Sen. Barack Obama and Elections (matter)

"Elections matter." I said this (and a whole lot more!) at 11:15 am, Saturday, January 28, 2006 on 96.9 FM Talk, WTKK, Boston on the Jim Braude and Margery Eagan show after hearing the co-host, Mr. Braude, lament that President Bush was replacing a moderate U.S. Supreme Court Justice with a conservative Justice.

"There's one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values. And that's to win elections." Senator Barack Obama said this on the talking head shows on Sunday, January 29, 2006. This quote also appeared in the January 30 edition of the Boston Globe. Recall that Senator Obama is the Harvard-educated, African-American Senator that is super brilliant.

I'm just sayin'.

Filibustering Alito

On January 23, I posted the following comments, "Trust me, the extremists will not filibuster Judge Alito because they know it is a losing political move. The extremists will posture to their radical base, but they will not filibuster."

Now, it looks like I underestimated the stupidity of Sen. John F. Kerry. The Senator may prove me wrong on my "trust me" comment, but filibuster or not, I'm still all over this issue.

Two days after I wrote there would be Democrats posturing to the radical base, the news reports are concluding the Senator's moves are exactly that; he's obviously positioning himself for the Democrat's 2008 Presidential nomination. ZACKlyRight strikes (first) again! Great, Senator Kerry, nail down the super-extremists of your party and then try to convince those in the middle, those that actually decide elections, that you are not an extremist. Well, I guess with a compliant liberal media it is worth a shot.

Anyway, a related letter:

Editor,

The Boston Globe and its reporters have done an extremely poor job of explaining the filibuster to their readership.

On Friday, January 27, the Globe reported, "Under Senate rules, 41 Senators can tie up debate indefinitely, blocking a nomination (Mass. senators to filibuster Alito, A2).

On Saturday, January 28, the Globe reported that Sens. Kerry and Kennedy were, "well short of the 41 votes they need to lock in unlimited Senate debate and kill the nomination . . . Under Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to end a filibuster and allow a final vote on a nominee (An uphill battle for filibuster votes, A2)."

My heavens, reading the references above one would think a filibuster would kill a nomination; nothing could be further from the truth. From my armchair, I see really only two possible outcomes after a filibuster is initiated. First, at any time, the President can pull the nomination; this will, never, ever happen. Or, second, the filibuster ends and a vote is finally taken; this is exactly what would happen.

A third option, I guess, is that the filibuster proceeds just as the Globe reported, indefinitely. That is, without end. Well, we know this is not possible. The longest filibuster in history was 85 days. Let's double that and concede Democrats filibuster a popular judge for 170 days. For 170 days, the Republicans will be at microphones proposing fixes for the Medicare Prescription Drug program and lamenting that they can't take action on them. They will be in front of microphones proposing additional spending for body armor for the troops in Iraq and lamenting that they can't take action. They will be in front of microphones proposing additional spending for education and lamenting that they can't take action. Meanwhile, the videotape of Democrats reading cooking recipes and the rules of popular card games from the Senate floor would be broadcast into every living room in America. And on and on it will go until either the President pulls the Alito nomination or Democrats relent and allow the debate to end. The political carnage to Democrats for filibustering even one day would be tremendous. As a Republican, I can only hope such a foolish filibuster lasts indefinitely. Actually, it would last no longer than the swearing in of the overwhelmingly Republican Senate that would be elected in November of 2006.

I think I dismissed the mythical fourth option, the Constitutional option, as unlikely as well because I proved it unnecessary. (End of letter.)

Impeachment Tutorial

Next to my computer there are only two books: a dictionary and a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America (the Constitution). Atlas Shrugged is on the book shelf for those that were wondering.

Impeachment is a political exercise and a political exercise only.

From Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution, "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office, of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to the Law."

The word "judgment" in the first line is understood to mean "conviction" (which occurs in the U.S. Senate). As people should remember from the impeachment of President Clinton, impeachment is not the trigger mechanism for removal from office. President Clinton was impeached by a bi-partisan vote in the House of Representatives, but President Clinton was not convicted by a bi-partisan vote in the Senate (the seven female Senators obviously thinking sexual harassment was not the issue they thought it was when Associate Justice Clarence Thomas was being considered for the U.S. Supreme Court).

