids the question of whether getting into Iraq was stupid in the first place, but I didn't object since the U.S. is in Iraq and that is not the issue being discussed.
But then I thought about it, and, well, if he can sell *censored* this well, Mr. Card deserves those awards.
He does actually endorse the war in Iraq, and with the rest of the article that's an argument with a hole you could drive a mack truck through.
We're supposed to believe:
a. This is the best run war in history (ok, I won't debate, I don't know every detail)
b. Bush is a strategic genius for choosing Iraq as a target, because it would give him more leverage with China and Korea and Iran will self-neutralize given an islamic democracy in the region.
c. The Iraq war is part of the war on terror because successful nation-building will make the middle east more pacified.
d. Failure in the war will destroy the world and leave it open to islamist movements.
e. Even if we stay in Iraq, it could still turn into a powderkeg.
So what he's saying is... getting into a war that would dramatically weaken the U.S. and the west in case of failure was a brilliant idea. But even though the war was the best run war in history, even if the U.S. stays, it could turn into a powderkeg.
What kind of idiot would start a war under those conditions? The only excuse would be an absolute LAST RESORT threat to gamble the future of the whole country.
The U.S. had Afghanistan as an islamic nation to build. We didn't even need Iraq to do that. A huge percentage of the population of the U.S. and the world and Afghanistan supported taking down the Taliban. Why in the world would you go and get yourself caught on 2 fronts, especially when one of them is incredibly controversial and works for the enemy in the massive P.R. battle that he points out the U.S., Shiites, and Sunnis are engaged in, if nation-building is your goal and you have a nation to build?
That would be the dumbest move since, take your pick. Hitler attacking Russia? Pearl Harbor? New Coke?
He also says that timetables are a bad idea. So let's review our options:
a. Staying in Iraq for another decade or more, even when we have a new president who, he says at the end of the article, will probably completely screw up the war regardless of party.
b. Run out and turn Iraq into an even bigger powderkeg.
c. Set a timetable and gradually move out.
He seems to think Democrats support b, but quite a few support c and that is the option that most of the public want, and the most likely to be agreed upon by congress regardless of party.
A gradual withdrawal with a timetable of defined goals is not abandoning Iraq. Keeping to that table would be a sign of accountability on the part of the U.S. The islamists will try to say they drove the U.S. out. They will say that no matter when the U.S. leaves. How much credibility will they have if the U.S. follows a schedule that they announce to the public, that includes defined goals in supporting the Iraqi government?
Basically what you're saying is the cloudephants mess it up SO bad that when the donkeys take over there no way to fix it like the public wants. And then they gripe about how bad a job the donkeys do.
El Ay Dubble You El
~Rico
There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.
That's because it's the only real issue being discussed. If education, poverty, health care, the environment, energy, social security, immigration, the economy, the budget, or anything else worth discussing got any attention, the War on Terra would be a tiny blip on the radar. In the grand scheme of things the American government has much more pressing issues to attend to than a bunch of religious fanatics in Syria.
Like a buncha religious fanatics in Kansas/Oklahoma. *ba dum bum*
~Rico
I think it's interesting how America has gone from being totally isolationist in the early 20th to "spreading Democracy" and "promoting regime change."
Do Americans care about what happens in Iraq because they care about the people in Iraq? Or do they care because they fear what the evil terrorists might do to them and they don't want them *here*?
I don't think it's wise to be isolationist. We can't just blow off the world and plug our ears and say LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU when people on the other end of the world want to kill you.
Not to mention, what would our economy be like if we just totally didn't do anything in the world?
I dunno, but every time the US tries to "spread democracy", the government busts the budget and the economy tanks.
Quote:
Do Americans care about what happens in Iraq because they care about the people in Iraq?
I can't speak for the whole nation. Noone can. Me? I don't care, they're big boys and girls.
Quote:
Or do they care because they fear what the evil terrorists might do to them and they don't want them *here*?
Again, blanket statements are stupid. No nice way to put it. This American? Bubba had it right, when they start messing with us, pull a few ships and subs up on their backyard and hit them with a few hundred cruise missles. Nothing demoralizes freedom fighters/terrorists like a nice big number on their death toll and a nice big goose egg on ours.
When it comes to that pack of fundamentalists dicking around over there in the sand? Isolationist is the ONLY logical course of action. It'd be like seeing two rabid dogs fighting and pondering the best way to respond.
The Bush way was to pull them apart, and lose an arm. Or a large national monument full of people.
