When the Industrial Workers of the World are reduced to manning the barricades at a coffee shop and a movie art house, you might think the labor movement is on its last legs, but Shawn Macomber gives his fellow workers a helping hand.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Postmodern Sleaze | October 9, 2006, 4:16pm | #
Wow... the Onion couldn't be funnier than that.As one fellow libertarian-centrist friend said, "The left in the US makes me laugh; the right in the US makes me cry."
If this is the best the left can do in this country, no wonder I'm not terribly intimidated when GOPpers drag out that old boogieman...
This is funnier than anything you could make up. I've spent enough time in Berkeley to know that these people are real, they actually believe the incredibly stupid things they say they believe. There is no other place I've been to quite like Berkeley, CA, it's unique even by Bay Area standards. Workers of the world unite, just don't make me do any real work.
kebko | October 9, 2006, 4:43pm | #
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."You know, this statement really describes all human activity. The question is who the unnamed decision maker is. If I decide what my ability & needs are, then I am free. If someone else decides what my ability & needs are, then I am enslaved.
We all negotiate away some of our position as that decision-maker, by necessity. And, even in a free society, some people, by virtue of their position in society, may have relatively little of that power. But the fact that this statement is generally made with the idea that moving the decision-maker entirely outside of ourselves will lead to some social wonderland is mind-boggling.
MUTT | October 9, 2006, 5:23pm | #
ah, jeez. As an admirer of what the IWW was doing back when, this new iteration makes one long (as if any prompting is needed) for the Draft.And I know: Conscription is fundimentally anathema to any Libertarian sensibilities: but we dont live in a remotely Libertarian land, do we? We live in a Empire. A dose of reality is overdue....
Jeez. I usta live in Oakland, next to Berkeley. I thought a few times of mixin up a small batch of napalm & takin out the "Welcome to Berkely- A Nuclear Free Zone" sign, but Im too grown up now (sigh) for such elemental fun.
But do not, my friends, confuse these self absorbed kids with the kind of Left that fought the Copper Bosses, or the Timber Barons, or who organized black folk in the Deep South in the teens thru the 60's. Them was Men. And Women . And staked thier very lives against forces far more powerful than they.....
Brad | October 9, 2006, 5:51pm | #
1. Unions = Potentially Good2. Companies who undercompensate employees = Ill-advised
3. Unions operating with special legal protection (like every union) = Terrible
happyjuggler0 | October 9, 2006, 6:02pm | #
are you on the side of working people? You have to stand against profit and for peopleJust who is going to do the hiring in a society where there is no profit?
I'm incredulous that in a post-Soviet Union world that anyone could believe such obtuse garbage.
Postmodern Sleaze | October 9, 2006, 6:21pm | #
happyjuggler:Postmodern Roommate and her Santa Monica mom believe such obtuse garbage. It amazes me that people with such ridiculously high IQs still can. (And then these Marxists have the gall to call Christians close-minded. Fuck, I grew up in South Dakota, and I can count on two hands the number of Christians I've met who are more close minded than them...)
Buckshot | October 9, 2006, 6:22pm | #
kebko:How's this for an alternative: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability". That makes the market place the unnamed decision maker. It also describes all human activity in a FREE society. We don't even have to negotiate away our position.
kebko | October 9, 2006, 6:52pm | #
Buckshot:I suppose I'm being a little abstract, but unless we are living unplugged in the woods, all of our transactions involve negotiating our freedom, in the pure sense connoted in the phrase. If I get a job or have electricity in the house, I am electing to subject myself to markets, prices, and demands which limit my options, based on the inputs & decisions of many other people. This is a far cry from completely removing the decision-making from the individual, but I think it is important to understand freedom & the capitalist system in shades of gray, rather than absolutes.
Even if it is from each & to each according to his ability, there is a negotiation that is going on with the market as to what that ability gets you & how you might be able to apply it.
When you have lived in the Bay Area for 25+ years as I have, this is nothing new, just another day in Berkeley.
Buckshot: This distinction is really the same as the one between the right to happiness and the right to pursuit of hapiness, the crux being the second one they don't decide what makes you happy.
