Truly a visionary and a unique personality. He got a bit too political towards the end but I think he just wanted to make a difference before he passed on. I can forgive him that. I'll probably be the same way when my clock starts winding down...
I think Lamb is going to win this race barring a massive dump of absentee ballots in favor of Saccone. Which means you can predict two thing from Trump tomorrow. 1.) he will claim that surely thousands of illegal votes were cast (which he will present with zero evidence whatsoever) and 2.) that he was never really in favor of Saccone, despite the fact that he held a campaign rally for him 3 days ago.
If it was Tennessee or Georgia I'd say the absentee ballots might go for Saccone. The military vote in Pennsylvania is much smaller than the southern states so I doubt they're going to swing enough in Saccone's favor. Republicans and Democrats alike might have to rethink who they have running for these seats. There aren't any guaranteed victories these days. That is probably a good thing. Dickheads might not be able to count on automatic victories anymore...
Edit: (Speaking more about Roy Moore than Saccone but I heard whispers that Saccone wasn't the best choice in this race.)
If a GOP district is even close to touching the suburbs, that Representative is on life-support as of tonight. The Senate is still out of reach for now, but the GOP is going to get ridden out of the House on rail. I think it will be bigger than 1994, 2006 and 2010 at this point.
I think Lamb is going to win this race barring a massive dump of absentee ballots in favor of Saccone. Which means you can predict two thing from Trump tomorrow. 1.) he will claim that surely thousands of illegal votes were cast (which he will present with zero evidence whatsoever) and 2.) that he was never really in favor of Saccone, despite the fact that he held a campaign rally for him 3 days ago.
If it was Tennessee or Georgia I'd say the absentee ballots might go for Saccone. The military vote in Pennsylvania is much smaller than the southern states so I doubt they're going to swing enough in Saccone's favor. Republicans and Democrats alike might have to rethink who they have running for these seats. There aren't any guaranteed victories these days. That is probably a good thing. Dickheads might not be able to count on automatic victories anymore...
Edit: (Speaking more about Roy Moore than Saccone but I heard whispers that Saccone wasn't the best choice in this race.)
If a GOP district is even close to touching the suburbs in November, that Representative is on life-support as of tonight. The Senate is still out of reach for now, but the GOP is going to get ridden out of the House on rail. I think it will be bigger than 1994, 2006 and 2010 at this point.
Maybe. A lot can happen before November. I'm still hoping Trump can curb his worst impulses. At his age it's doubtful to say the least though. The only hope I have as a conservative at this point is if he can pull something substantial off with North Korea. Tax reform just isn't going to be enough I'm afraid...
For those who support Edward Snowden (and I'm not one of those people), it's worth pointing out that I don't think we should EXECUTE him, although our new Secretary of State does:
For those who support Edward Snowden (and I'm not one of those people), it's worth pointing out that I don't think we should EXECUTE him, although our new Secretary of State does:
Wait, I thought Snowden was instrumental in getting Trump elected. I swear politics in this country is looking more and more like a bad episode of Game of Thrones...
The implications of the Russian attack on the UK are fascinating. The nerve agent was a very unsubtle way of doing things. It seems to be a demonstration of what Russia can do to potential traitors- and people in the US will also have taken note of it. A bit harder to co-operate with Mueller if you're worried about that... It's also an attempt to influence the turnout in Russia's own election, to get Putin a bigger rubber stamp by representing the incident as a western conspiracy. Very blunt and crude, but possibly also effective.
For those who support Edward Snowden (and I'm not one of those people), it's worth pointing out that I don't think we should EXECUTE him, although our new Secretary of State does:
Wait, I thought Snowden was instrumental in getting Trump elected. I swear politics in this country is looking more and more like a bad episode of Game of Thrones...
Maybe he did help get Trump elected, but "what have you done for me lately" might get him killed. Maybe he's outlived his usefulness like those people killed in the Russian attacks in the UK.
The implications of the Russian attack on the UK are fascinating. The nerve agent was a very unsubtle way of doing things. It seems to be a demonstration of what Russia can do to potential traitors- and people in the US will also have taken note of it. A bit harder to co-operate with Mueller if you're worried about that... It's also an attempt to influence the turnout in Russia's own election, to get Putin a bigger rubber stamp by representing the incident as a western conspiracy. Very blunt and crude, but possibly also effective.
