Puggy Perry

Perry bills feds $349M for incarcerating illegals

   AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Gov. Rick Perry has asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for nearly $350 million to cover the costs he says Texas has incurred incarcerating illegal immigrants in state prisons and county jails.

   In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Perry reiterated a claim he’s often leveled against the federal government: that it’s not doing enough to secure the border with Mexico and as a result, has allowed illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. and use taxpayer-funded resources, including the prison system.

   The letter was dated Aug. 10, three days before the Republican governor formally announced he is running for president.

   Reached after-hours Friday by phone, DHS spokesman Matthew Chandler said he wasn’t in position to comment and said he could not confirm that the DHS had even received the letter.

   Perry has been criticized by some fellow conservatives as being too lenient on illegal immigration issues. Unlike fellow GOP presidential hopeful Rep. Michele Bachmann, Perry does not think the U.S. should build a wall spanning the entire Mexican border. Perry also has supported discounted tuition rates for the children of illegal immigrants at Texas universities, and he has said Arizona’s tough-on-immigration law wouldn’t be right for Texas.

   As governor, Perry was one of the first to talk about immigration by breaking out the issue of border security, a move that has won him support from conservative Hispanics. But he angered Hispanic leaders in June by endorsing legislation that would have prohibited cities from adopting “sanctuary” rules for handling suspected immigrants.

   In his two-page letter to Napolitano, Perry described the formula used to come up with his $349.2 million bill, including $94.4 million to cover costs incurred by county jails.

   “During tough economic times, when communities are making difficult decisions about their own budgets, Texas counties are being asked to cover more than $94.4 million in direct costs related to housing illegal immigrants while the state has been left to cover more than $254.8 million in such costs.”

   He included a memo from Comptroller Susan Combs in which she supports his calculations but warns that the estimates are conservative.

   “The longstanding failure of the federal government to secure our border with Mexico continues to burden local communities and resources in Texas,” Perry wrote. “Because there are not enough troops on the ground, illegal immigrants are able to penetrate the Texas border every day and use taxpayer-funded resources.”


Here he goes again, Mr. I-don't-wanna-take-any-of-that-filthy-federal-money Rick Perry.  What a blow hard.  He's so full of it.  I guess he doesn't know we remember what this a-hole said in the past when the Fed was handing out stimulus monies.  We [Texas] don't need no help from those stinking Washingtonians.  Lordy, now this idiot wants to be the next president...help, help me Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Ditto all over again

As a retired Drug and Alcohol Counselor, I feel I need to say a couple of things about Representative John McGee. First of all, as I understand it, he had a BAC of .15 which is a little less than 2 times the legal limit. At that BAC, (he had his last drink between 10 and 11 p.m. At 3:27 a.m., a deputy tested McGee for blood alcohol content and measured him at .15, almost twice the legal limit. From the IPT 8/25/2011) this rate and time he must have had at least a BAC of .20 at say 10:30 PM. The description of him urinating on himself indicates that he was more than a little inebriated, he was very very drunk. [To give you an idea how drunk Mr. McGee was, a 'high-tolerance' alcoholic would be pretty drunk at .20 BAC].
Mr. McGee was probably an almost catatonically drunk person if I understand that he was not a 'pro' drinker. An alcoholic will carry a .15 BAC easily and without too much notice unless they are given a field sobriety test and sometimes they can even pass that unless given a 'breath test.' In Mr. McGee's case, he was simply not in his right mind at the time of his arrest. The after effects of his drunkenness proves his lack of common sense [stealing a car and the wreck of the car]. This is a case of someone who is probably not alcoholic drinking way, way too much. He said he has 3 or 4 cocktails at the bar before leaving. I doubt that. I would almost bet he had 6, maybe 7 cocktails before leaving the bar.

So, what should we do with Mr. McGee? Should we oust him from the legislature and make him a pariah never to hold office again? Should we stick him in prison for stealing a car and wrecking it? Should we stick him in a 'Rehab Program' and sober him up once and for all? What should we – society – do with Mr. McGee?

Let's get serious for a moment. If we toss him out with the bathwater and oust him from the legislature because he erred in how much he drank, perhaps we should take a real close look at all the members of all legislatures including the federal level senators and congressmen. But then if we did that, we probably would have only half the legislators that we have now...hmmm....maybe that's not such a bad idea.

What I recommend is that Mr. McGee get a real intensive education on the effects of alcohol on the human mind and body. He's already paying a $1000.00 fine, loss of his license for 6-months and he's paying $12,000.00 for the auto accident. I have a feeling Mr. McGee has been sufficiently chastised without losing his job as a legislator, which I understand he was pretty good at.

