As we gear up fot the big push towards 2006, I want to invite those Dems and progressives that believe the Party should be one of authentic commitment to the environment and sustainabilty to join Democrats for the Environment. We successfully got the environment back on the Democratic Party Agenda a while back, at least on paper (and HTML). But now we need to keep it there and keep it real!

The Dem leadership is running away from the environment as an issue because they want to regain the center and don't see the environment as a broadly emphasized issue among swing-voters. I think that's bunk! Most Americans will at least claim to be passionate about clean air and water, smart growth and protecting wild places and species. We can effectively tap into that passion, but first the Dem leadership and activists must take real ownership on these issues, then educate the voters on how and why we can and should begin turning things around regarding real sustainability.

The GOP, on the other hand, has successfully sold the idea that there is no environmental crisis. They claim it's all a conspiracy on the left fabricated to scare people into giving the government more power - all the more ironic since that's been precisley the Bush strategy since 9/11, except that they've effectively cast terrorism as the bogey-man. When on those rare occasions the Republicans do admit there is a problem with the environment, they fall back on the pseudo-science mantra of free markets, globalism and supply side economics as a panacea: just get out of the way of business entrepreneurs (read multi-national corporations) and we'll grow ourselves out of the ecological mess. This the same mess we've so effectively "grown" ourselves into.

Granted, the private sector does have a huge role to play and it's creativity will be vital in helping save the planet. But business is in the end about business, and that's ultimately about maximizing profits on the short term while enriching their shareholders and executives. Generally the environmental impacts of doing business are an afterthought if any thought is given to it at all. To paraphrase, if all men (women and corporations) were angels we wouldn't need government. They aren't and we do, need government that is. Government not as an over-grown, centralized, bureaucratic monster, but instead as a partner in effective and productive balance with business and people; providing incentives for sustainable practices when and where possible and only enforcing same when required. And government that is in cooperative balance with other nations and peoples as well, both directly and via collaborative support for international organizations, like the UN, as well as global treaties and agreements. As we know, the Bush Administration and Republican dominated congress are currently fulfilling neither of these roles nor do they care to. Just the opposite. But if the Democrats can regain congress and/or the whitehouse, the opportunity to return the poweful and influential US government to that rightful role of partner in sustainabilty can and should be realized.

A promising start on the international front would be for the Democratic party to get on board now in a convincing way with the the UN Millennium Goals initiative to end poverty and achieve sustainability world-wide by 2015. The UN's related Millennium Ecosystem Assessment outlines the challenges and offers some hopeful courses of action. If Democrats are indeed the the party of global cooperation and sustainabilty then we need to educate the American people on these initiatives and inform them on how everyone can play a part. Global terrorism, after all, pales in comparison to issues like global warming and the collapse of global ecosystems as a threat to our future.

So please join us and let's make a start. Time is indeed of the essence and with your help Democrats for the Environment can be a networking and organizing tool leveraged to help keep the Party honest and focused on it's commitment to a cleaner environment and a better future for all of us and all our children.

Peace

Arguably the best satire ever produced on political activist infighting was the classic scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian where the People's front of Judea terrorists stumble upon the Campaign for Free Galilee in the palace where both are intent on kidnapping Pilate's wife. Upon that realization, both groups accuse each of stealing the other's idea and set to brawling. Amid the ensuing melee Brian, ever the practical one, exclaims:

BRIAN: Brothers! Brothers! We should be struggling together!

FRANCIS: We are! Ohh.

BRIAN: We mustn't fight each other! Surely we should be united against the common enemy!

EVERYONE:The Judean People's Front?!

BRIAN:No, no! The Romans!

EVERYONE:Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes.

Yes, classic. And apparently timeless, in that it effectively lampoons some of the current goings-on among the at least two peace groups united in their goal to end the Iraq war and, apparently, united in their having both planned marches for September 24 in our nation's capital as well. This from United (front?) for Peace and Justice's web site:

United for Peace and Justice is circulating this memo to explain the political reasoning behind our organizing approach for the September 24-26 mobilization, and to respond to concerns about our decision not to merge our September 24 demonstration with a separate anti-war event being organized that same day.