It's a demonstration of what you know you can get away with when the President of the United States is clearly in your back pocket. The absolute refusal to say anything about this, the firing of Tillerson hours after he agrees with Theresa May, the fact that not one cent of the $120 million dollars given to the State Department to combat future interference has been allocated, the refusal to implement sanctions that passed both Houses of Congress in what were nearly unanimous votes......there is something very wrong here indeed.
It would appear that Russian agents are simply murdering people in the UK with impunity this month:
What exactly are we supposed to do? Harsh language isn't going to accomplish anything. Declare war? That's about the only thing that's going to get Putin's attention. Who has the stomach for that? I doubt even the UK has the stomach for that and they're the aggrieved party. What do you propose we do?
What exactly are we supposed to do? Harsh language isn't going to accomplish anything. Declare war? That's about the only thing that's going to get Putin's attention. Who has the stomach for that? I doubt even the UK has the stomach for that and they're the aggrieved party. What do you propose we do?
Well I've heard it said that Russia has effectively been taken over by gangsters and time and again it's been shown that the best way to deal with gangsters is financial.
It's not at all clear to me that North Korea is aiming to negotiate seriously, but the fact they are willing to negotiate at all is down to financial pressure - in recent quarters even China has been implementing real sanctions. If serious sanctions were genuinely implemented on Russia that would have a big impact pretty quickly.
However, - Russian money is interwoven in the international financial system and getting it out would have a big impact on western economies. As I suggested a few days ago, personally I think that would be a price worth paying as so much of that money is linked to corruption (and that makes the economy less efficient quite apart from the political and social impact). There would also be wider economic impacts, due to the amount of natural resources that come from Russia and the size of their economy for consumption. - Russia has demonstrated in recent years that they are not at all shy about using military tactics both covertly and overtly. Putin also said yesterday that the UK should be careful about threatening a nuclear power. Taking action against Russia would definitely be dangerous. for both those reasons I think it's highly unlikely that what I would describe as serious sanctions will be implemented at this stage. I think it's much more possible though that there will be a ratcheting effect where each side retaliates to measures announced by the other.
I haven't seen anyone commenting on how the situation in Russia compares with pre-war Germany, but I think there are parallels. In the early 30s Germany was a weak country, both economically and militarily. However, Hitler portrayed them as strong and essentially dared other countries to stop him as he went through a series of increasingly provocative actions (for instance leaving League of Nations, re-arming, annexing the Rhineland, Anschluss with Austria, annexing much of Czechoslovakia and then invading the rest). Given that history over several years, it's understandable that Hitler was surprised when his invasion of Poland led to a general war.
My impression has been that Russia has been going through a similar process of international adventurism, alongside moves towards a domestic dictatorship and upgrading armed forces. I also have the impression that Putin believes that no-one would have the political will to risk a wider conflict with Russia (and the Russian interference in other countries that we've discussed so much is aimed at ensuring this remains the case). That, of course, is a dangerous game to play.
(...) I haven't seen anyone commenting on how the situation in Russia compares with pre-war Germany, but I think there are parallels. In the early 30s Germany was a weak country, both economically and militarily. However, Hitler portrayed them as strong and essentially dared other countries to stop him as he went through a series of increasingly provocative actions (for instance leaving League of Nations, re-arming, annexing the Rhineland, Anschluss with Austria, annexing much of Czechoslovakia and then invading the rest). Given that history over several years, it's understandable that Hitler was surprised when his invasion of Poland led to a general war.
Well, thanks to Weimar republic(semi socialism) and the defeat in WW1, germany was pretty weak in 1930. The fact that Germany while was a monarchy, proof that monarchy > democracy and no, i an not monarchist, i only recognize the superiority of monarchy.
The implications of the Russian attack on the UK are fascinating. The nerve agent was a very unsubtle way of doing things. It seems to be a demonstration of what Russia can do to potential traitors- and people in the US will also have taken note of it. A bit harder to co-operate with Mueller if you're worried about that... It's also an attempt to influence the turnout in Russia's own election, to get Putin a bigger rubber stamp by representing the incident as a western conspiracy. Very blunt and crude, but possibly also effective.