That's my opinion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIS SENIOR CITIZEN NAILED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alan Simpson, Senator from Wyoming , Co-Chair of Obama's deficit commission, calls senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he compared "Social Security" to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats.

August, 2010.

Here's a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS in Montana ... I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it is!
Listen up. Direct from Ms Myers:

"Hey Alan, let's get a few things straight..

1. As a career politician, you have been on the public dole for FIFTY YEARS.

2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).

3 My Social Security payments and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero ambition losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would have made Bernie Madoff proud..

4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and your ilk pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age 67. NOW, you and your shill commission are proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN.

5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One and now you morons propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because you idiots mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal money from Medicare to pay the bills.

6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you incompetent bastards spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.

To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bullshit" on your incompetence. Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a few questions for YOU.

1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?

2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?

3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?

4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal or, as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?

It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the "greedy" ones. It is you and your fellow nutcases who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers. And for what? Votes. That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic political careers. You know it, we know it and you know that we know it.

And you can take that to the bank.

Say it again m'friend.

---------------------------------------------------

More Crap

States may get to set own insurance exchanges

   HELENA, Mont. (AP) — The Obama administration said Tuesday that states that have not adopted their own insurance exchanges may get a second chance to avoid getting one run solely by the federal government.

   Only 11 states have fully embraced the idea of taking federal money to set up their own state-run insurance exchange, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services official said Tuesday. The exchange, a key part of Obama’s health care overhaul, is designed to help uninsured people buy coverage from a choice of plans with federal tax credits.

   But states that have been slow to accept the idea, or outright rejected it in resistance to the law, will have another chance.

   U.S. Department of Health and Human Services officials told Montana legislators Tuesday that the agency is working on a new partnership model to let state agencies help run the exchange — perhaps without the need for legislative authorization.

Are we sure we want the State of Idaho running our Small Businessman's Health Care system?  Are we very, very sure?  They do such a good job at Health and Welfare.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Libyan rebels storm seat of Gadhaÿ’s power

   TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — Hundreds of Libyan rebels stormed Moammar Gadhafi’s compound Tuesday, charging wildly through the symbolic heart of the crumbling regime as they killed loyalisttroops,lootedarmories and knocked the head off a statue of the besieged dictator. But they found no sign of the man himself.

   The storming of Bab al-Aziziya, long the nexus of Gadhafi’s power, marked the effective collapse of his 42-year-old regime. But with Gadhafi and his powerful sons still unaccounted for — and gunbattles flaring across the nervous city — the fighters cannot declare victory.

   The rebel force entered the compound after fighting for five hours with Gadhafi loyalists outside, using mortars, heavy machine guns and anti-aircraft guns. They beat and killed some of those who defended the compound and hauled away crates of weapons and trucks with guns mounted on the back in a frenzy of looting.

   “We’re looking for Gadhafi now. We have to find him now,” said Sohaib Nefati, a rebel sitting against a wall with a Kalashnikov rifle.

Good riddance to a power mad megalomaniac.  It's about time he got his comeuppance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Idaho needs decision on insurance exchange

Officials warn of consequences of letting federal government run program

By MIKE BUTTS

   mbutts@idahopress.com  

   © 2011 Idaho Press-Tribune

   BOISE — Gov. Butch Otter and highranking state officials warned Idaho lawmakers Monday that to let the federal government run the state’s mandated health insurance exchange would hurt the state and its residents.

   The new federal Affordable Health Care Act requires states to create and implement health insurance exchanges or the federal government will do it for them. Idaho has until Sept. 30 to apply for a $40 million federal grant to establish a staterun exchange.

   The exchange intends to allow individuals and small businesses the same savings large businesses enjoy by pooling risks, market leverage and transaction costs.

   Otter and the state’s Health and Welfare and Department of Insurance directors addressed members of the Legislature’s health care task force about the exchange at the Statehouse.

   If the federal government set up the exchange instead of the state, it would cost the state about 2,500 insurance broker jobs and take response to health insurance concerns by residents out of the state’s hands, Idaho Department of Insurance Director and former Nampa legislator Bill Deal said.

   Otter said he was not asking lawmakers’ permission to apply for the grant, but he was just stating the facts about the decision the state faces.

   “The question is now whether we’re going to have a state insurance exchange or whether we’re going to have a national exchange imposed on us by the federal government ,” Otter said.

   Though they’re dubious of the federal overhaul, many of the state’s Republican lawmakers who attended Monday’s interim session were in step with the governor: Take the money, as long as it doesn’t lock Idaho into accepting portions of the federal reforms they don’t agree with.