I don't know if President Bush "broke the law" when he ordered wire taps on the phones of suspected terrorist. I'm pretty sure that Sen. John F. Kerry doesn't know either. I'm positive that if Sens. Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy say that President Bush broke the law that that does not make it so. And, President Bush saying he didn't break the law does not make it so, either. Conceding for the purpose of this conversation, though, even if the Courts determine that President Bush's conduct was "unlawful", it absolutely does not mean he will be impeached. He will be impeached only if enough Republicans think there is political advantage in doing so (they won't).

Right now, the surveillance-of-suspected-terrorists issue is nothing more than a vehicle for Democrats to raise money from their radical base. Great, the radicals can go to another $1,000 a plate dinner and listen to Gov. Howard Dean call the President a "criminal".

The PEOPLE Make Laws

A quote from today by Sen. Orrin Hatch:

"Like America's founders, Judge Alito clearly believes in self-government, that the people and not judges should make law, and that judges have an important role but must know and stay in their proper place." Hmm. Looks like something the readers of this space may have seen on January 19.

Next, we learn from Mr. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal (If You Choose Not to Decide, You Still Have Made a Choice, January 23, A17) that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion in Ayotte was the first and only abortion ruling by the U.S Supreme Court that was agreed to unanimously! I was certainly justified in using the word "extremist" (post of January 23, but I didn't see the article until January 24) to describe the Senators that would vote against a nominee who would have joined this opinion. Who, exactly, is out of touch with mainstream America?

Still working on the impeachment post. As a teaser, Democrats are hyperventilating about impeaching a president that may have broken the law to protect the lives of Americans; the same Democrats that voted not to convict an impeached president who perjured himself and obstructed justice all to prevent a woman from pursuing a sexual harassment suit against him. And Democrats wonder why they don't control any branch of the Federal government.

Filibuster Tutorial

For those that have been forced to read the completely ignorant "news" accounts regarding the impending U.S. Senate vote to confirm Judge Samuel Alito as the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, let me explain the "filibuster".

Filibuster does not mean that if liberal extremists decide to mount one against the nomination of Judge Alito that he will not become the next Associate Justice.

A filibuster is nothing more than unlimited debate in the U.S. Senate. That is, as long as Senators are "debating (reading cooking recipes, reading the rules of golf, reading the names of the 2,880 Americans killed by terrorists on September 11, 2001, etc.)" then a vote cannot take place. The filibuster is nothing more than a political tool. When the political costs exceed the benefit, the filibuster will stop. If the benefits accrue, then the filibuster will continue. My goodness, it's so simple. I suspect with the 44 liberal extremists in the U.S. Senate that it is very easy for "debate" to continue for months. I say, fine. Let the extremists talk, and talk, and talk, to keep a Judge off the U.S. Supreme Court that 72% of all Americans think should be on the Court. Trust me, the extremists will not filibuster Judge Alito because they know it is a losing political move. The extremists will posture to their radical base, but they will not filibuster.

If I were advising the Republicans in the United States Senate, I'd tell them to let the extremists have their filibuster if they so elect. The evening news would be nightly clips of angry extremists talking but no work getting done in the Senate. That, my Republican friends, is a prescription for 70 Republican Senators. My goodness, I couldn't conceive of a more perfect plan for double digit Republican gains in the Senate than for the extremists to mount a filibuster of a popular Judge. One more time for emphasis, a filibuster is a political move.

Anyway, after all the posturing, the vote for Judge Alito out of committee will be 10 - 8. Duh! No brilliant insight on my part here. The vote to confirm will be about 60 - 40. All 55 Republicans plus about 5 extremists that understand the political need to vote "yea".

Tomorrow or Wednesday a post on the impeachment process, another political exercise that has absolutely nothing to do with jail time. My goodness, the idiots that don't understand this!

Ayotte and the PEOPLE

The U.S. Supreme Court dogged me. While I was spending two nights drafting my next post on the pending Court case Ayotte v. Planned Childlessness of New Hampshire, the Court issued an opinion on it and rendered my draft useless. Well, all but the opening paragraph and the last three sentences.