Rick Barton | October 9, 2006, 7:39pm | #
Sometimes Wobblies call themselves "anarchists". A while ago on the 16th St mall here in Denver I spotted a group of Wobblies and started rapping to em about anarcho-capitalism and commenting that their apparel was charmingly evocative of old school punk and "Oh by the way did you guys know that Joey Ramone did a favorable song about the stock market?" I getting some serious hostility as I walk over to snag a gyro salad. As I walk back and reinsert myself among them, a couple of em start regaling me with stories of how their spiked wrist bands can rip the flesh offa people's faces. I act as annoyingly unintimidated as I can and one of em spits on the ground next to me and informs me that what ever I do to the salad, they're gonna do to me...So remembering Richard Pryor, I kiss my gyro salad!Graphite | October 9, 2006, 8:15pm | #
You're on your way to the lounge suite, Karl. Question number two. The struggle of class against class is a what struggle? A what struggle?Karl: A political struggle.
(Tumultuous applause.)
Buckshot | October 9, 2006, 8:17pm | #
kebko:Go ahead and be abstract, I love this stuff, it's like going to school and you're making me think. I'm not here to prove I'm right, I need to know when I'm wrong.
This must be the 6th or 7th reply I've typed, I keep thinking about this and can't get it right. Now I think I've got it. I reread your last post and the key is, "to understand freedom & the capitalist system in shades of gray, rather than absolutes". I don't have absolute freedom in a free society, in the sense that I can do anything I want, I know that. Negotiating within the market isn't the same as giving up my right to determine my needs. The removal of "need" from the sentence means I don't have to prove to any authority what my needs are, I already know what they are, so I don't have negotiate my freedom. To each according to need implies, to me, that someone else is rationing out the goods. To each according to his ability means I get what I earn, that being determined by the market place. To each according to his ability doesn't infringe on my freedom, to each according to his need puts my earned wealth in the hands of the authorities, who will certainly short-change me to give some of my property to their friends. That does infringe on my freedom. Whew! Does that make sense?
76:
Nicely put. I believe Ben Franklin put the "Persuit of Happiness" phrase in the Declaration of Independence. What a guy.
Stevo Darkly | October 9, 2006, 8:58pm | #
"From each as he chooses, to each as he is chosen."Description of the free market, The Star Fraction by Ken MacLeod
Gnomey | October 9, 2006, 9:09pm | #
Phase 1: Hire workers as cheap as you can.Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit
MUTT | October 9, 2006, 9:19pm | #
and "to each according to thier abilities" means- what? my quadraplegic friend Bronwyn starves? Dies in her own shit? "From each according to thier abilities"? Shes got a lot to offer. You cant make a buck off it. What the fuck is the matter with you "theorists".Or is it me?
I dont think its me.
ANY theory has its various contradictions, and, sometimes, holes.
Its real easy to condemn vast numbers of people under catchphrases. Them folks who organized black folks in the Deep South - held reading classes, offered people the knowledge of what the Consitution of this here Republic said was thiers: note- didnt grant them squat, said it was thiers because they was born human- called themselves Anarchists & Communists. Please inform me if Objectivists or Free Marketers organized there....Im always ready to be corrected. Had nothing tall in common with Stalin, Beria, Mao, or the NKVD.
But thought Marx, and Engels, had uncovered certain everlasting truths about wealth, class and power.
As they saw it, 150 plus years ago. Not all that far removed from 1930 Mississip.
Times change. Some things dont.
Am I a "Marxist"? No, because I dont trust a "class" to decide whats good for me, but thats just a small part of what them boys was talkin about. Some things stand true over time: Engels point that "the bankruptcy of bougeous ( HOW the HELL do you spell dat?) society cant be seen in the Mother Country, but in the Colonies, where it strides forth naked." Yup, Id say, having visited this Empires various colonies.
Since the victors write history, Im not suprised its damn hard to find historic losers accounts. From the 1820's to the 1930's, there have been various places where Anarchists have actually held places. It was called "The Idea", by its various Euro & Japanese (!) folks.
It has zero to do with statists, be they monarchists, theocrats, commies, capitalists, or fascists. Please note they ALL shot anarchists. You can judge a man- or a movement- by its enemies. A volume to record Anarchist society: hardly any. But Bookchins "Spanish Anarchism: the Heroic Years" might remove various beams from peoples eyes.
Having said that: Im not an idealist, so there you go.