   Sen. John Goedde, R-Coeur d’Alene, said it’s unlikely that Idaho is going to have the money to develop exchanges on its own, given budget constraints.

   “When we’re having a tough time finding money to pay our part of Medicaid claims, I think $40 million is unrealistic in state money for development of the exchange,” Goedde said. “The key is if there are more strings we haven’t heard about to the federal money.”

   Others said time was of the essence, given the consequences of missing the deadline.

   “We should not be wasting any time,” said Sen. Joe Stegner, R-Lewiston. “We’re going to be extremely short-sighted if we let this opportunity pass.”

   z The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Let's see if I got this right.  There is no benefit to Idahoans to have a government sponsored health program for small business owners who cannot afford health insurance for their employees?  Is that right?  Has Butchie got this right?

Hell no.  The Governor is whistling Dixie out his cowboy hatted ass.  Let me ask you 'employees,' if you had a store you were working at with no benefits and one across the street with the offer of cost efficient health care...which would you choose?  Pretty easy, right?

It's a national shame that working people cannot afford health care...period and small business owners can't afford it either.  Come on you elected ones who cry you are for the people, for once in your elected career choose to do the right thing.  Accept the 40 million to set up a health insurance exchange.  Let's get people like my wife some affordable health insurance rather than have her go to the hospital and us take out bankruptcy because we cannot afford the premiums on 'personal' health insurance.

People who make less than $30,000 per year simply cannot afford $300.00 per month for health insurance premiums per month.  We...They need help, dammit.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welfare

OH, OH, That damned welfare that's ruinin' our country.  Here's another glaring example...he says satirically.

Terry Reilly receives federal healthcare grant

Not-for-profit plans new Middleton location by Dec. 1

   By IDAHO PRESS-TRIBUNE STAFF

   newsroom@idahopress.com  

   NAMPA — Terry Reilly Health Services, a not-for-profit medical organization in the Treasure Valley, announced Friday that it will open a new healthcare facility in Middleton. The result of a $650,000 grant, the clinic will create 11 new positions and see an estimated 8,300 patients per year.

   Terry Reilly is one of 67 organizations selected for the grant, which was made possible by the Affordable Care Act of 2010. The Bureau of Primary Health Care, a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, received more than 800 applications from around the country. Terry Reilly was the only organization from Idaho selected.

   Terry Reilly clinics charge patients based on their ability to pay, with a sliding scale based on family income. The grant is designed to help establish and support the new Middleton clinic, so that it can serve patients with private insurance, Medicaid, Medicare and those who are uninsured.

   “We care more about our patients and their health than we care about the type of health insurance they have or how much money they make,” Tim Brown, executive director of Terry Reilly, said in a prepared statement. “We are excited to be able to bring our services directly to the community of Middleton.”

   Terry Reilly has until Dec. 1 to open its new location. Services provided will include medical and dental care, mental health counseling and case management services.

   The Middleton Clinic will be Terry Reilly’s 7th medical office and 5th dental office in the Treasure Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conservatives, bullying and charity

www.idahopress.com/opinion/bestread/conservatism-is-no-excuse-for-bully   ing-others/article_7dc7cd38-c7a6-11e0-87ce-001cc4c03286.html

   Conservatism is no excuse for bullying. What, and liberalism is? Most Idahoans are conservative. Given a 1-to-1 ratio, most bullies will be conservative, too. Given that it has been proved conservatives are more generous to charities with both money and time, it also makes sense that most of the nice people in Idaho are conservative, too. But that’s not something Delmar Stone will ever admit.

   — MrHitt, 6:36 a.m. Tuesday

   If every person who called themselves a Christian were swift to listen, slow to speak, slow to wrath, then we would call most Christians open-minded or wise. If most Christians loved one another, and prayed for those who persecute them, we would call them peaceful and forgiving. If every Christian loved their neighbor as themselves, Christians would be responsible for ending poverty. ... Have you ever bothered to ask why conservatives give more than liberals? Have you ever questioned the motive? Charities can be used as tax loopholes. Churches count as charities, and I’ve seen where the money goes on some of those. I give time to charities, and a little money, but mostly I want to see taxes raised so the needy don’t have to beg. People aren’t as generous as they need to be in order to maintain a society where the poor don’t starve to death in the streets.

   — WhoKnows, 9:05 p.m. Thursday

   Why would I have to “bother to ask” why I do something when I already know before I do it? You may question my motive, but you are wrong. I know why I do something, and the sources confirming that conservative households give as much as 30 percent more than their liberal counterparts are many. ... I question the motives of liberals who give lip service to “serving the poor” by favoring policies to make other people pay for it. “Shared sacrifice” means nothing coming from those who share none of it.

