The Great White UP

I heard this on the radio this morning. And I haven't stopped chuckling since.

"Americans like to name their storms.
This last snow storm we had they called Hercules.
But as a Canadian, I prefer to call it winter."

Lest We Forget

Once upon a time, I use to post on the anniversary of 9/11.

The fact that I haven't recently doesn't mean that I no longer care or have somehow lost interest ... no, I believe it just somehow summarizes the present state of my life.

But when I came across this video for the very first time today, it having been posted on the Super Secret Neptunus Lex Face Book page, I knew I simply must share it with you. Before it is swallowed up once against in the mist of cyberspace.

And so I shall. 

It is beautiful, hauntingly so; don't you agree?

There's a hole in the world tonight. Don't let there be a hole in the world tomorrow.

Humpty Meets Dumpty. Again.

Having a particular interest in special education (gee, I wonder why), I subscribe to a couple of Education newsletters. They're both US-based, of course, but something is better than nothing, says I.

So it was that today I came across a synopsis in Education Week stating that a Tennessee Senator wants to pass a law requiring counselors and other school officials who learn that a student has engaged in homosexual activity to report this information to the parents. Thinking that this sounded interesting in a warped sort of way (and admitting that the thought that some right-wing politician strikes again did cross my mind), I clicked on the story.

The only thing is that (in my reading, at least) the story doesn't quite work as advertised - what the synopsis and article purport to say and what the proposed Bill actually says simply do. not. mesh.

The proposed Bill, you see, would provide that

1. classroom instruction, course materials and other informational resources that are "inconsistent with natural human reproduction" will be classified as" inappropriate" for students from pre-K - Gr 8;
2. any counseling by a school counselor, nurse, principal or assistant principal of a student who is "engaging in, or who may be at risk of engaging in, behavior injurious" to their or another's "physical or mental health and wellbeing" must be done, if possible, in consultation with the student's parents and the parents must be notified that such counseling has occurred; and
3. the parents must be notified of a student "whose circumstances present immediate and urgent safety issues involving human sexuality".

And that, right there, is the problem, you see. Or, at least, the problem I see.

Because, for me at least, a requirement that the parents be notified in the case of a student whose "circumstances present immediate and urgent safety issues involving human sexuality" is very different from requiring notification in the case of homosexual activity. This despite the fact that it would appear that the good Senator, himself, might believe otherwise.

Admitting that, if perhaps you are a total homophobic, you might consider any and all homosexual activity to present immediate and urgent safety issues involving human sexuality, might I suggest that just because you say it or think it does not make it so?

Don't get me wrong, I am not making a comment on the "rightness", "wrongness" or "morality" of homosexuality; what I am saying is I find it very hard (read: impossible) to make the stretch that would equate homosexuality with "urgent safety issues".

The Senator, apparently, considers homosexuality to constitute an urgent safety issue because of the possibility of contracting HIV and AIDS. Putting aside the rather awkward fact that you can also contract HIV through heterosexual contact, doesn't any form of sexual activity open you up to the possibility of contracting various sexually-transmitted diseases (some of them pretty nasty, by the way)?

And, by the by, doesn't heterosexuality by a female open her up to the possibility of pregnancy, which some might see as potentially dangerous (be it physically, emotionally or mentally) depending on the age of said female? We are, after all, talking about students here.

But. Back to my original point (yes, of course, I had one; why do you ask?).

Much along the lines of 'Humpty Dumpty Strikes Again', just because you say it doesn't make it so. And, just as an aside, when you attempt to legislate, you might just want to choose your words carefully. Or else you may just run the risk of legislating "human reproduction" right out of existence, which I'm thinking might have some might nasty consequences, in and of itself.

The Law of Unintended Consequences being what it is.

Now That's An Apology

Out of the Loop

Which, it would appear, is what I've most decidedly been as of late.

Not that I don't have my reasons, of course [like working flat out within the window of a six-month funding opportunity to develop my new business, while, of course, still keeping the old business (to say nothing of life) afloat] but that does nothing to change the fact that I'm often feeling a week day late and a hundred dollar short when it comes to keeping up with current events lately.

Such as, for example, when I came across reference to President Obama's proposed plan to protect the unemployed against a hiring bias by prohibiting employers from discriminating against job applicants because they are ... well ... unemployed.

Say what? Is this for real? Apparently so.

Under the proposal, it would be “an unlawful employment practice” if a business with 15 or more employees refused to hire a person “because of the individual’s status as unemployed.”

Unsuccessful job applicants could sue and recover damages for violations, just as when an employer discriminates on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

First of all, I had no clue that this was even an issue, even occurring at all. Although I suppose that's what tends to happen when you cocoon yourself in your own little world, no?

Still, putting aside the cracks about this simply being a make-work project for trial lawyers who don't have enough work, this makes me shake my head on oh so many levels.

First things first, I have to ask, just how stupid are employers? 

Why would any employer intentionally risk shooting itself in the foot by basing hiring decisions simply on the fact that a person is unemployed or has been unemployed for a certain amount of time? 

Skills are skills and you either have them or you don't.  Just because you haven't been working for a while, whether from being laid off due to a sluggish economy or voluntarily removing yourself from the workplace for some period for personal/family reasons (to care for a sick relative, for example) doesn't change the fact that you're either qualified for a particular position or you're not.

I can certainly see the argument that someone who is currently employed will most likely have more up-to-date skills than someone who has been out of the workplace for an extended period (for whatever reason). That's a valid consideration.  But the relevance of that would seem to me to depend on how long a particular person has been unemployed. Not simply the fact that they are unemployed.  So is this actually an issue? For real?

Moving beyond that disconnect, I come to the legitimacy validity sensibleness of President Obama's proposed legislation.  Sorry, but kind of another WTF moment...

I'm pretty confident in saying that most industrialized countries (including the US) already offer protection in some form from discriminatory employment practices that have a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin unless an employer can show that the particular practice is  what we in Canada like to refer to as a BFOR (bona fide occupational requirement).

But we tend to protect potential employees on the basis of what are generally considered "inalienable characteristics" , in other words, characteristics that an individual has no choice or control over, such as their gender, their race, whether or not they have a disability...