First, the opening paragraph:

The PEOPLE make laws. U.S. Supreme Court Justices do not determine whether to outlaw abortion or not; legislatures and chief executives of a state or country do that by making laws. The U.S. Supreme Court merely determines whether laws are constitutional or not. I'm pro-life; I'd support laws that would ban abortion (read: protect innocent human life) in all instances except the acute health risk to the mother. Rape? Incest? If I were the only person voting, you're having the baby. If I'd support all abortion bans, then short of that, I'd support all limitations and restrictions on abortion should abortion remain a sanctioned activity by the State. I'd support parental notification laws, I'd certainly support bans on partial birth abortion, I'd make sure that those that performed abortions were as trained, licensed and monitored as any other "health care" provider (quotes around "health care" for the obvious ironic reasons). The only way any laws banning abortion (protecting innocent human life) would come to pass were if the PEOPLE passed them. (End of opening paragraph with no additional edits.)

Excerpts from Justice O'Connor's opinion on Ayotte that was unanimously joined by the Court, "First, States unquestionably have the right to require parental involvement when a minor considers terminating her pregnancy . . . we (the Court) try not to nullify more of the legislature's work than is necessary, for we know that '[a] ruling on unconstitutionality frustrates the intent of the elected representatives of the people' . . . mindful that our constitutional mandate and institutional competence are limited, we restrain ourselves from 'rewrit[ing] state law to conform it to constitutional requirements' . . . but making distinctions in a murky constitutional context or where line-drawing is inherently complex, may call for a 'far more serious invasion of the legislative domain' than we ought to undertake . . . the touchstone for any decision about remedy is legislative intent, for a court cannot 'use its remedial powers to circumvent the intent of the legislature' . . . so long as they are faithful to legislative intent, then, in this case the lower courts can issue a declaratory judgment and an injunction prohibiting the statute's unconstitutional application . . . ."

The last three sentences of my useless draft:

If you think the PEOPLE make laws, support the confirmation of judges that trust you.

Of course, I support the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito and not because I think he's pro-life. I support Judge Alito because I think he thinks WE make the laws. (End of last three sentences with no additional edits.)

MLK, Jr. Quote

"Many people fear nothing more terribly than to take a position that stands out sharply and clearly from the prevailing opinion. The tendency of most is to adopt a view that is so ambiguous that it will include everything, and so popular that it will include everybody. Not a few men who cherish lofty and noble ideals hide them under a bushel for fear of being called different." (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

On this Martin Luther King Day, let everyone that reads this quote resolve to shed just one fear, to take just one position they believe is right, to promote just one lofty or noble ideal, and to dare the lemmings to ostracize.

The Experiment Continues.

(Though, now I'm even more insecure about writing something intelligent; thanks a lot Catalyst!)

In three comments to this space, Catalyst makes one overarching point: the issue being analyzed has arguments "for" and "against" and the development of an opinion based on both sets of arguments is the demonstration of a thoughtful and intellectually honest analyzer (the "analytical scale", as Catalyst refers to it). I could not agree more on this point. I also agree with Catalyst's sentiment that believing something does not make it so. I believe Terry O'Reilly was the greatest hockey player ever in spite of an impressive argument (that obviously ignores "intangibles") to the contrary.

Anyway, for set-up and discussion purposes, let's consider two issues before we get to a more topical third issue:

1. Is the earth round? I gather my own evidence and I develop my own opinion. In this case, there is much more evidence to support that the earth is round than there is otherwise. The analytical scale tips to the earth being round. It is now my opinion the earth is round; I independently came to this conclusion.

2. Does spanking your children when they misbehave make them behave? Maybe there is a correct answer (I think it probably "depends"; I responded "well" to it as a kid; it, or the fear of it, helped control my behavior; some kids may not respond so "well"), but there certainly is less physical evidence available to support the "yes" or "no" opinions than in the earth question, so we are left with availing ourselves of the best (for and against) and most (for and against) information we can, dump it all on the analytical scale and then develop our own opinion. On these squishy issues, there is absolutely a greater chance to be wrong. I, of course, would be swayed by my own experiences as child and parent. Someone who was not struck as a kid and who has no kids may interpret the data differently.