After several paragraphs touting the broad and inclusive nature of UFPJ's anti-war organizing efforts, they finally manage to get  around to the point of the memo which is:

Some people have urged UFPJ to consider a joint demonstration with the Sept. 24 National Coalition, initiated by A.N.S.W.E.R., which is also organizing an anti-war protest on September 24. We take seriously the concerns from local organizers about the potential for confusion if there are two separate marches on September 24. Therefore, we have agreed to US Labor Against the War's proposal to convene a meeting with A.N.S.W.E.R. to work through logistical issues about the day, including the possibility of bringing the marches together. We are committed to working in good faith on this process. But because of our different approaches to organizing and how demands are articulated, we are not proposing a "unified" program that day.

People, can't we all just get along?

Note the word unified above in quotes. Earth to UFPJ: you're either unified or you're not. At this crossroads in history, progressive activists need once again to be united in their opposition to this war and the other likely criminal activities of the Bush administration. We need to do what it takes to find the common ground that can and should serve to unify us in this goal. Our enemy is not ANSWER or The Judean People's Front. Rather the enemy is, or should be, Emperor Augustus Dubya and his bible thumpin' and neo connin' cronies. If two organizations with such a singularly common goal can't effectively and productively get beyond sweatin the details, then what real chance do we have of actually ending this war and hopefully toppling this tyrant through peaceful democratic means?

So please folks, I ask you to commit today to doing what it takes. Suggest, with extreme prejudice, to your "steering committee" that they stop steering the peace movement into the ditch and instead get with the program. Do so because there's a mother camped on a dusty hot ditch near Crawford Texas right now who needs us to get it right and get it TOGETHER.

Here's to one movement, one world, one love.

PEACE

P.S.: For my part, I'm putting both marches' banners on A Bigger Tent. It would make the Ringmaster very proud indeed to replace those before 9/24 with one banner for a combined march.

Just caught the streamed video from NPI's Reflections of a Blogger which, BTW, the Ringmaster highly recommends. Lot's of lessons to take away there but the overall message I gleaned was that, to paraphrase the obscure post-modern words of the infamous McLuhan, the medium is that message. Not to be unduly obscure myself, all I mean to say is that it's not our father's - or mother's - media anymore. I know, Duh! But my belabored point here is that the medium by which the content is delivered or exchanged directly influences the nature of that content and how it is processed.

Again, duh. This phenomenon is of course obvious to bloggers and bloggees(?). Blogs are a medium that is much more a conversation than a lecture. At least the progressive ones, that is, as Kos noted. Most of the top conservative blogs don't even allow comments; more a handing down of talking point inscripted tablets from on high than a lateral exchange of ideas and critiques of same. Progressives on the other hand have settled on creating talking points by committee, as it were, or more to the point by community. Both Kos and Trippi pointed to media as being merely a flexible tool that can be, and is, applied any number of ways given it's producer's goals and philosophy, be it radio, the net, print or the coming 1000 channel satellite TV. A hammer to be used to create either shelter or mayhem.

What is clear is that the GOP machine of late has almost unerringly weilded media and technology to hammer the Democrats and commit mayhem upon the progressive cause. Kos, Trippi and Simon were all three on message in exhorting progressives to match the conservative new media blitz in all it's manifestations, but to do so in their own unique way. Gore's Current TV is one early attempt. Its distributed community based content approach certainly contrasts with the disciplined, centralized message machine that is Fox News. Current and Link TV are but two channels of what Murdoch plans very soon to become 1500 on DirectTV. Given his less than subtle politics, you can be sure that the conservative message will be well represented. It's crucial that we strive to match if not surpass those offerings in quantity if not style.

So, yes, it can be said that we progressives are behind in the adoption of new media and net technology as conduits of a simple yet resonant message for the 21st century. But the Ringmaster submits that we have already leapfrogged conservatives in our approach to these tools. I happen to be a advocate of an organic interpretation of the world and advocate over-growing rather than annihilating the opposition. Like our blogs, we have been and should remain decentralized, distributed and bottom up as we leverage our hammers to rebuild our movement and retake our future. The net and the coming interactive digital broadcast medium will inherently lend themselves to just such a complex, adaptive and open system style of operation. In the way of such systems our resurgence can be an emergent one, born of a million voices; forged by a million hands. No rigid, centrally controlled machine can long resist that. Yes, they can own it but, ultimately, they cannot control it. Though it be dammed, dredged and leveed the river finally, inexorably, will find its own course again through the endless actions of infinite tiny but interactive forces. So will we again find our way.