Are they now proposing to create a new “protected class” ... the unemployed? Really?

That seems out of whack enough on its own, without even considering the potential consequences of such a move.  I mean, let's face it, American society (in particular) is simply just not litigious enough, right?/sarcasm off.

Quite the message that - "if you’re unemployed and you go to apply for a job, and you’re not hired for that job, see a lawyer".

Well, like I said, always good news for the litigation bar, I suppose.

Then, this evening, checking out what was new at Lex's (something I seem to do far too rarely these days), I came across this - protesters have been occupying the financial district in New York in opposition of "corporate greed? For the past three weeks?

And they have their own website?

And, and, and ... they could be like the Tea Party of the Left?

Wow... I mean, who knew?! Well, obviously not me ...

Left. Right. Is there actually a Centre? 

My apologies to my American friends but, say what you will, you have to admit that they're always entertaining, if nothing else... 

Although I must say, this commentary on their Declaration of Grievances Demands does strike a chord with me. (The commentary, that is. More so than the Declaration.)

For what that's worth.  Which I imagine is not that much, seeing as how woefully uninformed I appear to be at the moment.

Forget keeping up with the Jones'. This girl is struggling to keep up with The World.

Blows My Mind

This video is freaking amazing. *



Lex posted it for the very low altitude barrel roll at 24 minutes that resulted in a knock it off and the team cancelling the rest of their schedule to return to Pensacola for further training. (See I almost sound like I know what I'm talking about!)

But to a ground hugger like me, the whole video was amazing, albeit a little too long.

* I would highly recommend you watch it full screen with a cup/mug/glass/bottle of your favourite beverage in front of you. And get comfy.

It's Baaack...

It seems almost anti-climatic to even comment on Bin Laden's capture (everybody who's anybody having already done so and a good many jokes having crossed the airways at his expense).  But, besides the almost guttural feeling of satisfaction that filled me when I realized the words I was reading were not a hoax, two things struck me about the event.

The first was that the Global War on Terror appears to have made a reappearance (for how long, who knows?) with Bin Landen's death.  I mean wasn't it known as the Overseas Contingency Operation for quite a while now?  And yet, right there, on the American TV news, just last night, they stood at 'Ground Zero' and talked about the GWOT. Who'd have thunk it?

The second thing that struck me (again watching American news on TV) was that after Bin Laden's body was taken to the USS Carl Vinson, it was washed and wrapped in a white sheet (as is the Muslin custom) before being thrown overboard. After all, Muslim tradition requires the dead to be buried within 24 hours.

The burial at sea largely followed widely accepted interpretations of Islamic law taking care not to anger the mainstream Muslim community, said Ebrahim Moosa, a professor of Islamic studies at Duke University in North Carolina.

Defense officials said the administration reached out to one other country to take the body for burial, but the country refused. Brennan said appealing to other countries would have exceeded the time frame Islamic custom requires, of burial within 24 hours of death.

And yet apparently some still weren't satisfied.

But some Islamic scholars and clerics were divided Monday over whether the sea burial was appropriate or an insult to Muslims. Several said bin Laden should have been buried on land in a simple grave. The body was washed in accordance with Islamic custom, placed in a white sheet, then put inside a weighted bag.

With only a small group of witnesses, a military officer read prepared religious remarks, which were translated into Arabic by a "native speaker," the official said. The body was placed on a board, tipped up and then "eased into the sea" from the carrier's lowest deck, the official said.

So here's what I don't get - if you've invested as much blood and treasure as the US has to track this guy down and then double tap him in the head, why on earth would you bother to cater to Muslim sensibilities? 

I don't  know, for me it's kind of a WTF moment ... at best, Bin Laden was a criminal the leader of a terrorist group bent on destroying "the West", at worst, he was ... words I choose not to use on my blog but you get the point, I'm sure.  You've just "invaded" his "home" and shot him in the face ... and now, you're concerned that his customs and traditions be followed?  Lest someome be offended?

Nope, no disconnect there.  None at all. 

I mean, if you capture and kill a nefarious criminal, a serial killer, who happens to be white, who shares my culture and (in name at least) my religious beliefs, I really can't see myself getting all that worked up about how his body is disposed of.  In fact, I might just have a few suggestions of my own ...

Does anyone still think this dude is actually going to anyone's version of heaven?  And, if they still do, given everything he's known to have done, why should we care what they think?  Wouldn't they have to be just as crazy evil as he was?

And if we're that concerned about offending people of that ilk, then why even bother to hunt Bin Laden down and kill him in the first place?  Don't you think those kind of people might just find those acts alone rather offensive?

* As an aside, I note there are a fair bit of conspiracy theories floating around out there about Bin Laden's death (or lack thereof).  That kind of surprised me until I stopped to think about it - which is when I realized it shouldn't surprise me at all.

I really tend not to a conspiracy theory sort of person in any way, shape or form but I must say some of their arguments do make a certain amount of sense.  I'm not suggesting for one monent that I'm on side with them, just that they're interesting.  Worthy of their own blog post, perhaps.  Not that I'm suggesting for one moment that they will actually get one, just that they might be worthy of one.  And such is life. Or death. Some days, we're not quite sure which.

Fell Fast. Fell Hard.

That's about all I have to say for now.

The trip was wonderful.  I must be a very visual person as I tend to take an immediate like or dislike to a city.  Based on things like trees and parks.  And water.  Water is very important.

And so it was that I fell hard for Boston. 

It actually reminds me a lot of Halifax (another city I love but, I must confess, now not as much as Boston).  It's much, much larger, of course, but parts of it just seem like larger pieces of Halifax.  The Public Gardens being one.  The harbour (very different but still close enough).  A Halifax Commons and a Boston Commons.  The mix of old and new buildings - although, admittedly, Boston has kept many, many more of their its historical buildings.

Doing the city in chunks, as we did, I failed, at first, to realize how large it is.  Until I looked out from the Skywalk Observatory, that is.  That was just Wow.

More later.  For now it suffice to say that it was a wonderful trip.  I had a great time with doorkeeper and was honoured to finally meet, in person, some great virtual friends.  Which could be the subject of a post all of it's own ... and likely will be at some point!