Im a skeptic. Id like to avoid prison, reducation, and everything else true believers reserve for such as I.
Since being a citizen of the US has been reduced to what its become. Pets, or meat? Which are you?
Well MUTT, I'm sure you'll find some way to pooh-pooh this, but Objectivists did play a big part in ending the draft: http://home.earthlink.net/~dscottprod/ohp/id15.html
Rick Barton | October 9, 2006, 9:34pm | #
From each as he chooses, to each as he is chosen.Nozick either coined that or observed it in Anarchy State and Utopia.
MUTT | October 9, 2006, 10:10pm | #
jeez, Graphite, why would I pooh-pooh it? I have zero doubt Objectivists oppose conscription, and argued/fought thier beliefs. I dont pooh pooh Objectivism (as I understand it) and it is certainly consistant with getting rid of a draft. Is it consistant in getting rid of wars of Empire, (if certain Objectivists/interests profit)or of fighting for the guarantee of sufferage for those who might not profit them? Or, even "worse"- sufferage to those who might "cost" them? Thats another question. One , reading the posts of some self proclaimed "Objectivists", I aint so sure of........Believe me, If i had some fundimental hostility to the notion of self interest, I wouldnt be here.....
Former Lurker | October 9, 2006, 10:39pm | #
This is my first post after an extended stint as an interested reader, but don't any of you find the role of birth luck in the endowment of talents or abilities a little problematic? Don't you want distributions to reflect choice, not circumstance? That and the concept of justice in appropriation (as opposed to justice in transfer) have always seemed to be glaring weaknesses in libertarian theories of distributive justice. Once you posit that everything is owned justly, voluntary exchange is wonderful. But to the extent that the already-weak lockean proviso (of leaving "enough and as good" for others) has been consistently violated for a while now, voluntary exchange at best only shifts around problems introduced at the stage of (non-just) appropriation.I'm not saying there are better approaches out there, but I don't see how it does anybody any good to make believe that the foundations of classical liberalism are less problematic than they are.
Vikram
Herrick and His Balls | October 9, 2006, 11:19pm | #
Rick,I am proud that the food of my Greek people played such a significant role in your story.
Buckshot,
Didn't Jefferson put in "pursuit of happiness"?
kebko | October 9, 2006, 11:47pm | #
Buckshot, I'm totally with you. There is a HUGE difference between negotiating with the market & having some bureacracy determine what needs you're allowed to have. The caveat I see is that if you have 50 cents to get through your next meal, it doesn't really matter if the market price of a loaf of bread is $1, or if the government sets it at $1. My problem is the same. Or, let's say I'm completely socially dysfunctional, but I'm a math & electronics whiz. I'm probably making $100,000 a year in San Jose. But if I'm born to a coal miner in Kentucky in 1875, I probably have a whole other outlook. So, it seems to me that the negotiation between my abilities & the markets can make a huge difference in the expression of my freedom.As for the other posters here, if you're responding to our topic, I think that is exactly the point we're considering - that the forces of fate can be a huge factor in the expression & level of one's freedom. That's the grey area for me. The markets can leave some people with few choices. Even for a middle class suburbanite, think of all the compromises we make the minute we wake in the morning - we've got a roof over our head, electricity, phone, internet service, a car, I could go on. These are all services we've negotiated for that are in to us for some portion of our productive day. We've given ourselves over to these things, though voluntarily. And, most of us negotiate away much of our freedom to these things.
I think that's why many philosophers & citizens don't feel like capitalism is freedom, because they expect it to be black or white, and in life as we negotiate away our freedom for goods & services, we get pulled into the grey area. But I think we need to appreciate the grays & see capitalism as a tendency, not as a pure system. That way, we view problems of scarcity in terms of how to maximize freedom. Without seeing the grays, capitalism just looks like a failure, and then some folks just propose to take freedom away compeletely as a solution.
Anyway, I'm rambling at this point.
Rick Barton | October 10, 2006, 12:08am | #
Herrick,Western civilization, nay, indeed all of humanity, is so much the richer for the legacy of the intellectual gifts of your Greek people.