It began during the Iraq Invasion. Whenever I tuned into CNN, up until then my first choice in news, I found myself evermore weary and frustrated with the sanitized, "we're more butch than FOX News" war coverage displayed on their USA network. It seemed that all the commercial American networks, what with their officially sanctioned and censored embeds and the like, had been relegated to mere sports announcers dutifully calling the game and towing the administration's line. More and more often I would surf over to CNN International, which I found to be significantly less slanted towards a coalition of the willing cheerleading role, and about as often to NWI, the CBC's cable news network piped to the US. Geez, what a difference editing makes! It was like they were covering a completely different war than the American news channels.

That was the tipping point for the Ringmaster. I no longer watch any commercial US news channels or programs, though I have become a regular Link TV viewer and on rare occasion, when I'm viewing during the dinner hour, I catch PBS's News Hour which at this point features the fairest and most diverse coverage among the mainstream US networks. And as for radio, I listen to NPR in the car, but switch to streaming BBC world service once at work. Oh, and I'd like to note here for the record that, though intrigued and excited about the potential of Al Gore's new Current TV network, I was more than a bit saddened when NWI was replaced by it last week. One can only hope that the promise of featuring content from independent young producers and journalists from around the globe will mitigate that loss somewhat. We shall see.

It was last week while watching one of the NWI farewell segments poignantly delivered by Peter Mansbridge, the ever understated anchor of the CBC's The National, that I pledged to do something about the lack of diverse views in American broadcast journalism (You gotta love Peter, BTW. His on air persona makes Al Gore seem downright manic. But I digress). After a brief mulling over, the course of action I decided on was to launch an online alternative and independent news feed aggregator featuring a mix of the most reliable sources I could find among such outlets that have feeds available.

Happily, there are more than a few source sites that do have feeds and I settled on textual ones from the always excellent coverage of AlterNet, Common Dreams, and WorldPress.org. I plan to add more feeds that meet a reasonable sniff test for reliability as I locate them; recommendations are always welcome. I will also add a podcast section starting with DemocracyNow's offering and a Vlog (video blog) section as well, when and if I can track down those feeds or convince one or more of the fine indy television news organizations listed in the lower right of A Bigger Tent's homepage to make that available. Again recommendations are welcome.

By now inquiring minds may be asking, why the heck are you doing this Ringmaster? You really must have waaaaaaaay too much time on your hands. Let me assure that's not the case and then hear me out. The benefit here as I see it is twofold. First, every additional outlet for these independent news sources that is effectively promoted adds a proportional amount of public exposure for them and their under-exposed stories. Second, and perhaps more importantly, exposing these feed items as links back to the source news in a search crawl-able page has an, again, proportional Google bomb effect and can help raise the ranking for these stories and sites within Google's search results. So if a sufficient number of aggregator sites follow suit we could theoretically have, say, AlterNet's coverage of Dafur returned in the same first page results as MSNBC or the like. And from my perspective, that would be a very good thing indeed.

Therefore I encourage any and all readers who might "feel my pain" regarding the evermore dismal state of American mainstream journalism to launch their own news aggregators. If you need a configurable package for this I can highly recommend Drupal, A bigger Tent's source package, and Drupal's progeny CivicSpace which is also a grassroots organizing tool that now even sports a compatible open source CRM component.

Oh, and I almost forgot the name: Reality Check in a Bigger Tent. Unfortunately, realitycheck.org is currently being sat on by one of those enterprising domain-broker outfits who rank up there with spammers and used car salesman in the Ringmaster's book (ah, capitalism...). But I'm stickin with the name, if for no other reason than the existence of it's antithetical evil twin, The Reality Check, a right wing Christian spin factory Ralph Reed would I'm sure be proud of; assuming he doesn't already run it that is. As for their reality, I think so highly of it that I'm considering forwarding them some of the numerous spam offers I get for discount anti-psychotics (ah, democracy..).