   — MrHitt, 9:59 a.m. Friday


---------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Idiot Perry.

Bruce Bartlett, who served as an adviser to Ronald Reagan and as a Treasury official under George H.W. Bush, called Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry "an idiot" Friday, referencing negative comments the Texas governor made about Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke this week.

While campaigning in Iowa Monday, Perry said it would be "almost treasonous" for Bernanke to print more money between now and the 2012 election. "I don't know what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas," he said.

Bartlett reacted to the comments Friday during an appearance on CNN's "American Morning." "Rick Perry is an idiot, and I don't think anybody would disagree with that," Bartlett said. "The thing is, the politics of the Fed itself are really a more serious problem."

Perry has received backlash from more than just Bartlett over the controversial statements. Several former aides to President George W. Bush have said Perry's comments prove he is not presidential material.

ThinkProgress reports:

This morning, Nicolle Wallace, who served as White House Communications Director in Bush’s second term, said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that “someone who wants to be the next president probably shouldn’t use these words” and agreed that Republicans should “lay off of some of this some personal stuff and keep it ideological.” “Not only is it going to maybe turn off some people in the middle, but these aren’t fights that are going to serve Perry well politically,” she added.

...

Peter Wehner, who served as Deputy Assistant to Bush and Director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives, wrote a post on Commentary magazine’s blog calling the comments irresponsible “libel” and urged Perry to apologize for them.

Bush's former deputy press secretary, Tony Fratto, also criticized Perry's comments on Twitter, posting: "Gov. Perry's comments about Chmn. Bernanke are inappropriate and unpresidential.

Karl Rove had perhaps the harshest criticism for Perry while appearing on Fox News Tuesday. Talking Points Memo reports that Rove said on the show, "You don't accuse the chairman of the Federal Reserve of being a traitor to his country. Of being guilty of treason. And, suggesting that we treat him pretty ugly in Texas. You know, that is not, again a presidential statement."

Rove has expressed worry over all the GOP presidential hopefuls, stating that they need to think more about electability than moving further to the right.

"You don't want these candidates moving so right in the Republican primary that it becomes impossible for them to win the general election, because it will become a self-defeating message in the primary," Rove said in an appearance on Fox News. "People want to win. They don't want somebody who goes so far to the extremes of either party that they lack a chance to carry a victory off in November."

Perry has defended his statements about Bernanke, saying he is "just passionate about the issue."

Fix health care instead of griping about government

   I recently became Medicare-eligible and went with a private provider for Medicare Advantage because they claimed that they could manage my health care insurance plan better than the government. That made sense, so I opted for their plan with enthusiasm.

   Medicare pays private providers through Medicare Advantage. The private sector insurance company, not Medicare, manages and provides the insurance.

   After starting to use the program I am not impressed. It’s convoluted, complex, confusing, low-tech, and the health-care providers seem to be just as confused. All that confusion and complexity mean inefficiency and additional cost. I don’t see the same problem with my friends on Medicare/Medicaid.

   Mine is not a political view (I’m a capitalist and centrist) but a view to just solving the problem. To the insurance companies and to you who claim that the government cannot provide/ manage effective coverage, let’s see the private sector/free market step up!

   The private sector health insurance industry has a history of abuses: pre-existing conditions, arbitrary rate increases, cancellations and refusal to pay for vital care, etc. In the last 30 years of my career I paid for my own premiums and they increased tenfold in that time while my income increased fivefold.

   Private sector/free market, step up and earn our trust and business and stop whining about big government and socialism. Provide a better “mouse trap” and fix the problems so that government doesn’t have to.

   Garrett Browning, Nampa


Here, Here, Garrett.  I've been complaining about this very issue for years.  All people do is bitch about the Medicare Health Care System, but nobody comes up with anything better.  The reason is simple, m'friend.  How would you like to have millions of 'gray-heads' yelling at you for messing with their Medicare?  The voting power of this block of people is -- and I don't say this lightly -- AWESOME.  The private sector doesn't want that kind of scrutiny.  The recipients of Medicare are not, by and large, working, so they have plenty of time to write to congressmen and others.  I'm not sure a 'private' party wants to step into that, do you?
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Why Rick Perry Won't Win

—By Kevin Drum

| Sat Aug. 13, 2011 12:21 PM PDT

Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Gage Skidmore/Flickr

A few days ago I rashly said, "For the record, I don't think Rick Perry can win the Republican nomination, and I know that he can't beat Obama in a general election." Unsurprisingly, a lot of people wanted to know just what made me so sure of that. So with Perry now officially in the race, I guess it's time to explain myself.