It's a demonstration of what you know you can get away with when the President of the United States is clearly in your back pocket. The absolute refusal to say anything about this, the firing of Tillerson hours after he agrees with Theresa May, the fact that not one cent of the $120 million dollars given to the State Department to combat future interference has been allocated, the refusal to implement sanctions that passed both Houses of Congress in what were nearly unanimous votes......there is something very wrong here indeed.
It would appear that Russian agents are simply murdering people in the UK with impunity this month:
Tune down a bit on the "we are looking for leadership from the US".
I live up the road to this (as previously mentioned), frankly so what if the US does nothing? The world doesn't revolve around the US, the UK and plenty of other countries are quite capable of f***ing up all on their own. The US elected a bad president, stop with the endless pushing of this problem onto being of concern to everybody.
That said, nothing about this poisoning looks straightforward to me. I cannot understand why anybody would think they were safe after betraying a country/regime like Russia. Are they really that naive they believe the UK, the USA ect. will ensure their and their family's safety, for ever?
Surely common sense would kind of kick in and you would always have it in mind that one day someone would come after you? Yet this man lived openly in the UK under his own name, his children returned to Russia, one of them was killed there just last year. His daughter returned from Russia the day before they were poisoned.
I have no links with Russia, never been there, don't even know any Russian people, but I do have a basic understanding that a country like Russia does very bad things to people if they believe it's in their interest to do so. Does anybody seriously believe differently?
I do have a basic understanding that a country like Russia does very bad things to people if they believe it's in their interest to do so. Does anybody seriously believe differently?
I'm reasonably certain the reason people complain about this is not because they think Russia doesn't do these things, but because they think Russia shouldn't be allowed to murder people. People are proposing that we punish Putin's regime for murdering people.
I do have a basic understanding that a country like Russia does very bad things to people if they believe it's in their interest to do so. Does anybody seriously believe differently?
I'm reasonably certain the reason people complain about this is not because they think Russia doesn't do these things, but because they think Russia shouldn't be allowed to murder people. People are proposing that we punish Putin's regime for murdering people.
Duetere is getting away with it too. Murdering people. He's withdrawing from the international criminal court because they mentioned looking in to his extra judicial killings
The United States shouldn't be murdering innocent people by drone, either, but we have been doing it for years now. Remember: everyone killed by a drone is classified as "enemy combatant" until post-strike research has proven otherwise.
The United States shouldn't be murdering innocent people by drone, either, but we have been doing it for years now. Remember: everyone killed by a drone is classified as "enemy combatant" until post-strike research has proven otherwise.
We probably shouldn't be in Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan etc etc. I can't find a list so easily but I've seen there's like 17 current operations going on all over the place.
(...) I haven't seen anyone commenting on how the situation in Russia compares with pre-war Germany, but I think there are parallels. In the early 30s Germany was a weak country, both economically and militarily. However, Hitler portrayed them as strong and essentially dared other countries to stop him as he went through a series of increasingly provocative actions (for instance leaving League of Nations, re-arming, annexing the Rhineland, Anschluss with Austria, annexing much of Czechoslovakia and then invading the rest). Given that history over several years, it's understandable that Hitler was surprised when his invasion of Poland led to a general war.
Well, thanks to Weimar republic(semi socialism) and the defeat in WW1, germany was pretty weak in 1930. The fact that Germany while was a monarchy, proof that monarchy > democracy and no, i an not monarchist, i only recognize the superiority of monarchy.
That's more proof that Germany was given the bum deal after WW1. Being a monarchy or not afterwards would have had 0 impact.
(...) I haven't seen anyone commenting on how the situation in Russia compares with pre-war Germany, but I think there are parallels. In the early 30s Germany was a weak country, both economically and militarily. However, Hitler portrayed them as strong and essentially dared other countries to stop him as he went through a series of increasingly provocative actions (for instance leaving League of Nations, re-arming, annexing the Rhineland, Anschluss with Austria, annexing much of Czechoslovakia and then invading the rest). Given that history over several years, it's understandable that Hitler was surprised when his invasion of Poland led to a general war.
Well, thanks to Weimar republic(semi socialism) and the defeat in WW1, germany was pretty weak in 1930. The fact that Germany while was a monarchy, proof that monarchy > democracy and no, i an not monarchist, i only recognize the superiority of monarchy.