If I Had My Druthers ...

A bit of a personal missive this evening (I know - most of them are lately) - some of my readers will know that I have two children with special needs.  Two teenage children, to be exact.  My oldest daughter has a laundry list of labels and diagnoses - mentally challenged, PPD, speech/language disorder ... none of which accurately describe her - and my youngest has a learning disability.

As I walked out of my oldest daughter's IPP meeting today and into the bright sunshine, it struck me that many days it really doesn't seem to matter how much or how well you think you know the law or which government entity is responsible for this or that - creating something meaningful and functional for our children seems nearly an impossibility.  The key words here are, of course, meaningful and functional.

It I had my druthers, Nova Scotia's Canada's education law would be very similar to that in the US.  We would have legislation similar to IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) - which, admittedly, would be somewhat difficult given that IDEA is a federal law whereas, in Canada, education is a provincial responsibility - which actually had some teeth in it, which actually gave parents meaningful rights and a process to challenge a school or school board's actions (or inaction). 

Yes, that's what we would have as opposed to the current namby pamby wishy washy excuse we have for legislation - legislation which uses much of the language in IDEA (such as guaranteeing our children an "appropriate education") but lacks both the process and the teeth to back it up.

I have definitely discovered that high school is a whole new ball game when it comes to IPPs.  From everything from the way they are created to the way they are reviewed and implemented, it is, quite simply, different.  And much harder, from a parent's point of view (or at least from my point of view) to meaningfully participate, to offer meaningful input that is actually included in the IPP and to get information as to how well the goals, once they are finally created, are (or are not) being met (and no, I don't mean the pathetic excuse for "reporting" that is passed off as report cards).

Although it took a long time for IDEA (as it exists today) to emerge, it also took a lot of parental involvement and advocacy.  And I can't help but think that's the only thing that is going to move Canada's educational systems for children with special needs forward.

In the meantime, I suppose we will all just keep putting one foot in front of another.  And keep hoping that somehow, through it all, we can manage to actually obtain an appropriate education for our children.

There's only one problem with that, of course.

Hope isn't actually a strategy.

Theatre

I watched on the television news yesterday as the issue of the "Ground Zero mosque" (complicated by the Preacher from Hell who up until the last minute had appeared hell-bent on burning multiple copies of the Koran) spilled over into protests on the streets in New York on the anniversary of 9/11.

And it got me thinking.  In particular, it made me wonder, for those that hold the anniversary of 9/11 as something precious (or, for some, even sacred), how well do those sentiments mix with the political theatre we witnessed yesterday?

It seems to me that the anniversary of 9/11 should be a time of remembrance, a time of reflection.  Whatever your feelings on the Ground Zero mosque or Pastor Jones, I just can't see the justification for those issues spilling over into what occurred yesterday. 

I'm not suggesting that either one of the above aren't relevant, important issues - things that need to be discussed, debated and, yes, perhaps even protested.  But I just don't think those issues belonged on New York streets.  Not yesterday.

There were two different "camps" out there protesting so I am not condemning one side over the other.  I think that, in a sense, they both should be ashamed of themselves.  Or, at the very least, they should be seriously reconsidering the appropriateness of the choices they made yesterday. 

Because it was all about "choice' - nobody forced either side out on to the streets.  If you really believe these issues require public protest, then by all means protest - do so on September 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,  8, 9 and 10.   Do so on September 12, 13, 14 and 15 and onward, if you must.  But please have the respect to leave one day out of 365 clear of these type of activities.

Yes, I realize that both issues are all directly linked to 9/11 - some might go so far as to say that are a part of 9/11 or symbolize what 9/11 is all about.  I won't argue that point.

But can we not, for just one day, move the political theatre off of centre stage?  Can we not, just for one day, show the victims of 9/11 and their families the respect and dignity they deserve?  Is that really too much to ask?

The group that plans to build the Grand Zero mosque profess to be about "a platform for multi-faith dialogue", something that will strive to promote "inter-community peace, tolerance and understanding locally in New York City, nationally in America, and globally".  Both they and their supporters might want to consider that loud noisy protests on the very day dedicated to the memory of those who lost their lives on 9/11 might not only be the antithesis of promitng "peace, tolerance and understanding" but could well be seen as very disrespectul of those victimes.

And those on the other side of the issue, who argue so strongly that allowing a mosque to be built so close to Ground Zero is a slap in the face to those victims and their families might want to consier affording those same victims and their families one day of dignity, quiet and remembrance.

To do otherwise is, in my opinion, pretty hypocrical of those on both sides of the issue.

I'm just saying.

For The Wisdom of Solomon

I read an interesting opinion piece in our provincial newspaper a couple of weeks ago. 

Entitled "Racist Parents, innocent children: What to do?", it referenced a Court of Appeal decision in New Jersey where three young siblings, with given names of Adolph Hitler, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation and Honsztynn Hinler Jeannie (apparently "Honszlynn Hitler" is meant to honour Heinrich Himmler, the Recihsfuhrer of the SS) were removed from their parents, with custody being transferred to the state. 

Is anyone out there actually wondering what got Children's Aid involved in the first place?

Although a family court had previously found insufficient evidence that the parents had abused or neglected their children, the three appeal court judges ruled that the parents had “recklessly created a risk of serious injury to their children by failing to protect the children from harm and failing to acknowledge and treat their disabilities". 

The children's names were not mentioned in the appeal decision and the court relied on other grounds to find the children were in need of protection (the ones noted in the news accounts being that both parents were unemployed and suffered from unspecified physical and psychological disabilities).

And I must say that although we don't have much detail as to the extent of the parents' "disabilities", it does seem rather strange that the state would be granted permanent guardianship solely on those enumerated grounds.  Or, at least not until after extensive services had been put in place in an effort to help the parents remedy their deficits.

The  New Jersey case mirrors a Canadian one where a young child in Manitoba went to school with a massive swastika on her arm and other slogans on her legs, including references to Adolf Hitler and the slogan, “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

Photos of the markings were shown in court.

“The meaning of that is that black people don’t belong,” the girl later explained to the social worker.