Now The Ringmaster will be the first to admit that all journalism, if not reality itself, is inherently subjective and the truth as hawked by any and all news outlets is always a matter of degree if not opinion. And it is certain that most if not all of the sources included in A Bigger Tent's Crucial Media Link listing have a political or philosophical axe to grind; even if that axe is merely that news should indeed be independent, diverse and accessible. Therefore I'm taking the approach that more is better, as in a greater diversity of accessible and independent news can only serve to strengthen our democracy. After all, real democracy is about putting the best available information in front of the people and then letting them decide. If by this initiative, I can put a little more information in front of a few more eyes then I will have succeeded. I will have because I trust that the people, armed with the truth as it manifests itself through a broad range of sources, will inevitably act on the side of a more peaceful, just and sustainable future. I invite you to join me in this goal and this futue.

In the Immortal words of Maxwell Smart, Hackett "missed it by that much". Now that the Ringmaster's carbon-dated himself, we'll get on with the point.

Paul Hackett did himself and his Party proud. As is now widely known and blogged upon, the Iraq war veteran and vocal critic of President Bush's Iraq policy managed to come within 4,000 votes of upsetting Republican Jean Schmidt in the solidly GOP 2nd Congressional District in southwestern Ohio. And despite some sour grape salvos from the left and right Dem Party wings, generally a pretty good indication of sound approach BTW, it is in fact a victory to be snatched from the jaws of a close electoral defeat and savored; if, that is, the Party can learn and effectively incorporate its crucial lessons for 2006 and beyond.

Yes, Hackett was an unknown running against a not much better known Republican. But to pull out a photo finish in that red meat red district was both a tactical and strategic victory: tactical in applying the right candidate for the region and staying on a well crafted, targeted message; strategic in the Party realization that the right candidate on a simple message, that is also robust and adaptable enough to resonate regionally, can compete and potentially win anywhere. And strategic in the impressive display of the progressive blogoshpere's reach. Reach as in reach deep down into those markedly deep pockets, oh ye well heeled blue staters. This they did and it undoubtedly made a difference.

And the lesson there? Well one may be that, more so than in the Presidential variety, the biggest blogospheric generated buck bang may ultimately come into play for the 2006 congressional races - where all Politics are inherently local and a little blue state green can go quite some ways in up for grabs districts, be they red or blue. That of course has been the theory for a couple of cycles now, but this off cycle special case of the OH 2nd Dist special election brought this distributed, decentralized fund generating effect into undivided focus. And Mikey likes it! (enough boomer TV references already!)

So say nay to the naysayers, I say. Lets we Dems cast off our gloom and take credit where it is due for today; as long as we get up off our fat laurels first thing tomorrow, refocus and apply these hard "lost" lessons to the formulation of winning regional tactics for 06, a winning national strategy for 08 and a simple yet resonate progressive message for generations to come.

It's not boring.. not very. It's slick.. kind of. It's cerebral.. not really. It's Al Gore's Current cable TV Network. Dude, I think I just had a seizure!

Last nite, I managed to endure about 45 mins of the  Current Network, Al Gore's new cable channel targeted to reach a young audience. And the verdict is in: The Ringmaster's either way too old or he has good taste. You be the judge. The former is, unfortunately, the case. The latter depends upon who you ask. Don't ask. But also don't be dissuaded my friends. If you haven't already checked it out, check it out; both the channel and the updated in real-time site. Do so, because it is at the very least a pioneering and innovative foray into what might just become the long heralded interactive TV, though admittedly still a bit lacking in the interactivity dept.

Short on the interactive, long on the hyperactive. The format itself consists a rapid-fire stream of five to nine minute segments coming at you bullet train-like and punctuated by phrenetic graphical segways - think wired magazine only animated. The effect is not unlike reading billboards along the highway from the back seat of a speeding car. One wonders if this format isn't calculated to keep the attention challenged gen Y eyes glued to the screen long enough to satisfy wary advertisers. Seven minutes of following a narrative any more abstract than the featured Hottie segments, for instance, may indeed be a stretch for a demographic more accustomed to watching MTV while talking on the cell, playing game boy, surfing the web and listening to tunes all at the same time. And some of the content like the journalistic pieces, though brief, are indeed thought provoking. Thus the interspersed fluff segments like Hottie are likely needed for some facile, if not comic, relief. Included of course are the requisite tech segments and even a Google search tie-in as a bone for the more geeky viewers; the latter not surprising given Gore's own Google tie in as a senior adviser. It must be refreshing for the retired politician to maintain these professional inter, if not incestuous,  relationships and not have to worry about concocting any anti-conflict of interest spin.