Brad | October 10, 2006, 12:29am | #
Spending money is not 'negotiating away your freedom.' It's expressing your freedom.The word freedom has too meanings: the engineering meaning, describing range of motion and capability; and the political meaning. The political meaning is simple: one is free to the extent that they are not subjected to violence, the threat of violence, or fraud. Your bank roll, your car, your house, etc, dictates your freedom under definition 1) but not under definition 2).
Stevo Darkly | October 10, 2006, 12:39am | #
Phase 1: Hire workers as cheap as you can.Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit
Phase 1: Hire workers as cheaply as you can -- but high enough that they feel they are better off working for you than not working for you.
Phase 2: Hold out for as high a wage as you can -- but low enough that the employer feels he is better off hiring you than not hiring you.
Phase 3: Mutual profit.
highnumber | October 10, 2006, 2:36am | #
Rick Barton is my hero.The anarchists story rocks.
Stevo Darkly breaks it down and tells it like it is. Keep it real, Stevo!
H&R commenters restore my faith in us. (as humans, Americans, libertarians, etc.)
(Anyone I did not mention by name, YOU suck. I hate you. You are worthless. Die, die, die.
What I really mean to say is that just because I'm not mentioning any other people, doesn't mean that they don't also restore my faith. Just on this page, I see plenty of insightful comments, intelligent insights, witty asides, etc. Whoever you may be, you may already be rocking also. Please do not wait for an idiot like me to tell you.)
Xmas | October 10, 2006, 10:23am | #
Akira,Here is how communism is supposed to work:
Phase 1: Workers aquire the means of production, thereby owning what they produce
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Communist Utopia!
I've wondered if Employee Stock Purchase Plans and Stock Options for workers were actually communism in it's truest form.
P Brooks | October 10, 2006, 11:38am | #
To Whom It May Concern:Great article; please keep this Macomber guy around, even if you have to Make Room for Him (I won't mention any names...).
Rabid Anti-Collectivist sez: if you don't like the terms of employment, quit yer job and get (or make) a better one.
ps-
Excellent Thread- this is why I continually divert my time from other things to check on what people are saying here. Thanks.
Buckshot | October 10, 2006, 12:37pm | #
MUTT:The market place giving me my just rewards according to my abilities doesn't condemn your friend to die in her own shit because she can't produce as much as I can. I have the freedom (that's what this is about, freedom) to give some of my money to charity without having it taken from me by the redistributionists. The problem with "to each according to his need" is that some authoritarian is required to determine need, which required information he doesn't have. Because the state (in a free system) doesn't REQUIRE me to be benevolent to quadrapelegic doesn't mean I can't be. The whole point is coersion. People who are allowed to keep the wealth they earn are historically generous with their expendable cash. I'm not rich and I don't have a lot of expensive talent for sale, I'm well aquainted with life on the bottom. But I want to live in a free society where the talented and gifted among us get what they have coming. If charity is volitional and people have money to give, people like your friend won't be abandoned by me or you or any of our fellow Libertaians.
Brad:
I like your definition of the two kinds of freedom.
Buckshot | October 10, 2006, 12:48pm | #
Herrick and His Balls:I read somewhere that Franklin asked Jefferson to change his first draft to include persuit of happiness, but I can't track down where I read it or what Jefferson took out.
Stevo Darkly | October 10, 2006, 1:33pm | #
Thanks for the shout-out, highnumber!I read somewhere that Franklin asked Jefferson to change his first draft to include persuit of happiness, but I can't track down where I read it or what Jefferson took out.
I read that the originally phrasing was "life, liberty and property" (I think it was from John Locke or some other earlier writer) but that someone (possibly Jefferson himself, or else some fucking editor) decided that "property" was too dull and that it needed to be sexed up to "pursuit of happiness."
EDIT: I had it a I've got it a little garbled, but rather than rewrite this to convey the correct but more complicated story, I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness and to Googling "life liberty and property" for more info.
MUTT | October 10, 2006, 1:41pm | #
No, my friend isnt abandoned because her mate fights like a demon for her. Thats the point. The state of Vermont, has, over the years, gutted the type of help extreme cases like Bronwyns get because >they are not profitable< No PROFIT can be accrued giving the serious medical care- not just the everyday things Gary does on top of trying to pay the bills- stuff that requires medical degrees. Training. Cash. A structure of support for her and the dozen like her in her area. Who exist everywhere.And the last time I looked, Vermont is being looted of tax funds by DC to fund crackpot wars & porkbarrel cabinet bureaucracies, that people & interests already fabulously wealthy, profit from.