That's more proof that Germany was given the bum deal after WW1. Being a monarchy or not afterwards would have had 0 impact.
Of course have impact. Democracy tends to evolve into populism and bigger states. A king needs to think in long therms because he will pass his kingdom to his son, while in a democracy, the short therm is priority. See how many economic crisis European countries suffered after the monarchy ended in many countries.If Monarchy din't ended in Germany, will be no Weimar republic and no national socialism, Germany will eventually break the Versailles treat and recover.
Republic/democracy can only work if is very decentralized and the state will soon or later centralize power.
I live in a country that was a monarchy but since the first "democracy", become a shi***le that have insane high taxes(we started a revolution because 20% of taxes on gold, now pay almost 50% of taxes with a big and complex tributary code), insane high criminality, almost 60.000 homicides/year, affirmative action to protect the majority from minority(people who identify as white is 47% of population but whites are probably around 20=25%) and a lot of corruption. Is arguable that is impossible to do business honestly here since the laws are ridiculous insane and complex and the """right""" here is literally social democrats. Also, we have a insane gun control that simple increased the murder rate exponentially. Also, if the left approve affirmative actions in companies, i will never be able to work here. And why monarchy ended here? A coup. A blonde, blue eyed princess abolished slavery and the elite hated it and turned it into a shi***le.
Theresa May has announced the measures the UK will take in response to the Skripal attack. I don't think there are any surprises there, but it's still early days. Two areas where things could bite a bit more are: - the highly likely introduction of something like the Magnitsky Act to punish individuals involved in corruption and human rights violations - the possibility of some concerted international action. I don't think that's likely to happen, but I've been surprised at the extent of international support expressed so far, so it's not impossible.
As I mentioned before there's also the chance of a ratcheting effect. Russia will certainly respond with measures of their own, which could result in further action being taken by the UK.
@SorcererV1ct0r Germany's status after WW1 was forced on it by other nations. Its governing system had no impact on that. You also need a bigger sample size than 2 to form any kind of a conclusion.
@SorcererV1ct0r Germany's status after WW1 was forced on it by other nations. Its governing system had no impact on that. You also need a bigger sample size than 2 to form any kind of a conclusion.
Show me one democracy that din't resulted in bigger government and centralized power and populism.
All three Austin explosive devices went off while they were being carried. I thought they were just on the front porch, which could be a simple timed delay, but this means they were set to detect motion as the condition for detonation...unless the suspect was watching from a distance and detonating them by pushing a button when he saw someone pick it up (I highly doubt this scenario--staying in the area would be too risky). Either way, this isn't a rookie bombmaker--this person knows what they are doing.
Many students staged a walkout today over the Florida shooting from last month. Just for the sake of discussion, let us presume that a student decided *not* to walk out. What will be the consequences of that student's decision? Will they face possible ridicule or ostracism for not following along with the crowd? Will they be publicly shamed or bullied, called names such as "gun nut" or even "murderer"? (this hypothetical student is merely hypothetical; our teenagers are not in school this week due to spring break)
Many students staged a walkout today over the Florida shooting from last month. Just for the sake of discussion, let us presume that a student decided *not* to walk out. What will be the consequences of that student's decision? Will they face possible ridicule or ostracism for not following along with the crowd? Will they be publicly shamed or bullied, called names such as "gun nut" or even "murderer"? (this hypothetical student is merely hypothetical; our teenagers are not in school this week due to spring break)
Probably some of them. What discussion did you want to have about this?
I wasn't really wanting to have a particular discussion, just throwing out questions at random. Ideally, I was wondering this: since many people are willing to support these students' decision to walk out of class, are they also willing to support a student who decided *not* to walk out? If not, why not?
@SorcererV1ct0r Germany's status after WW1 was forced on it by other nations. Its governing system had no impact on that. You also need a bigger sample size than 2 to form any kind of a conclusion.
Show me one democracy that din't resulted in bigger government and centralized power and populism.
How can a governement made of multiple branches be MORE centralized than being ruled by a monarch? You have being goverened by mmultiple people (plus a voting populace) on one side, and literally one person calling all the shots on the other. Simply by hpw its structured, a Democracy CANT be more centralized than a monarchy.