The Clinton way was to spray them with a water hose. (cruise missle salvo) And risk them chasing you all the way home.
Personally? The Rico way would be to let them fight until they tire themselves out a few millenia later.
~Rico
What are you, a communist? The invisible hand of the free market will fix everything as soon as peace in Iraq becomes profitable.
<i>Personally? The Rico way would be to let them fight until they tire themselves out a few millenia later. </i>
You're forgetting that through that metaphor, you're basically saying to jsut let the Sunnis kill millions on millions.
Besides, the world hates us when we don't police them as much as they hate us when we do.
I just want to point out that "stay the course" and "cut and run" aren't the only two strategies being presented.
Joe Biden's ideas - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301419.html
John Murtha's ideas - http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/MurthaSpeech.htm
Besides, the world hates us when we don't police them as much as they hate us when we do.
The world hates America when it uses its vast power and influence to create negative change. Right now we're not so much angry because you're in Iraq (hey, you broke it, you bought it), but more because your idiodic leaders have handled the entire operation with staggering arrogance and stupidity. And because you've somehow been tricked by those leaders, those same people who have literally screwed up every single step of the process, into thinking that they're the only people who can clean up the incalculable mess they've created.
We don't want you to leave. We just want you to stop sucking.
Also, can everyone please stop using "the war on terror" and "the war in Iraq" interchangeably?
No, I'm saying let the retards kill each other off over their big invisible Gods once they've finished with each other it shouldn't take more than a few cruise missles to do the job.
We can't protect everyone. Not with the corrupt as hell politicians running this place at least. If Canada, UK, etc are so much better run than the US, let THEM handle the Fundies.
~Rico
Quote:
We don't want you to leave. We just want you to stop sucking.
Bravo, hear hear, etc.
Quote:
Besides, the world hates us when we don't police them
I would genuinely be interested to hear an example of this. But I think the bottom line is the world would rather have no policeman than an incompetent one.
Quote:
I dunno, but every time the US tries to "spread democracy", the government busts the budget and the economy tanks.
I'll grant you the budget bit, but the economy has been rather successful.
Yeeah - The economy is better than ever. Though, unsuprisingly, it dropped this morning when the Democrats took the House...
Though, unsuprisingly, it dropped this morning when the Democrats took the House...
Uh, what? Is there some magical "how the economy is doing today" number you're using for your statement? Because I frankly have no idea where you got that.
Cycle, you just might have gotten trolled by SX.
Unless of course you're trolling me 
Quote:
Uh, what? Is there some magical "how the economy is doing today" number you're using for your statement? Because I frankly have no idea where you got that.
Unemployed lobbyists and republican congresspeople.
Veck,
Quote:
He does actually endorse the war in Iraq, and with the rest of the article that's an argument with a hole you could drive a mack truck through.
We're supposed to believe:
a. This is the best run war in history (ok, I won't debate, I don't know every detail)
b. Bush is a strategic genius for choosing Iraq as a target, because it would give him more leverage with China and Korea and Iran will self-neutralize given an islamic democracy in the region.
With troops in Afghanistan to the north, US ally Pakistan to the east, and troops in Iraq to the west, and a massive amount of naval firepower in the gulf it is definately putting some pressure on Iran.
Quote:
c. The Iraq war is part of the war on terror because successful nation-building will make the middle east more pacified.
If there isn't successful nation building then the Middle East will be WORSE off than it was before.
Quote:
d. Failure in the war will destroy the world and leave it open to islamist movements.
As melodramatic as that sounds, it is currently a clash of civilizations that threatens to destroy the western way of life. It is a clash of the secular and sacred. Our secular ideas of government are anethema to jihadists who want only government based on the teachings of Muhammed. You can disagree with this point, but you cannot disprove it. Turkey is an example of a secular government that is working with an Islamic population.
Quote:
e. Even if we stay in Iraq, it could still turn into a powderkeg.
You should familiarize yourself with the 4 stage model of revolution put forth by Mao. Infiltration, Indoctrination, Insurgency (small scale war), final victory (large scale war). The Tet offensive was North Vietnam's first attempt against US backed South Vietnam at going to "final victory". They got their butt handed to them so they downgraded back to indoctrination and insurgency. They didn't attempt "final victory" until after the US withdrew, and they did so in violation of the peace agreement they signed. You cannot reason with terrorists or communists, they simply don't care about honoring their word.
Quote:
So what he's saying is... getting into a war that would dramatically weaken the U.S. and the west in case of failure was a brilliant idea. But even though the war was the best run war in history, even if the U.S. stays, it could turn into a powderkeg.