At least some of the best content was, apparently, uploaded to the site by budding young independent producers around the globe and selected for broadcast. Interestingly, the network opted for a net savvy "long tail" style of promotion for these productions where submitted video can be viewed then recommended by the site's studio registered visitors. Those that survive that process are then vetted by network staff for airing. A very cool idea and one from which I think, or at least hope, the content will benefit.

But what about this "vetting"? Though Current is billed as a non-partisan, apolitical venue, few are buying that line; especially from the likes of ol' Al. The content aired thus far has been consistent with a pro diversity and tolerance stance. So, could a clean cut, militantly Christian Young Republican get his or her polemic on heathen communist baby-killers aired? The answer's not clear given this submission policy from the site:

You may not post, upload or transmit to the Site, or to the Current servers, any communications, text, graphics or other information or Materials that: (1) is unlawful, obscene, fraudulent, indecent or that defames, abuses, harasses, or threatens others, or is hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; (2) contains any software viruses, Trojan horses, worms, bombs, or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment or that may damage, detrimentally interfere with, surreptitiously intercept, or expropriate any system, data, or personal information; (3) advocates or encourages any illegal activity; (4) infringes on the copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, right of publicity or other intellectual property, proprietary, contracted, personal or other right of any third party; (5) violates the privacy of inpiduals, including other users of the Site; or (6) violates any applicable local, state, national or international law. You agree not to use bots, spiders or intelligent agent software (or other methods) for any purpose other than accessing publicly posted portions of the Site and then only for the purposes consistent with the limited license hereunder and these Terms of Use. You agree not to, or attempt to, circumvent any access or use restrictions, data encryption or content protection related to the Site; not to data mine the Site and not to in any way cause harm to or burden the Site.

Hmm, that likely leaves out a significant percentage of prospective right-wing producers right off the bat. There's always FOX, though. Still, the question remains whether a slickly produced piece with a veiled, or not so veiled, conservative slant would make the cut. One can imagine that it will be tried; it's the ultimate troll challenge, after all: get some good ol' god-fearin Amarican (typo intentional) propaganda onto the "devils" network. Perhaps they'll let a few of the least provocative pieces thru so Current can maintain the nonpartisan posture. We'll see, but they may well just be counting on the recommendation process to weed out any reactionary plants before they would have to even consider filtering them, ala Daily Kos.

So, yeah, the Ringmaster's too freakin old. So's your old man (lady, person..). But be that as it may, I actually think that on the whole Current is a good thing. I respect and applaud risk takers, even if that risk is of being all flash and no substance. Perhaps if the flash can capture the audience's attention, then a healthy dollop of creative independent commentary, art and journalism might just manage to inform it. And if that audience is watching a little more TV, then maybe they'll be playing a little less Grand Theft Auto, even if only because they need the boob tube to play it on. GTA the Game Boy version? Hmm..

It is inexorable. The sheer consuming power of it leaves one breathless and in awe, like a giant black hole at the center of the progressive political galaxy. Yes, the juggernaut that is Hillary may well be unstoppable.

Now as all three of my loyal readers well know, the Ringmaster has savaged the very idea of a Hillary nomination in 2008 as yet another Dem electoral catastrophe. I remain skeptical, with extreme prejudice, of her chances to re-forge her husband's broad, blue state lock-picking coalition if she is nominated. I also remain an enthusiastic Bayh booster. All that said, the woman is one awesome politician, is she not?

This is no latter day revelation. I've recognized and respected Hillary Clinton's abilities since the '92 primaries when she piloted the SS Slick Willie to victory through what seemed then to be unnavigable shark infested waters. Of course as we now know, that was child's play compared to what was to come.  But I suppose it was after reading a  few months back that she was doing joint appearances with Newt Gingrich(!?!) that I began grudgingly to mutter in impolite progressive company, "never, NEVER underestimate Hillary Clinton". If this maneuver doesn't help inoculate her from the elitist liberal label, likely nothing will.