The Greeks, Romans, & Egyptians understood such notions as public health, fresh water, sewers- youknow, in infrastructure of civilization. If we say, OK, Scrooge McDuck , you got the dosh to run a sewer line and you want to do it, fine, and you lazy unrich scum can build one, too. Or you can have a ditch. Your choice.
Thats the great thing, you see: the rich AND the poor are free to sleep under the same bridges.
And if you look- closely- at the steady accumulation of wealth and power in fewer & fewer hands, you do NOT see a concomitant increase in "charity", what Id call dues. In fact you see GREATER giving by increasingly lower income folks, (generally better tippers, too: they know hardship, and hard work, unlike our Insect Overlords of whatever party) as gvt abandons what few things it SHOULD do to meddle in vast things it shouldnt, and resources get sucked into the black hole of self serving gvt & dementedly aquisitive babboons.
Having said THAT, let me make it clear I believe the State can take care of what it actually needs to do for a lot less than it pisses away today, that is for certain.
But people in dire extremis, not having a lobby, or wealth, or power, are the first to get the heave. In my book, that isnt civilization, its thuggery, "I got mine" a religeon as powerful as anything the TV quacks pimp.
Buckshot | October 10, 2006, 2:23pm | #
MUTT:Let me try a different tack; Was Robin Hood any less a thief if he really did rob from the rich to give to the poor? Asuming the rich came by their wealth honestly, of course.
I still say "to each according to his need" is a recipe for disaster. It's classic, forced redistribution of wealth, and we all know where that leads, right? Quadrapelegics have legitimate needs which they can't meet without help, but the tumultuous multitude of unwashed malingerers in our society also have needs which they can meet without help, they just don't want to make the effort. Who decides who's needs are legitimate, The benenolent State? "The State is the coldest of all cold monsters", and in a redistrbutionist state your friend would die in her own shit while the well-connected malingerers would thrive.
P Brooks | October 10, 2006, 3:16pm | #
"...in a redistrbutionist state your friend would die in her own shit while the well-connected malingerers would thrive."Think "Romanian orphanage."
---------
Long ago, I concluded an answer on an essay test in an economics class (in Business School) with the assertion that a free market was the most efficient way to distribute goods and services "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." I stand by that, despite the poor grade I received in consequence.
kebko | October 10, 2006, 4:03pm | #
It seems to me that there is a built in irony to the argument that the government should be playing the Robin Hood role better.If those jerks in Washington would just run things better, be more fair, and fund all of my priorities, then you would see how much better the country would be. Since they keep screwing it up, we need to vote for representatives who will usurp more power so that, then, they'll finally get it right, when they run things better, more fairly, and fund my priorities. Then you'll see.
MUTT | October 10, 2006, 8:40pm | #
Buckshot- I agree with your last post to the jot & tittle.The States first responsibility/concern is itself.
And I see the vast majority of the well off holding those w/o thier luck/birth in contempt. Which I see & hear often enough, over time, expressed by "conservitives" & "objectivists" who flat out refuse to see theyd be in the same sewer ditch were it not for State intervention. IE, the framework in which they profit.
I aint arguing for the State. Im notin that outside of a few voluntary communities we can know of, all human progress as well as exploitation has come thru the harnessing of many towards a common goal, leaving aside some inventive geniuses. And fer cert a LOT of inventive geniuses have been smothered by that same State.
I dont like people, in general. Friggin HATE crowds. Still, I am part of something a lot bigger than me, & my immediate needs & desires. Im part of the needs & desires of people I never met, in places Ive never been to. Because Im human, and can reason, and hold certain truths to be self evident.
there are those who dont hold such things self evident.
They arent of my race/tribe/species.
Thats why I hold the Bill of Rights in such high reguard.
It recognizes the certain reality I can associate, speak, move, and kill if need be. Not "grant" mind, but recognize. By the simple fact I am born human. In my savage & serious belief, this dosnt stop at our waterline.
Humans HAVE rights, governments only remove or limit them. They are incapable of granting anything of serious value.
To me, any society that dosnt take into consideration - and seriously provide for- the helpless, be they young, sick, old, or disabeled- aint worthy of the name civilization.