The woman told court Monday she was stunned by what transpired during an hour-long interview with the girl, who frequently used the N-word to describe blacks and said she believes strongly in what her parents taught her.
The girl also gave a graphic description of how to kill a black person, telling the social worker about using a spiked ball attached to a chain and then “whipping them until they die.”

The worker asked the girl if those ideas “scared her.”

“No, black people just need to die. That’s not scary. This is a white man’s world,” she replied.

Although the case was argued as having "nothing to do with infringing on free speech or expression" but rather “longstanding family dysfunction” (including drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, neglect, and criminal activity and associations), some, at least, have read the court's finding that the child and her younger brother were at risk of harm from their Nazi-sympathizing parents as proposing that the risk that the child would acquire racist attitudes was also grounds for removing them from their parents.

And the point has been rightfully made that these children were not originally removed from the home the reasons enumerated above; in fact, they were removed from their parents long before these details came out.  No, there's really no other way to spin it other than that they were taken because the children's aid workers didn't appreciate the racist beliefs of the parents.

Guantanamo Confussion

Can you really blame me for being just a mite bit confussed here?

I mean, everybody knows Guantanamo Bay is a bad place, right?

A very bad place where very bad things happen to (almost) innocent people, right?

Which is why one of the things President Obama promised was to immediately close the place within 100 days his first year of taking office, giving those prisoners back their basic human rights that had so long been denied, right?

Wait, you mean it's still open?

Okay, but still, they must have did something about the situation between now and then, right?

Oh wait, now I remember. They declared that those poor innocent souls detained at Guantanamo Bay would no longer be called "enemy combatants". Because that would be just wrong. I mean, that is what they were called under the Bush administration. Enough said there.

The really strange part, though, was when the Obama administration argued that the President had the legal power to detain enemy combatants terror suspects at Gitmo. Without filing criminal charges. Sound familiar?

But in a much anticipated court filing, the Justice Department argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration had asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration.

The filing signaled that, as long as Guantánamo remains open, the new administration will aggressively defend its ability to hold some detainees there.

But don't worry. It won't be how Bush et al did it.

The Obama administration said it was relying on existing principles of the international law of war. A public statement indicated that the government was moving away from claims of expansive executive power often used by the Bush administration to justify Guantánamo.

The new administration took pains to try to point out that it was taking a different approach. It said the new definition “does not rely on the president’s authority as commander in chief” beyond the powers authorized by Congress. The filing, in Federal District Court in Washington, was meant to provide a definition of those detainees who can be held and bitterly disappointed critics of Guantánamo, who said it seemed to continue the policies they have criticized for more than seven years.

It was the latest example of the Obama administration’s taking ownership of Guantánamo, even after having announced it would close the prison, where 241 men remain.

And, besides, they must have their reasons, right?

Like, I don't know, maybe the place wasn't really that bad after all?

Some critics of Guantánamo said that Friday’s filing fitted a pattern of recent moves by the administration that seemed intended to undercut continued criticism of Guantánamo but did not make significant changes in detention policy.

They noted that after Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr visited the detention camp last month, he proclaimed it “well run.” They said they had been stung as well by a Pentagon report commissioned by the new administration that said last month that the detention camp on the naval base at Guantánamo Bay meets the humane-treatment requirements of the Geneva conventions.

Well, okay. Like whatever.

But they are most definitely still going to close the place and send everybody home. Or something like that, right?

Sure, but just one little itsy bitsy problem. Too bad about the 50 to 100 detainees who cannot be safely released, sent to other countries or tried in American courts. Which means they're going to go where exactly?

But don't fret, they will work it out. Somehow.

And at least in the meantime at least there won't be any more of those nasty "military commissions" Bush was so fond of using to try these ... what do we call them again ... detainees, right?

Okay then, so much for that.

The ultimate cliche might just be to note that life is often much, much harder than it looks. As is governing. So, let's cut the man (and his administration) a little slack.

After all, these are to be new and improved "military commissions" which will "begin to restore the Commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law". Hard to argue with that now, isn't it?

And as wrong as Gitmo may well have been in the first place, no one is saying there are any easy answers as to what to do with the detainees now.

So, yeah, I'm okay with all that.

Kind of. Sort of. For the most part. In a wait and see kind of way.

But here's what I really don't get:

The Obama administration would quickly send home six Algerians held at the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but for one problem: The men don't want to go. Given the choice between repatriation and incarceration, the men choose Gitmo, according to their lawyers.

Say what?! They actually want to stay? In Gitmo? For real?!

Yeah. Apparently they're not too anxious to return home to Algeria because they're afraid of either government torture or becoming the target of terrorist groups.

Which, okay, fair enough. After all, we civilized countries don't deport people to countries where they have a legitimate fear of torture or death.

And although I tend to think of these protections as applying more to innocent and legitimate refugees ... as opposed to, you know, terrorists ... it would be true that you and I can't easily judge exactly who is what at the moment so .... yeah, it probably makes sense that they shouldn't be returned home unless the US can ensure that there is "real substance" behind the diplomatic assurances that detainees repatriated to Algeria will be treated humanely.

Which is all fine and good.

But still. It makes me wonder ... if they're that willing to fight to stay right where they are because they fear torture or some other risk to their lives if they return home, I can only presume that means that, relatively speaking at least, Gitmo isn't really that bad of a place.

I mean, compared to Algeria. At least not anymore.

Right?

Hrrumph

It's not fair, just not fair, I tell ya. Here it was, my chance to be RICH. RICH, I tell ya.

And I'm excluded on the basis of what ... was there something, perchance, that I've done wrong? Did I err in some way?

No. No. I'm excluded on the basis of ... wait for it ... Geography!

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
In re Classmates.com Consolidated Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-0045-RAJ

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL MEMBERS OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, AS DEFINED IN THIS NOTICE A SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN PROPOSED THAT WILL AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS OR SETTLEMENT SUBCLASS DESCRIBED BELOW. PURSUANT TO THIS SETTLEMENT, IN ADDITION TO THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BEING OFFERED, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM TO RECEIVE BENEFITS UNDER THE SETTLEMENT.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.