I wasn't really wanting to have a particular discussion, just throwing out questions at random. Ideally, I was wondering this: since many people are willing to support these students' decision to walk out of class, are they also willing to support a student who decided *not* to walk out? If not, why not?
depends on the reasoning of why the kid didn't want to walkout.
If the kid is a denier, (these incidents never happened so why protest) I wouldn't support that particular stance, but it's that kids choice to plead ignorance.
If a class had an already scheduled test or a project presentation that would effect their marks if they missed it, then priorities suggest walking out on that class isn't in the students best interest.
If a student feels their education is more important than taking a stand on something they know will not be changed by a simple walkout and they remain in class, I can respect that as well.
Inevitably there is some social pressure in both directions involved in the choice of whether or not to protest, and I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that. Obviously no one should bully a kid for sitting out a protest. I hope and expect that schools will handle such behavior just like any other instance of bullying.
House Democrats killed the Right to Try bill today. This is a bill that would allow terminally ill patients the right to use drugs that remain in a clinical trial phase (not yet fully approved by the FDA).
Very disappointing . I personally dedicated a lot of my time last summer to help it get passed, and its been the only time I've felt an obligation to contact my senators and representative.
Luckily the FDA's compassionate use initiative has already expanded access to terminally ill patients. The problem there is that it may not survive a change in administration.
The House Republicans should have had a hearing, but there is no reason not to vote in favor of this bill. I hope the Democrats who complained about procedure are actually concerned about the procedural issues and not the substance of the bill (though in almost all cases each party cares only for procedure when they don't like the actual bill).
@SorcererV1ct0r Germany's status after WW1 was forced on it by other nations. Its governing system had no impact on that. You also need a bigger sample size than 2 to form any kind of a conclusion.
Show me one democracy that din't resulted in bigger government and centralized power and populism.
How can a governement made of multiple branches be MORE centralized than being ruled by a monarch? You have being goverened by mmultiple people (plus a voting populace) on one side, and literally one person calling all the shots on the other. Simply by hpw its structured, a Democracy CANT be more centralized than a monarchy.
Agree. A limited republic with clear separation of powers will inevitably be less tyrannical (ie centralized) than a government which puts the legislative, judicial, and executive power in one entity.
The problem is that the separation of powers often breaks down in the interests of "efficacy". This does mean I have some sympathy for @SorcererV1ct0r 's criticism of democracies' shortsightedness. This shortsightedness also manifests itself in budget priorities, with democratically elected politicians having an incentive to spend more now, while they are seeking reelection, and leave the difficult (and unpopular) decisions of taxing and saving to future generations.
So democracy is flawed. Still the best system we have. As the saying that many attribute to Churchill goes, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others".
Comments
That sucks. At 76 he had a full life especially for a guy confined to a wheelchair for years
It would appear that Russian agents are simply murdering people in the UK with impunity this month:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/uk-police-investigate-russian-businessmans-death-in-london/2018/03/13/34a2c514-26e4-11e8-a227-fd2b009466bc_story.html?utm_term=.4b57d3b79884
It's not at all clear to me that North Korea is aiming to negotiate seriously, but the fact they are willing to negotiate at all is down to financial pressure - in recent quarters even China has been implementing real sanctions. If serious sanctions were genuinely implemented on Russia that would have a big impact pretty quickly.
However,
- Russian money is interwoven in the international financial system and getting it out would have a big impact on western economies. As I suggested a few days ago, personally I think that would be a price worth paying as so much of that money is linked to corruption (and that makes the economy less efficient quite apart from the political and social impact). There would also be wider economic impacts, due to the amount of natural resources that come from Russia and the size of their economy for consumption.
- Russia has demonstrated in recent years that they are not at all shy about using military tactics both covertly and overtly. Putin also said yesterday that the UK should be careful about threatening a nuclear power. Taking action against Russia would definitely be dangerous.
for both those reasons I think it's highly unlikely that what I would describe as serious sanctions will be implemented at this stage. I think it's much more possible though that there will be a ratcheting effect where each side retaliates to measures announced by the other.
I haven't seen anyone commenting on how the situation in Russia compares with pre-war Germany, but I think there are parallels. In the early 30s Germany was a weak country, both economically and militarily. However, Hitler portrayed them as strong and essentially dared other countries to stop him as he went through a series of increasingly provocative actions (for instance leaving League of Nations, re-arming, annexing the Rhineland, Anschluss with Austria, annexing much of Czechoslovakia and then invading the rest). Given that history over several years, it's understandable that Hitler was surprised when his invasion of Poland led to a general war.