So we get to the winnowing part: who, exactly, is of the above listed. THATS where the fight is, in my mind, not wether or not such folks shoulds be of any concern .
Me- Ive stated it before: Abortovans, like icecream trucks, on regular routes. So far submissions for the jingle theme is limited to "Dont Fear the Reaper".
$ for trading trade school education- or hubcaps full of crack, for all I care- for vasectomies/ligations. There will ALWAYS be kids who need adoption. We need more people who actually know how to DO things. Screw more MBA's. Christ. Legal drugs. Mass graves. Beds to dry out. You pick. The savings of tax $ will be vast, & might go to new wing spars for aerial firefighting tankers, the Coast Guard, & school roofs.
A universal draft. POOF. expensive wars somehow become a thing of the past. Cutting off welfare to tyrannies, now matter HOW profitable they may be to narrow interests. The reasons for a lot of wars suddenly go POOF, also. Funny how that works.....
I dont begrudge a wino a belly full of soup. I begrudge malfactors of great wealth public wars for private profit.
Polio, typhoid & TB are things of the past (for now) because the State actually paid attenition to business. Ditto driving from Varmint to Oakland Ca. Taxes paid for that.
Taxes also paid for sex tours of various hellholes for high rankin members of the State.
I can see the difference between the two.
Bro- I urge you to look.
Fire eyed radical? Hardly. I save that for my brother Ray......
http://home.earthlink.net/~neoludd/
Hes out now, after 23 years in supermax.
another of these Viet vets what dont quite fit in.....
Damn them Russians & thier cheap vodka......
absolutely fantastic article! had me cracking up all the way through.
Buckshot | October 11, 2006, 11:06am | #
MUTT:The well-off who hold those without their luck in contempt are plentiful, for sure, but plenty of rich people are generous with their wealth (e.g., Bill Gates, Ted Turner). Turner stupidly gives it to the UN, but his heart is in the right place. "Humans HAVE rights, governments only remove or limit them." I disagree with that one. Humans don't HAVE rights by virtue of their existance, they CREATE rights by virtue of their willingness to fight for them. Our Government By The People created the Bill of Rights, but your point that only the government can take those rights away is a valid one.
"Polio, typhoid & TB are things of the past (for now) because the State actually paid attention to business." Agreed.
I think maybe I was too narrow-minded in my argument, ALL redistribution by the State is not equal. We actually have a reditributionist state in America today and we don't have Romanian style orphanages. I don't begrudge a wino a belly full of soup, either. Been there, done that.
"I don't like people in general. Friggin HATE crowds". Now there's an honest statement I can relate to. When I was a leftist hippie most of my friends were assholes, now I'm a Libertarian and I don't have any friends.
Your typing style suggests to me that you can type faster than I can think. It takes me all day to make my point, but I get there.
MUTT | October 11, 2006, 4:16pm | #
Buckshot: in case you follow the breadcrumbs all the way back here, I wanted to respond briefly (we hope)A few rich guys kickin in dosnt come close to whats required for a civilized society in my book. And certain fundimental things cant be left up to charity. I include general infrastructure, medical, firefighting, prisons, and a lot more in that. ALL are a disgrace at this point, have been.
and, no. We are endowed by our creator (insert mumbo jumbo of choice here- mine is by simple fact of being born human, a creature capable of reason & empathy) with certain INALIENABLE rights. etc.
People fight to attain them, but it dosnt mean they were born without them.
Big Edit. Lucky you.
Anyway, glad to meet ya. As ive refined my Party Line to ever sharper focus, I too now can now boast of no friends but for a few i made decades ago. All savage political iconoclasts. Ray, the writer in that website I run, is the kind of communist Communists put against the wall first thing. We argue over that stuff- he's wrong, but for all the right reasons. Paid the price big for actually acting on his beliefs. Never thought he'd live to get out...
Since my official title around here is Imperial Consort Im being drug off by Herself to some tiny Hawaiian Island for a week, to serve as Cabana Boy & JungleScout
to the Queen Of The Fuckin Universe. 10th Ann. Im more used to living in trucks, garages, & basements. Lucky me: she's easily amused.
And HOW will I get my LA Times? I aks. No mercy.
Damn. My duties are endless.
Later....MUTT