And as most are probably aware by now, the  political coups continue. Her starring role at the recent National Conversation Conference of the militantly centrist DLC erased any lingering doubts that I harbored as to her political acumen. Now, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Bill, a founding leviathan of the New Democrat movement, yanked some strings if not some short and curlies on this one. And it may well be that, given the assumption of a center-wise rhetorical tack from ol Hill, the DLC invoked the "can't be em?,.." rule or are at the very least hedging their bets. But this remains an impressive feat nonetheless.

It is, of course, a long way to 2008, and there's some impressive rival candidacies about to burst from the gates. Bayh, Warner and even Richardson all pass the Ringmaster's litmus of popular centrist red state governor, or former governor. And I'd be foolish to overlook the also politically well-endowed John Edwards (I'm startin to sound like Wonkette!). Hillary, an Ivy League Senator from the northeast (sound familiar?), is of course none of these things. But what I'm starting realize is that via seemingly infallible political savvy, she has now gone from the 800 lb. gorilla status in this race to mass of the sun status. And "the candidate to beat" has officially reached understatement of the year standing.

Put on your sunglasses folks, it's going to be one hell of a ride.

Here's one take on the potential pitfalls of Al Gore's incursion into "non"partisan, youth targeted TV. This from a 2003 story by Fair's Jim Naureckas that they just recycled via their news feed in a timely manner, given the August 1 launch of Currents Network:

Ad Age quotes an "insider" advising Gore: "Liberal TV is dead on arrival.... You just can't do it." The switch to a channel targeting youth was made, according to the article "to make it more enticing to advertisers who were wary of plunking down ads on a network aligned with a particular political party."

But there's fear that even with the new approach, Gore's "Democratic Party affiliation" will still scare off advertisers. "If there is any transparency to Gore, then it will be identified as a partisan operation, which will alienate advertisers," a cable industry executive told Ad Age.

Of course, it's not really partisanship in itself that advertisers object to. After all, Fox News Channel is headed by Republican operative Roger Ailes, and it has plenty of advertising. Ad Age actually quotes a Fox News ad executive, explaining why Ailes' network succeeds while Gore's will fail: "The problem with being associated as liberal is that they wouldn't be going in a direction that advertisers are really interested in."

Of course, it's not really partisanship in itself that advertisers object to. After all, Fox News Channel is headed by Republican operative Roger Ailes, and it has plenty of advertising. Ad Age actually quotes a Fox News ad executive, explaining why Ailes' network succeeds while Gore's will fail: "The problem with being associated as liberal is that they wouldn't be going in a direction that advertisers are really interested in."

And that's it in a nutshell: Even the watered-down liberalism represented by someone like Al Gore is likely to sometimes criticize corporate power, and that's something that corporate advertisers are never going to be eager to underwrite.

Perhaps, but is this in fact the case? Might not the green(wash?) corporate initiatives of heavy hitters like GE, Toyota, Ford and BP be right at home hawking their newly enlighted ways on a network run by the likes of an establishment friendly tree hugger like Gore. If a Mobile oil can underwrite PBS's Nature, would it be less of a PR gain to sponsor some soft progessive content?

And what of self-styled nonconformist outfits like apple? Gore, Hyatt and Daves wisely consulted with tech and media innovators like Steve Jobs and the Google's Brin and Page during concept development. Those latter two are notable in that the Ad experts insisted to the Google guys that they had to use in your face, intelligence insulting tactics like pop-ups to succeed. At that stage the boys were still too blissfully ignorant to know better and opted instead for low key but highly targeted smart ads. The rest as they say is business history. Gore himself is credited with the distrubuted production concept where the audience also contributes to the content. And the thing about new approaches spawned by out of the box thinking is that when they do catch on, the high-power, high-paid experts never manage to see it coming.

It's true, of course, that much of the advertising done for niche products that unabashedly market to progressive demograhics are targeted web and print based ads. More efficient bang for scarce advetising bucks. If it's anything, though, Gore's Currents concept is targeted and niche. It's interactivity remains to be seen. But one can imagine there's arguably sufficient risk-adverse ad dollars out their to float the channel at least initially; cash revenues from companies, niche and broad market, just dying to get their products or services in front of that eldorado of demographics: youth with expendable income and as yet no fixed brand loyalty. And I'll go ahead and take the editorial liberty of suggesting that progressive youth have longer, more focused attention spans than their conservative counterparts. My support for this claim is in my view self evident.. George.