So, is President Bush an idiot? We are not going to argue that today; I'm simply setting up how the analysis could be done incorrectly by proponents on both sides of the argument. A few weeks ago, I finished reading Bob Woodward's "Bush at War". I came away more impressed by the President (and Dr. Condoleezza Rice, by the way). Is Bob Woodward too convenient a source for someone that "wants" to like the President more? Possibly. Is Woodward going to be completely dismissed by his liberal friends because the result (the President is more impressive than we thought) cannot possibly be true so all of the evidence that Mr. Woodward includes in the book to support this concept cannot be true? Will I freely quote pro-Bush comments made by Woodward at the next dinner party I attend that is also attended by the anti-Bush crowd? Yes. Woodward is just one data point in the question, though. Borrowing from Catalyst's suggested format in analyzing a question, President Bush either is or is not an idiot. Whether evidence is ignored or whether smart people argue each side of the answer will not change the fact he is or isn't. Someone expressing an opinion on this topic will do an excellent job if they consider the wide range of arguments "for" and "against" and then concluding. Extremists on both ends of the answer, of course, do themselves no favors if they only look at evidence that supports their view. I'm reluctant to cede ground to someone arguing Bush is an idiot because the people with whom I could have this conversation would cede absolutely no ground that he is not. I suspect these folks have not availed themselves of any material that supports him not being an idiot. You can't be an idiot and fly a military jet. Apparently, you can be an idiot and mislead Sen. John F. Kerry, though.

Mr. Derrick Z. Jackson wrote a nasty race-baiting piece for the Boston Globe today. Yes, he implies that Judge Samuel Alito is a racist and that the Republican Party is made up of a bunch of racists. Real clever stuff.

Anyway, my letter in reply:

Editor,

Mr. Derrick Z. Jackson's vile insinuation that the Republican Party and Republicans are inherently racist goes beyond the pale in his column manufacturing fear of an Associate Justice Samuel Alito on the U.S. Supreme Court (A court seat for privilege . . . , January 14, A15).

Strangely missing from Mr. Jackson's ridiculous stroll down memory lane was the fact that the "conscience of the Senate" and the Dean of Democrats, Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), is an ex-Ku Klux Klan member. Sen. Byrd also holds the ignoble distinction of being the only U.S. Senator to vote against both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas for seats on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yes, Mr. Jackson, "memory is irrelevant in a nation" where one major political party so warmly embraces an ex-KKK member.

I look forward to Mr. Jackson's interpretation of Sen. Byrd's vote, which looks like it will be for confirmation. (End of letter.)

Maybe some intelligent Alito stuff tomorrow; I'm trying desperately to get to the abortion issue.

Catalyst II

Please read the comment by "Anonymous" (Or, "Catalyst" as I affectionately call her) on January 10, 2006; only when you're done so should you return to this post.

As long as I write this space, I'll leave Catalyst's comment where it lies. It is a monument to anger. Catalyst, I simply can't match it. I'm trying to be topical with some intelligence and some humor, but you're scaring the bejeesus out of me.

Catalyst, you will not abandon my blog - for no other reason than now learning that I leave the house at 5:55 am every day (M - F), return home around 6:00 pm, spend some time with my family, read the Globe, decide whether to write a letter or post here, watch a little TV and then go to bed to do it all over again the next day. My post of January 10, 2006 contains (according to Microsoft Word; I didn't count them) 949 words. I wrote them in less than an hour. I sit down and I start typing. One quick edit and post. Catalyst, you will return because in less than an hour on Jan. 10 I wrote a post that mentioned the "filibuster judges (my expression; no RNC talking point phrase)", the Chevron PAC, Harold Ickes, Beslan, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, no absolute right to free speech and I quoted the Second Amendment . . . and I didn't google anything (I googled the Chevron PAC thing the day I did my Sen. Feinstein post; but what great recall!). Where else are you going to find that breadth?

Catalyst, go read my December 14, 2005 post on racial profiling. That post has a little of my philosophy, a little of my logic, and, yes, the letter to the editor. It's a pretty short post, but maybe it has more of what you're looking for (please let me know). However, if you just want to trade hostilities with a conservative, I'm not your guy.