1. WHY DID I GET THIS SETTLEMENT NOTICE?
The purpose of this Notice is to inform you that a proposed settlement (the "Settlement") has been reached in the consolidated class action lawsuit entitled In re Classmates.com Consolidated Litigation, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Case No. 09-cv-0045-RAJ (the "Litigation"). This Notice explains the Litigation, the Settlement, your legal rights, the injunctive relief being offered through the Settlement, what additional benefits are available, who is eligible for them, and how to get benefits if you are eligible.

2. WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?
In this Litigation, Plaintiffs assert class action claims against Classmates Online, Inc., Classmates Media Corporation, and United Online, Inc. ("Defendants"). Complaints filed in the action allege, among other things, that Defendants sent email messages to subscribers of http://www.classmates.com/ that were in violation of the law and engaged in conduct that had the potential to violate w ww.classmates.com users’ privacy rights. Defendants have denied and continue to deny Plaintiffs’ allegations and maintain that Defendants have not engaged in any wrongful
conduct. Defendants also contend that the Litigation is not suitable for class action treatment. Defendants have nevertheless concluded that it is in their best interests that this Litigation be resolved subject to and on the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

This Settlement is the result of arm’s-length negotiations between Plaintiffs in the Litigation, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class and Settlement Subclass, and Defendants. Both sides agree that, in light of the risks and expenses associated with continued litigation, this Settlement is fair and appropriate under the circumstances. Plaintiffs further believe that this Settlement is in the best interests of the Settlement Class and Settlement Subclass. Please be advised that the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims or Defendants’ defenses and, therefore, you should not make any assumptions about the strengths or weaknesses of the claims or defenses in the Litigation.

3. WHO IS COVERED BY THE SETTLEMENT?
For settlement purposes, the parties have stipulated to the certification of a Settlement Class and a Settlement Subclass, as defined below.

"Settlement Class"
All Persons, excluding Settlement Subclass members, residing in the United States who were registered with or subscribed to w ww.classmates.com at any time between October 30, 2004 and April 19, 2010.

"Settlement Subclass"
All Persons residing in the United States who registered with or subscribed to http://www.classmates.com/ between January 1, 2007 and April 19, 2010, and who paid for a Gold Membership subscription to w ww.classmates.com (and did not previously receive a refund of such payment) as a result of:

Upgrading to a Gold Membership through the process on Classmates.com of seeking to see who visited their Guestbook; or Upgrading to a Gold Membership after clicking on a link to Classmates.com in a Guestbook email, or Connections email that included a Guestbook subject line, and upgrading to a Gold Membership within the same session activated by clicking on that link or within the same day of clicking on that link; or Upgrading to a Gold Membership within the same day of receiving a Guestbook email or Connections email that included a Guestbook subject line.

You are receiving this Notice because you have been identified from Defendants’ records as a potential Settlement Class member. According to Defendants’ records, you do not appear to be a Settlement Subclass member. There is no overlap between the membership of the Settlement Class and the Settlement Subclass. If you have any questions regarding your claim, please contact the Settlement Administrator at the address listed in Section 5 below.

4. AS A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, WHAT AM I ENTITLED TO?
In addition to injunctive relief, as a Settlement Class member, if you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement and if you timely submit a Valid Claim Form, you are entitled to receive a credit of $2.00 off of the purchase or renewal of a http://www.classmates.com/ Gold Membership. Under the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Subclass members are entitled to receive either a cash payment of $3.00 or a credit of $2.00 off of the purchase or renewal of a w ww.classmates.com Gold Membership.

In addition to its cash and credit components, the Settlement also provides, on a non-opt out basis, for Defendants to provide injunctive relief to all Settlement Class and Settlement Subclass members. A description of the injunctive relief that Defendants are providing is set forth at the following website: http://www.cmemailsettlement.com/.

5. HOW CAN I GET THE CREDIT THAT I AM ENTITLED TO?
To receive a credit of $2.00 off of the purchase or renewal of a w ww.classmates.com Gold Membership as a Settlement Class member, you must fit the description of a Settlement Class member and timely send a Valid Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator.

You can read the rest of it here.

But just remember who sent you on the journey towards your new-found riches.

On 'Why We Fight'

At the continued urging of a close friend, I watched the documentary film "Why We Fight" on DVD last night.

The film over, I wondered idly why my friend was so anxious to have me view it. After all, it hadn't really told me much of anything I didn't already (think I) know.

There was that whole "military industrial complex" thing (which, from what I can tell, the mere mention of which can cause many on both sides of the political spectrum to see red and rant and rave on either how evil it is or what a pile a crap the whole concept is, take your pick). Although apparently more correctly-titled, from the man who first coined the phrase, the military-industrial-congressional complex.

Warnings about letting "the tail wag the dog", how the system takes on a life on its own; not so much that it goes "looking for a war" but how quick can it can be to respond and push policy in that direction if the chance presents itself.

Warnings about a congressional system in which the members have to bring home the pork the bacon, making what should be a decision about military spending essentially one about jobs for constituents. How it is often (always?) just about the big money involved. And warnings about behind-the-scenes think tanks pushing policy ... in the direction that they think it should go, I suppose.

I must say that I did find the story of Eisenhower's life quite interesting. Confessing that knowing that there was both a General Eisenhower and a President Eisenhower at some time in the United States' history being roughly the extent of my knowledge on that subject. He sounds life a very interesting man, the kind I would love to sit down and chat with over a cup of tea.

The US invasion of Iraq was pretty much pillaged in the film. But since I never was in favour of that move, never felt that the intelligence on whether or not there were actually weapons of mass destruction present was strong enough to justify that action, there wasn't much of anything new for me there either.

Although I must admit that good points were made as to how the public (and the politicians, too, to an extent, I imagine) have been duped into thinking that so-called smart weapons are so much smarter, so much more accurate than they actually are.

Making the idea of waging a particular war perhaps a little more palatable, a little more acceptable with the thinking that we can strike with supposed precision and leave the innocent civilians unscathed. On which point, one might want to check with the citizens of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

But what I found most interesting about the film was buried in the "Special Features" section. Two interviews given by the film's producer, Eugene Jarkecki; one with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show and one on Charlie Rose.