In military terms "powderkeg" areas are places where wars tend to "spill over" into the surrounding geography. The Balkans are the twentieth century example. The trade routes through the area gave the Balkans a large amount of economic power. Iraq is economically powerful for similar reasons.
Quote:
What kind of idiot would start a war under those conditions? The only excuse would be an absolute LAST RESORT threat to gamble the future of the whole country.
You assume that Bush was/is an idiot. Card stated several reasons why Bush was/is not an idiot.
Quote:
The U.S. had Afghanistan as an islamic nation to build. We didn't even need Iraq to do that. A huge percentage of the population of the U.S. and the world and Afghanistan supported taking down the Taliban. Why in the world would you go and get yourself caught on 2 fronts, especially when one of them is incredibly controversial and works for the enemy in the massive P.R. battle that he points out the U.S., Shiites, and Sunnis are engaged in, if nation-building is your goal and you have a nation to build?
Afganistan is not an oil producing nation, as such it is not a "powderkeg" like Iraq. Having peace in, Portugal, doesn't mean squat in Bosnia right? Same principal, Afghanistan = Portugal.
Quote:
That would be the dumbest move since, take your pick. Hitler attacking Russia? Pearl Harbor? New Coke?
A more apt example is Russia attacking Finland in 1939, but since Card already gave several reasons why it was not a dumb move I'll let his reasons stand.
Quote:
He also says that timetables are a bad idea. So let's review our options:
a. Staying in Iraq for another decade or more, even when we have a new president who, he says at the end of the article, will probably completely screw up the war regardless of party.
b. Run out and turn Iraq into an even bigger powderkeg.
c. Set a timetable and gradually move out.
He seems to think Democrats support b, but quite a few support c and that is the option that most of the public want, and the most likely to be agreed upon by congress regardless of party.
A gradual withdrawal with a timetable of defined goals is not abandoning Iraq. Keeping to that table would be a sign of accountability on the part of the U.S. The islamists will try to say they drove the U.S. out. They will say that no matter when the U.S. leaves. How much credibility will they have if the U.S. follows a schedule that they announce to the public, that includes defined goals in supporting the Iraqi government?
Where is the timetable for withdrawl from Korea, Japan, or Germany? Notice that when we leave troops in place democracy gets a helping hand. When was the last time we had a timetable? Oh yeah, Vietnam...
No Timetables. The fundamental difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that Conservatives believe what was true in the past will be true in the present. Liberals believe the opposite.
And as far as "peddling $H!T" you might want to know that "Ender's Game" is recommended reading at a number of military academys and ROTC programs. He knows what he is talking about when it comes to geopolitical ramifications of military activities.
Jimro
Thanks for the reply.
In response to most of what you said in response to a,b,c,d,e, I agree.
But my point is that these 5 points are incompatible.
Quote:
You assume that Bush was/is an idiot. Card stated several reasons why Bush was/is not an idiot.
And he did one of the better jobs of that I've seen. But he's saying that Bush got us into a battle (implying a battle within a war, since he doesn't want to call the Iraq and Afghanistan wars separate) that would destroy civilization if lost. He said that it was the best run war in history, and that even if Bush keeps it up, it's looking dangerous. So that implies that it's a battle that wasn't particularly winnable.
Thus my questioning of why he would advocate starting a battle that has a chance of destroying western civilization. This may be a bit of a straw man, because that's not explicitly what he says. But his argument says it implicitly, and if it's not what Bush did, then some of the 5 points must be erroneous. The points most likely to be erroneous seem to be those praising Bush and the way the war was run.
Quote:
Afganistan is not an oil producing nation, as such it is not a "powderkeg" like Iraq. Having peace in, Portugal, doesn't mean squat in Bosnia right? Same principal, Afghanistan = Portugal.
So being a powderkeg, in the sense that it would spread through the region, is an advantage? If you win, yes, but that just further supports my point that, according to his arguments, the Iraq war was a huge gamble. Even ignoring the incessant Iraq debate and saying that it was a good idea to attack, wouldn't it have been better to solidify Afghanistan first to reduce the risk and make PR in Iraq easier?
Quote:
And as far as "peddling $H!T" you might want to know that "Ender's Game" is recommended reading at a number of military academys and ROTC programs. He knows what he is talking about when it comes to geopolitical ramifications of military activities.