Before I get to that, though, I have a mealymouthed caveat or three. First, if the economy is bad enough, anyone can win. And right now, the odds of the economy being bad enough are a little too close for comfort. Second, in recent years you could lose a lot of money continually underestimating the lemming-like power of the Republican Party to dive off ever-higher cliffs. Third, it's absolutely true that you can make a pretty good case that none of the current GOP candidates can possibly win the nomination. And yet, someone will.

And there's more. Perry is unquestionably a very good, very shrewd politician. He has access to lots of money. And he can deliver a pretty good speech. My beloved wife just finished listening to his announcement speech and told me, "He's my favorite Republican right now." When I grimaced, she just gave me a scary look. Scary because it's the look that means she sees something that's invisible to a committed partisan like me.

But enough of that. I've covered my ass enough. Here are the top 10 reasons why, despite all this, I think Perry is a weaker candidate than he's being made out to be:

1. Everyone looks good before they get into the race. Remember how great Tim Pawlenty was supposed to be? But just wait a few months for Perry to get beat up by his opponents, for the oppo research to kick in, for all the big profiles to start appearing, and for a gaffe or two to get some play. He'll start to look distinctly more human then.
2. He's too Texan. Sorry. Maybe that's fair, maybe it's not. But even in the Republican Party, not everyone is from the South and not everyone is bowled over by a Texas drawl. Perry is, by a fair amount, more Texan than George W. Bush, and an awful lot of people are still suffering from Bush fatigue.
3. He's too mean. He'll have a hard time pretending he's any kind of compassionate conservative, and outside of Texas you still need a bit of that. Aside from being politically ruthless and famous for holding grudges, Perry's the kind of guy whoalmost certainly executed an innocent man, never pretended to care about it, and brazenly disbanded a commission investigating it. This famously produced the following quote in a 2010 focus group: "It takes balls to execute an innocent man."In Texas, maybe that works. In the rest of the country, not so much.
4. He's too dumb. Go ahead, call me an elitist. I'm keenly aware that Americans don't vote for presidents based on their SAT scores, but everything I've read about Perry suggests that he's a genuinely dim kind of guy. Not just incurious or too sure about his gut feelings, like George W. Bush, but simply not bright enough to handle the demands of the Oval Office. Americans might not care if their presidents are geniuses, but there's a limit to how doltish they can be too.
5. He's too smarmy. He might be fine one-on-one, but on a national stage Perry looks like a tent revival preacher or a used car salesman. Again: This might play okay in Texas and a few other places, but it will wear thin quickly in most of the country.
6. He's too overtly religious. Even Bush soft pedaled his religious side for the masses during his first campaign and did most of his outreach to the evangelical community quietly. Outside the Bible Belt, Perry's fire-and-brimstone act is going to be hard to take.
7. Policywise, he's too radical, even for Republicans. "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme" goes over well with a certain segment of the tea party, but not with most of the country. Nor does most of the country want to get rid of Medicare and turn it over to the states. Nor do they think global warming is a hoax, and they don't really think all that kindly of people who muse publicly about seceding from the union. Bush was able to soften his hard Texas edge with a genuine passion for education. I'm not sure Perry can do that.
8. Despite conventional wisdom, about half of the GOP rank-and-file aren't tea party sympathizers (see Question 3G here). Of the half who are, Perry is going to have to compete with Michele Bachmann and possibly with Sarah Palin. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has the noncrazy half of the party almost to himself. Huntsman isn't going to provide him with any serious competition there, and Pawlenty is rapidly becoming a non-factor too. I think this is an extremely underappreciated dynamic right now. Yes, Republican primary voters tend to be more conservative than the party as a whole, but there are still going to be a lot of non-tea-partiers who vote, and they don't have a lot of good choices other than Romney. What's more, a fair number of tea partiers like Romney too (see Question 19 here). This is a pretty good base to work from.
9. Perry's campaign is going to be heavily based on the "Texas miracle." But this looks a lot less miraculous once you put it under a microscope—and pretty soon it won't just be churlish lefties pointing this out. You can be sure that the rest of the Republican field will be hauling out their own microscopes before long.
10. Republicans want to beat Obama. They really, really want to beat Obama. Romney is still their best chance, and down deep I think they know it.

All that said, I might be wrong. But I'd still advise everyone to take Perry with a few more grains of salt than they have been. It's easy for us urban liberals to just cynically assume that the tea partyized GOP will nominate whoever's the dumbest, toughest, meanest, godliest sonofabitch in the field, but I'm not so sure. Perry may come out of the gate strong, but he might not wear well once the national spotlight is on him.

Thank God.  No Rick Perry!  Yippee!