I appreciated Jarecki's even-handedness, how he gently corrected the erroneous thinking of both interviewers, explicitly stating he was not about conspiracy theories and explaining that the point of the film was not about any particular party or any particular President. In fact, it wasn't even about the neo-cons (gasp). [My apologies - but it has now become my signature to add the appropriate gasp following every use of the dreaded word ... neo-cons.]

That the "enemy within the gates", so to speak (my terminology, not his) is a necessary system that has taken on a life of it's own. And how each and every one of us (he was, of course, speaking of and to the United States but it is unarguable that the point applies to every industrialized, developed country in today's world) has the responsibility and the duty to be aware and on guard.

To be on guard to ensure that the tail is not wagging the dog. To ensure that we hold our politicians accountable and that policy decisions are made by those that are accountable (as is so often, unfortunately, not the case in the world today). And to ensure that America, a country built on the principles of a republic, does not become an empire. Which is what President Eisenhower was warning against.

Good stuff. Valid points. So true.

As, unlike the Olympics are for the vast majority of us and contrary to what often appears to be public opinion, democracy?

Most definitely. Not. A. Spectator. Sport.

On another note, I found it interesting that an interview with Senator John McCain featured prominently in the film. Interesting because 90% of what Senator McCain had to say sounded to be in basic agreement with the words of President Eisenhower.

He spoke of the military/industrialist complex taking on a life of its own, of (if not actual corruption) a congressional system which allowed decisions to be made in very questionable ways and for very questionable reasons. How insidious it is. How we had to be aware of and on guard against it.

Which I thought was interesting considering that he was the Republican candidate in the recent 2008 election; the one whom (if you believed some a lot of the hype) candidate Obama had to save the country from. Well, from him and Sarah Palin, of course. But that's a story best for another day.

All in all, I'm glad I watched the film. Both for the (Eisenhower) history I learned and for the musings of Jarecki. Two interesting men with very valid points to make.

And in exchange for my watching "Why We Fight", my friend has agreed to read Palin's book, "Going Rogue".

Who knows, perhaps, he too will write a review for us?

In Search of Common Ground

I am currently in the midst of (about half-way through) reading Sarah Palin's book "Going Rogue" at the moment.

I'm reading it because I can't quite get a 'read' (pardon the pun) on Ms. Palin. I don't usually watch Oprah but I did watch the day she interviewed Palin. Interesting enough but I still don't really know what to think of her.

She definitely ain't stupid, I can tell you that much. But she definitely does seem different in some way I can't quite put my finger on. Perhaps it's something in her way of speaking, I'm not sure.

I do know that a lot of people (including most of the media) seem to have ganged up on her and I don't get exactly what that's all about. I think it is true that a lot of people are scared of her but once again I am stuck as to the why.

I posed this question to the nice young guy who works behind the counter at our local Fair Trade coffee shop last week. He never sees me without a book and commented on what I was reading.

Knowing, just knowing, how far to the left of the political spectrum he is, I couldn't help but engage the conversation. I must say that he was more level-headed than many I hear (than again, I think most Canadians are); I think he actually paid her a compliment at one point. But when I mused about people being scared of her, he not only agreed but admitted he was.

When I asked why, he said it was because of her values. Ignoring the amusing point that values are generally considered positive attributes and not something that should create fear, I pointed out that we all disagree with different people on different things but that doesn't usually engender the reaction Palin gets.

Anyway, I am reading the book precisely because I can't get a read on her. The fact that I have made it half-way through speaks for itself in a way - despite the fact that I am an avid reader, I don't can't seem to read non-fiction. Perhaps I get enough "reality" in my work, I don't know, but for the most part I seem unable to force myself through any book that isn't fiction. This one is taking some time but I am making it through. I think maybe because it is told in a rather 'folksy' (for lack of a better word) style, a story told rather like a story, if you will.

And so it occurs to me that if I ran the world, it would be screwed up in totally different ways I would like to make the book mandatory reading for many.

Although my gut is telling me that I will still have that uneasy feeling of being unable to get a 'read' on Ms. Palin after I finish the book, I do appreciate hearing her side of the story on some of the slams things that were brought up during the campaign (such as the alleged book burning, creationism v. evolution in the schools and the infamous 'Trooopergate') and I think it's only fair that people give her a chance to have her voice heard. And then make up their minds.

I know the book (as does the author) tends to engender extreme reactions on both sides (you either love it or you hate it) but for those in the middle and those tempted to quickly write her off if any way possible, might I suggest you read the book first. Then vilify away, if you must.

Reading earlier tonight about Sarah's pregnancy with Trig brought tears to my eyes (an easy enough thing to do on a topic close to my heart). I have posted before about how moved I was by the video Palin made for Special Olympics (which, by the way, I found another copy!) and some of what she speaks of in the video is repeated in the book.

But I was also reminded of a newspaper piece written by Rick Lavoie during the US Presidential election with his thoughts on Governor Palin's promise to be a champion for "special needs families" because she "knows what they are going through".

He shared that response at a Learning Disabilities Conference I attended last year. It too touched my heart. Yeah, yeah, I know; I have a very touchable heart. But you have to give the man credit. He did hit the nail right on the head.

As an advocate for families of handicapped children for over three decades, I have taken a special interest in the role that Trig Palin is playing in the Presidential campaign. Trig, now six months old, is nominee Sarah Palin’s son. He has Down Syndrome. Governor Palin often tells her audience that she will be a champion for “special needs families” because “she knows what you’re are going through.

With great respect and empathy, I must say, “Sorry, Governor, but you don’t.” You will…someday. But not now. Not yet.

Trig is – and always will be – a blessing in your family’s life. But, Governor, your journey has just begun. You will understand…someday. But between that day and today, there will be a lot of other “somedays.”

Someday…you and your family will spend stressful hours in a hospital waiting room while Trig undergoes corrective surgery. The doctors will call it “routine” … but that characterization will seem foreign and insensitive to you.

Someday…a relative or “close friend” will suggest that Trig not be brought to a holiday function because “it may be too much for him to handle.” Your relationship with that person will never be exactly the same again.