I'm not going to criticize his other writings, simply this particular opinion. And he did write this article well, as I implied tongue in cheek, even if I consider his points self-contradictory. But I'm focusing on the argument, not the person. That was not intended as an ad hominem (since I never used it as an argument), but a "left-handed comliment." He did influence my opinion - I put higher priority on pulling out correctly vs. pulling out, and it took me a while, during which I reconsidered the war, to spot the inconsistency.
Reputaton won't intimidate me, thanks to my embrace of reason and indomitable ego, especially since one more familiar with writers in the field could probably come up with a reputation counter. And it would be a reverse of ad hominem otherwise.
Quote:
Where is the timetable for withdrawl from Korea, Japan, or Germany? Notice that when we leave troops in place democracy gets a helping hand. When was the last time we had a timetable? Oh yeah, Vietnam...
No Timetables. The fundamental difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that Conservatives believe what was true in the past will be true in the present. Liberals believe the opposite.
Timetable can mean many things. I'm not saying to set some arbitrary date to withdraw and do so ignoring the situation in Iraq. But a timetable for certain nation-building goals should be set, and minority protection should be a higher priority than democracy. Voting helps but it's often just a way to build perception of power. If the driving issue of the civil war is Sunni fear of a tyrrany of the Shiite majority, that's one of the most important issues to address.
Historical parallels should be taken skeptically too, because each of those countries is different. I doubt immediate withdrawal would make Iraq safer, but that's because of the power vacuum, not just historical examples, even if they should be taken seriously. Historical parallels are never parallel; they are abstractions of the perceiver. I could just as easily say that Bush's concentraton of executive power, militarism, nationalism, and lax appreciation of human rights is a textbook road to fascism, or to use a ridiculous example, that Cheney's baldness makes him likely to be overthrown and replaced by Boris Yeltsin. We can learn from history, but a lot of people (this is for example, not in response to your quoted point) are too eager to show any similarity between Iraq and WW2.
Veck,
You misunderstand, the "battle for western civilization" wasn't started in Iraq. Iraq is just the current battlefield, it is "key terrain" so to speak. Bush chose the battlefield and the time, but the jihadists chose the war.
Choosing not to fight is the same as pre-emptively surrendering western civilization.
Just like in WWII there weren't a whole lot of major battles inside Germany, because the war was largely over by the time the allies rolled into the fatherland.
If Iraq does prosper as a democracy, and hopefully it will, the benefits of regional stability and the decline of militant islam will be worth the cost.
That being said, there are no guarantees in war. There are no risk free choices. Taking the fight to Iraq was a gutsy move, but also with a muc larger potential payoff than doing nothing. The downside is that if things don't work out the way we want, things could get pretty ugly and another Taliban style government could arise.
I understand that some people wouldn't make the same choice GW did, that is fine. We could armchair quarterback the decision for decades, but given the info available it is pretty clear that it was the right decision at that time.
Jimro
You misunderstand, the "battle for western civilization" wasn't started in Iraq. Iraq is just the current battlefield, it is "key terrain" so to speak. Bush chose the battlefield and the time, but the jihadists chose the war.
The fate of western civilization does not hinge on whether the US can clean up the mess it made in Iraq.
You are correct, it depends on whether the west can resist the forces of islamicization, or Islam can resist modernization.
Jimro
Quote:
given the info available it is pretty clear that it was the right decision at that time
Quote:
We could armchair quarterback the decision for decades
Does anyone find the juxtaposition of the above to be hilarious?
I think he's stating an opinion that it's clear from his point of view, but that the debate will continue.
As I said, IMO, even if you ignore the many anti-war arguments (most of which I used in 2003 have come true), and stipulate that attacking Iraq was necessary for cultural engineering, Bush made a mistake by opening 2 battles instead of finishing Afghanistan. The neocons advising him were chomping at the bit to get into Iraq, and I don't think anybody can deny that, especially since they basically said it on their website.
You know with something like $500 billion and probably a lot more than that before the war is done I wonder if you could do it cheaper just buying off the leaders (or their guards) of one of the governments in the area and giving money to the citizens. I'm not sure what historical precedents there might be for such an action, but cash tends to liberalize pretty well. Some terrorist groups supposedly gain support by doing this.
The real problem with cash is that it generally flows to the greediest rulers in the middle east, especially in the more oppressive states.
You know I've been focusing on Turkey as a democratic Islamic state and totally ignoring Kuwait to the southeast...
If Iraq stabilizes as a democracy then a band of Democratic Islamic states will go from the Gulf to the Med, which could be a pretty good thing.
Jimro