Next, from my January 10, 2006 post, I'd like the opportunity to modify just one sentence. I wrote that my shtick was "nothing more than a reply to the extremism of the Boston Globe." Well, as I think many of posts would suggest, I think this sentence should have read that my shtick "was primarily a reply . . . ."

To my other three readers, thank you for your continued support; please know that I have not forgotten you. We'll see how this three day attempt at something different goes, but then I have to get back to what is going on in the world. There was some excitement down in Washington, DC, you may have read about it, the President of the United States nominated an extremely qualified person to be the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court . . . and now the U.S. Senate is conducting hearings to determine if a President that was elected after campaigning on the issue of appointing a conservative judge to The Court will be denied.

Catalyst I

Please read the comment by "Anonymous" (to now be called "Catalyst") on December 31, 2005; only when you've finished should you return to this post.

Wow! Nice job Catalyst (For the pleasure it gives me, I'll assume you to be a female; apologies if I'm wrong). I can't believe that I've been properly called-out by a communist . . . and that I'm now responding!

Privately, I've lamented to family and friends that I wanted my space to be more "intelligent" than what it's been. For it to be, though, I would need more time; time I simply don't have. Accordingly, I've chosen and accepted to dumb-down my space and make my shtick nothing more than a reply to the extremism of the Boston Globe. I come home from work; read the Globe; laugh at something stupid that a liberal extremist said or wrote; and respond. You can see how that pretty much caps the intelligence level of any of my posts if all I need to do is rebut a quote by Sen. Charles Schumer, Sen. John F. Kerry or any Globe columnist.

But, to address Catalyst directly:

I am not the "Republican" talking points. I'm pretty sure I'm the only space that made a point of the religion of most of the "filibuster" judges. My Mr. Sean Penn and Ms. Cindy Sheehan stuff is pretty original. For crying out loud, I mention the Boston Globe in just about every other thing I write; the national Republicans don't care about the Boston Globe. My Dianne Feinstein/Chevron PAC $ and the price for a gallon of coffee stuff was original. My Tom DeLay stuff was original (the whole A to B to C thing). My shtick is the anti-Globe. This week, for example, I responded to a Wellesley High School protest. What talking point sheet did I get that material?

Hey, Sean, poverty . . . still . . . New Orleans.

Because I'm the anti-Globe, I, of course, always end up on the side of President George W. Bush. Catalyst, I'm a stinking blog and I'm coming under fire for being results-driven? How about a large regional newspaper being so driven? Yes, I seem to always support the President or the Republicans but that's because a major regional newspaper always checks the party affiliation of their subject before the paper decides what its position is. Sexual harassment? Clinton - no foul. Packwood - foul. Campaign fund raising? DeLay - foul. Ickes - no foul. National security leaks? Plame - foul. NSA surveillance - no foul. The list is endless. How lame that?

As Catalyst uses the War in Iraq to state she would be against the war regardless of Sens. Clinton or Kerry's support, I'll also use the war to answer Catalyst's challenge to me. First, though, I'm going to argue for the war and not the deft slight of words that Catalyst slipped in about the "continuation" of the war.

I am for the war in Iraq because I believe that I am more safe without Saddam Hussein in power than with him in power. Period. End of argument. If the President and 100 Senators thought differently then I'd be critical of all of them. I have little interest in free Iraqis. I have little interest in female Iraqis having rights. I have little interest in female Iraqis going to school. I have tons of interest in a Beslan episode not happening in my hometown. I have tons of interest in a dirty bomb not going off in Boston (it won't know the difference between the liberals and the conservative; joking, I'm joking!). I have tons of interest in no terrorists coordinating shooting rampages in 15 shopping malls around the U.S. I simply believe that a Saddam Iraq increased the possibility that those things I fear were more likely to happen.

This space will see me mention the Hispanic U.S. Attorney General many, many times. He's a dear friend of the President and he's a very significant advisor. Yes, I'll be provocative playing on the General's ethnicity. I will not write a post supporting the President on granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. Catalyst, correctly, nails me on this. You want to read a criticism of the President, read the Boston Globe. You want to read an opinion different than the one in the Boston Globe, read this space.