Someday…all the students in his class will be invited to a birthday party…except Trig.

Someday…some stranger in a store will stare at him and ask an insensitive and intrusive question. Startled, you will give a bland response. But for several days after the incident, you will generate great and clever retorts that you “should have said." (By the way, you won’t be able to recall these “clever retorts” the next time this occurs).

Someday…your adorable daughter who stroked Trig’s hair during the GOP convention will grow into adolescence. Trig will embarrass her in front of her friends and she will tell you, “I hate him! I hate him! I hate him!” (…she will feel guilt-ridden after her rant and will cry herself to sleep that night).

You can read the rest of it here. And might I suggest that you do.

Meanwhile, I will get back to that book. And I will let you know what I think when I finally get through it.

Missed Opportunity

How on earth did we ever miss this?

Maybe because we're too busy whining about what he can't get right? Or maybe it just isn't considered newsworthy...

Either way, it's something that should be recognized. And acknowledged.

Yes, I realize it's only a step. But a first step is better than no step, no?

And then we might just ask when a similar move might be made in Canada.

Sleight of Hand

Over at Lex's yesterday, Quartermaster opined that there was no valid reason for President Obama not to give McChrystal the 40K troops he asked for.

I mused that maybe he had a reason. Perhaps he was just trying to show the Democrats and the American people that he would not be bullied pushed around by the military.

And then today, it all came into sharper focus when I read this comment in a discussion about what role Canada might play in Afghanistan post-2011.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon met in Brussels this past week with Canada’s NATO allies as the alliance cobbled together 7,000 additional troops from 20 countries, but not Canada. The number was short of the 10,000 the Obama administration wanted after committing an additional 30,000 U.S. personnel to the mission earlier in the week.

Cute.

Let's recap then. General McChrystal asked for 40,000 more troops for Afghanistan. Obama offered 30,000. And then looked to NATO make up the remaining 10,000.

I wonder how well that's going to work for him.

The British government is facing opinion polls showing that around 70 percent of the public favors an early withdrawal. That figure has nearly doubled in the past six months, as the country has sustained its worst casualties — 97 killed so far this year — since it first deployed troops to Afghanistan after the Taliban were toppled in 2001.

Germany and France have balked at committing any more forces to a war that has so little public support that they can barely maintain current troop levels.

The Netherlands and Canada have begun discussing plans to pull out. Canadian defense officials told reporters traveling with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in Halifax last week that they had no intention of sending troops in the future, and that they remained committed to withdrawing by the end of 2011.

Even if the allies make commitments for 5,000 or more new troops after the president’s address on Tuesday at West Point, NATO officials say, those commitments will include troops already in Afghanistan to provide security for recent elections and trainers for the Afghan Army and the police.

And it remains unclear whether several thousand NATO and other foreign troops are really the equal of a similarly sized American force in terms of military capacity. Some countries may continue to restrict how their forces may be employed. In addition, a force that is cobbled together from too many nations — a few hundred here and a thousand there — might not have the unit cohesion of an American force, military analysts said.

But don't you worry your pretty little head about it. I'm sure the President had a real good reason for waiting over 2 months to announce a decision to send 10,000 less troops that McChrystal asked for. And then asking his allies to make up the slack.

Which I suppose might just make it *our* fault when if the non-surge surge isn't successful. Seeing as how the United States is giving it all in the "good war". Alas, if only the those allies could be counted on to do their part.

The End of the Waiting Game?

This past Sunday, I expressed my feelings on the waiting game so many of us seem to be stuck in thanks to President Obama's decision not to decide on General McChyristal's request for more troops in Afghanistan.

Apparently I'm not the only one who feels stuck.

WAITING for Obama. Waiting for leadership. Waiting for effective aid. Waiting for a sign NATO is in for the long haul. Waiting for a reason not to bet the Taliban will outlast the Westerners and take over when they’ve had enough and leave.

Afghanistan is one big waiting game now and there isn’t much time for game-changing action.

. . .

The favourite candidate was U.S. President Barack Obama. U.S. Senator John McCain and Pakistani journalist Najam Sethi, editor-in-chief of Lahore’s Daily Times, were among those rightly calling upon President Obama to end the uncertainty about sending a "surge" of 40,000 troops to Afghanistan. Rick Hillier, Canada’s former chief of defence staff, went even further in saying Mr. Obama possesses the position and the ability to articulate a broader vision for rescuing Afghanistan, to touch people beyond the U.S. and to rally Western nations, including Canada, to renew their commitments rather than focus on exit strategies.

The president clearly is the crucial waiting-game changer. But there are others. Canada, the U.K. and the Netherlands have all been bulwarks against Taliban violence, but their long-term commitments, like those of other Western allies, have gone cloudy. A policy brief circulated at the conference makes a devastating case that development aid has been ineffective because donors didn’t build up managerial competence within the Afghan government and failed to co-ordinate aid efforts themselves. The country is still waiting for a "pilot" to steer aid where it’s most needed and most effective.

And yet, thankfully, according to Lex, there might just be signs of hope.

Then again, despite the use of the term "delusional" "decisional" to describe this latest meeting, for me, at least, it still retains the some of the same feel as before ... deciding not to decide.

The administration's plan contains "off-ramps," points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting" the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said.

. . .

The plan adopted by Obama would fall well short of the 80,000 troops McChrystal suggested in August as a "low-risk option" that would offer the best chance to contain the Taliban-led insurgency and stabilize Afghanistan.

It splits the difference between two other McChrystal options: a "high-risk" approach that called for 20,000 additional troops and a "medium-risk" option that would add 40,000 to 45,000 troops.

There are 68,000 U.S. troops and 42,000 from other countries in Afghanistan. The U.S. Army's recently revised counterinsurgency manual estimates that an all-out counterinsurgency campaign in a country with Afghanistan's population would require about 600,000 troops.

Let's just hope it's not too little. Too late.

"This war is going to be decided," he told the conference, "over the decisions of athers of Pashto young men who are being asked by Taliban commanders to give them their sons to go out and fight against the Afghan government." These fathers, he says, need reasons to resist the Taliban line that "we’re going to chase the Americans out" and they "need to feel good about being on the right side."