My impression has been that Russia has been going through a similar process of international adventurism, alongside moves towards a domestic dictatorship and upgrading armed forces. I also have the impression that Putin believes that no-one would have the political will to risk a wider conflict with Russia (and the Russian interference in other countries that we've discussed so much is aimed at ensuring this remains the case). That, of course, is a dangerous game to play.
I live up the road to this (as previously mentioned), frankly so what if the US does nothing? The world doesn't revolve around the US, the UK and plenty of other countries are quite capable of f***ing up all on their own.
The US elected a bad president, stop with the endless pushing of this problem onto being of concern to everybody.
That said, nothing about this poisoning looks straightforward to me. I cannot understand why anybody would think they were safe after betraying a country/regime like Russia.
Are they really that naive they believe the UK, the USA ect. will ensure their and their family's safety, for ever?
Surely common sense would kind of kick in and you would always have it in mind that one day someone would come after you?
Yet this man lived openly in the UK under his own name, his children returned to Russia, one of them was killed there just last year.
His daughter returned from Russia the day before they were poisoned.
I have no links with Russia, never been there, don't even know any Russian people, but I do have a basic understanding that a country like Russia does very bad things to people if they believe it's in their interest to do so.
Does anybody seriously believe differently?
Republic/democracy can only work if is very decentralized and the state will soon or later centralize power.
I live in a country that was a monarchy but since the first "democracy", become a shi***le that have insane high taxes(we started a revolution because 20% of taxes on gold, now pay almost 50% of taxes with a big and complex tributary code), insane high criminality, almost 60.000 homicides/year, affirmative action to protect the majority from minority(people who identify as white is 47% of population but whites are probably around 20=25%) and a lot of corruption. Is arguable that is impossible to do business honestly here since the laws are ridiculous insane and complex and the """right""" here is literally social democrats. Also, we have a insane gun control that simple increased the murder rate exponentially. Also, if the left approve affirmative actions in companies, i will never be able to work here. And why monarchy ended here? A coup. A blonde, blue eyed princess abolished slavery and the elite hated it and turned it into a shi***le.
- the highly likely introduction of something like the Magnitsky Act to punish individuals involved in corruption and human rights violations
- the possibility of some concerted international action. I don't think that's likely to happen, but I've been surprised at the extent of international support expressed so far, so it's not impossible.
As I mentioned before there's also the chance of a ratcheting effect. Russia will certainly respond with measures of their own, which could result in further action being taken by the UK.
Many students staged a walkout today over the Florida shooting from last month. Just for the sake of discussion, let us presume that a student decided *not* to walk out. What will be the consequences of that student's decision? Will they face possible ridicule or ostracism for not following along with the crowd? Will they be publicly shamed or bullied, called names such as "gun nut" or even "murderer"? (this hypothetical student is merely hypothetical; our teenagers are not in school this week due to spring break)
If the kid is a denier, (these incidents never happened so why protest) I wouldn't support that particular stance, but it's that kids choice to plead ignorance.
If a class had an already scheduled test or a project presentation that would effect their marks if they missed it, then priorities suggest walking out on that class isn't in the students best interest.
If a student feels their education is more important than taking a stand on something they know will not be changed by a simple walkout and they remain in class, I can respect that as well.
Very disappointing
Luckily the FDA's compassionate use initiative has already expanded access to terminally ill patients. The problem there is that it may not survive a change in administration.
The House Republicans should have had a hearing, but there is no reason not to vote in favor of this bill. I hope the Democrats who complained about procedure are actually concerned about the procedural issues and not the substance of the bill (though in almost all cases each party cares only for procedure when they don't like the actual bill).
The problem is that the separation of powers often breaks down in the interests of "efficacy". This does mean I have some sympathy for @SorcererV1ct0r 's criticism of democracies' shortsightedness. This shortsightedness also manifests itself in budget priorities, with democratically elected politicians having an incentive to spend more now, while they are seeking reelection, and leave the difficult (and unpopular) decisions of taxing and saving to future generations.
So democracy is flawed. Still the best system we have. As the saying that many attribute to Churchill goes, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others".