Finally, to Catalyst and recognizing my good-natured gesture in calling you a communist: you cannot call the Boston Globe conservative. Yes, I get the "big business" link, but only with the expansion of the political spectrum to include communists and fascists could the Boston Globe and I be considered neighbors. In the political spectrum that exists in the United States, the Boston Globe marks the left-most edge; I'm insisting that I'm firmly on the right but not an extremist (I'd probably not vote for the death penalty although I know it is a perfectly constitutional form of punishment if the people vote for it and just as there is no absolute right to free speech [yelling fire in a crowded theater] there is no absolute right to own a howitzer even though the second amendment says my right to "keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"). I will not argue against the death penalty in this space. I will not argue for "gun control" in this space.

I regret I don't have more time to write a more intelligent space.

Now, let me go read today's Boston Globe, who knows, I could be back with another post later tonight. Sen. Charles Schumer said a lot yesterday . . . the Globe will be packed with his ridiculous quotes.

The USA PATRIOT Act and Abramoff

Sorry about the long gap since my last post, but you know how the Christmas season is and I did have to get caught up at work . . . I am taxpayer afterall and the nanny state doesn't work if the taxpayer doesn't work first. Having fulfilled my obligation to the state, I give you some silly stuff as it has been a pretty slow and uneventful period.

Two letters down below. The first was written by me but I experimented with this letter and asked a conspirator if she would mind ghost-submitting as I suspect the extremists at the Globe may have tired of my logic and loyalty to fact.

Hey, can someone let Sean Penn know that there is still poverty in New Orleans . . . I mean, the cameras have left and all, but if he were serious, I suspect he'd still be there . . . or at least still talking about it.

Extremist David Letterman thinks Ms. Cindy Sheehan is the only mother that lost a child in Iraq that should have a publicized opinion on the war on terror. Simply, he'll never promote such a parent that supports the war (like 403 U.S. Representatives including Rep. Jack Murtha, a decorated Vietnam veteran and, like President Bush says, a war hero).

For those that missed it, Judge Samuel Alito received the (liberal) American Bar Association's highest rating for evaluating judges: well qualified. Well, we'll see if the liberal extremist on the Senate Judiciary Committee can't manufacture some reason to disagree and to put the liberal ABA to their right.

For those that missed it, a President with a history of unifying and uniting, brought 15 past secretaries of state and defense to the White House to get their uncensored opinions on the war on terror. Yes, President Bush invited several from the Carter and Clinton Administrations. I give Sec. of State Maddy Albright kudos for having the courage to attend.

Anyway, the letters:

Editor,

One has to wonder about the education the students at Wellesley High School are receiving when the head of the social studies department, Ms. Diane Hemond, says, "They need to hear the other perspective . . . for them to hear a US Senator (Sen. Orrin Hatch) is great. Because Senator Kennedy couldn't come, we weren't going to cancel the event" in explaining a student protest of Sen. Hatch's defense of the PATRIOT Act (Students protest speech by GOP senator, January 7, B3).

On October 25, 2001, the United States Senate passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT Act) Act of 2001 by a vote of 98 - 1, Sen. Kennedy and your other Senator, John F. Kerry, voted FOR the Act. If Wellesley High School wants the "other perspective" they better book Sen. Russ Feingold (D, WI), the only Senator to vote against the Act (Sen. Mary Landrieu, D, LA did not vote) and the only Senator with any credibility in criticizing the Act.

If the "protesters" are really serious about their position, I'm sure Sens. Kennedy and Kerry have local offices where the students, or anyone else truly outraged by the Act, can stage an honest protest. (End of letter.)


Editor,

In a story that included the line, "The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid (D, NV) . . . said that he would not return the $30,500 that he received from (Jack) Abramoff's clients . . . " it is surprising that the Boston Globe chose to title the story "Bush, DeLay give back Abramoff funds (January 5, A2)" and not "Reid vows to keep Abramoff funds". Then again, it's not surprising at all . . . and that's a shame. (End of letter.)