"Anything we can do to change the tenor of that discussion will help, so that fathers of those Pashto young men say, ‘That’s what you said last year when you took my other son and he’s dead and the Americans still haven’t run away.’"

We should not keep them waiting for reasons to say no.

Dis Connect

The International Security Forum is being held in Halifax this weekend.

Building on the model of GMF’s successful Brussels Forum, the Halifax International Security Forum will feature a mix of plenary sessions and smaller breakout sessions, with emphasis on intimate and interactive exchanges between panelists and participants. On-the-record panels will cover broad themes such as international law, nuclear proliferation, and global transatlanticism. Breakout sessions held under the Chatham House Rule will explore challenges associated with North Korea, development, climate change, and counter terrorism, among other topics. The agenda reflects the growing diversity of issues at the core of the transatlantic security relationship as well as the increasing geographic reach of transatlantic cooperation. Finally, the Saturday night dinners, also under the Chatham House Rule, give every participant a unique opportunity to further discuss key issues in a more intimate setting and at the same time sample local cuisine.

This puts Canada in a "very exclusive club of countries who are tasked with this important role of peace and security", donchya know.

Uh huh.

Canada is scheduled to pull its troops (or the majority of them anyway) out of Afghanistan in 2011. That date is supposedly set in stone. And yet at the International Security Forum, some are publicly saying that President Obama needs to "weigh in" on Afghanistan and use some of famous eloquence to rally western nations and provide a clear articulate vision to win the war.

My first response being, "Yeah, right"; I don't think anyone is going to change the mind of what appears to be the majority of Canadians on this issue. Then again, on second thought, perhaps he could. If he really wanted to. Given his cult of personality.

But forget about putting half as much effort into the oratory on the idea of hope and change and winning the war in Afghanistan as he has into the debate about healthcare. First he would actually have to step up and, you know, make a decision. Walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

Just how long will it take Obama to decide on how to respond to General McChrystal's request for increased troops? I mean, this has been going on for quite a while, hasn't it? Like at least two months?

And during that time I've been noting the obvious - it's not just American troops dying while Obama fiddles. So too are Canadians. And. Others.

Which begs the question - if one of the reasons America's allies are fighting in Afghanistan is to help the US finish what it started, doesn't the US have an obligation to those same allies?

Doesn't Obama realize his actions and inactions affect not just his country, but many others?

And might some consider it a mite disingenuous that he ran on a plank of America needing to get out of Iraq but increase resources in Afghanistan, what he referred to as "the good war" given what appears to be the White House's current attitude?

So, yeah. Maybe, just maybe, President Obama needs to stop fiddling and dithering and make a decision on where the US stands on the war in Afghanistan. Before anyone even considers the possibility that he could convince the ROW to stay the course.

Colour Me Stunned

When the alarm goes off in the morning, I stumble out of bed and turn the radio on. Then I stumble back into bed, ostensibly to listen to the news before I got up but, in reality, to get a few more winks of sleep.

This morning, my half-asleep brain jarred itself awake when I heard that President Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Price. Actually, in all honesty, for a split second I questioned whether I had been or still was dreaming as I lay there listening intently to the rest of the story.

So, yeah, colour me shocked, if you will. Did you know there were a record 205 nominations for this year's peace prize?

Now, look, I am not anti-Obama. Trust me, enough are. It's not like they need any more help in promoting their cause. Like I said at the time, I appreciate the historical significance in the US electing its first black President. In fact, I think it's rather cool. But I'm not so much into personality cults.

And my standards for Obama are pretty much the same as they are for any politician. Namely, show me your stuff. Impress me with your good judgment and acute sense of right and wrong. Show me that you are, indeed, worthy of people's vote.

To date, I haven't felt much for Obama, the politician, one way or another. Good or bad. Other than he does give good speeches. He has a good voice. And his kids are cute.

In all honesty, I have nothing too much either for or against the man at the moment. Because he hasn't accomplished a whole hell of a lot yet. In all fairness, hasn't had a whole lot of time to accomplish a whole hell of a lot. I don't hold it against the man. It's just the way it is. Time will tell.

Which would explain my shock at not his not just being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (that, in and of itself would have surprised me), but at him being actually awarded it.

I mean, what the hell has he done to further world peace?

Like I said, this isn't really so much about a criticism of him. He's only been in office for less than a year. So if he had managed to accomplish something to further world peace in that time, I would be very suitably impressed. But other than his speeches apologizing to the world for America's past actions and inactions and his promises to lead us into the dawn of a new age of international relations ... I ain't seen too much.

And, forgive me please, but just because Iran has supposedly agreed in principle to ship most of its current stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be refined for exclusively peaceful uses and pledged that within weeks it would allow the inspection of a previously covert uranium enrichment facility, I'm not quite ready to cry "peace in the Middle East" just yet. As in seeing really is believing.

First of all, it appears that no ground has been given on demands that Tehran halt the enrichment of uranium, meaning that the overall problem of Iran's nuclear program remains. And I seem to remember a neighbouring country that failed to follow through on its promise to allow full weapons inspections by the international community. So, yeah, Seeing Is Believing.

Then again, there's also the fact that this "agreement in principle" was just reached yesterday. So somehow I doubt it was what swayed the Committee to make the award it did.

But hey, apparently they had their reasons. And for them, it's not so much about seeing. Just about believing.

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the Norwegian committee said in a statement.

"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve".

"It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done," he said.

Silly me, I had no idea it had been renamed the Nobel We Would Like To Have Peace Prize. I mean, I'm sure more than a few people qualify for that one.

Well, at least I know I'm not the only one to feel this way. Apparently, I'm in good company.

The award to Mr. Obama so early in his presidency stunned much of official Washington, and drew a wide range of reactions from around the world. "So soon? Too early," said former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the peace prize in 1983. "He has no contribution so far. He is only beginning to act."

Ah, well, I really cannot say it any better than Lex did earlier today.

And congratulations, Mr. President. Please accept my fondest wishes that your accomplishments may some day match your accolades.

And I mean that with the utmost sincerity. Because if the man actually can manage to live up to his press advance billing, the world truly will be a better place.