A $397 million pork barrel for seniors
Andrew D
<con...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
+We all know that politicians like to roll out the pork barrel
+to shore up their constituencies from time to time but
+sometimes they reach new highs in cynicism and ruthlessness.
[snip]
Beazley's promised to pay "struggling musicians" the dole while they
practise their art. Nothing for painters or sculptors or anyone else
trying to build a profession - just musicians.
Talk about targeted benefits!?!
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Rob Silva
And then there was the promise to restore ABC funding to pre-Howard
levels. Judging by KO'B's treatment of Beazley tonight, he was less
that impressed. Maybe he found that pre-Howard levels are less than
they are now in dollar terms?
Rob Edwards
commercial station is a proper use of our money when the best the ABC do is
cater for between 8 and 12 % of the viewing public at anyone
time............then we have the knowledge nation..what a load of
crap.........he wants to finance Tertiary education by selling more places
at higher rates to overseas students and whilst this may bring in money it
lessens the places available to local students...
"Rob Silva" <rsi...@ozemail.net.au> wrote in message
news:19a2utonvmdv5se00...@4ax.com...
Scott Steel
right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote:
>In article <3BDFF022...@alphalink.com.au>, Chris O'Neill
><con...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>
>+We all know that politicians like to roll out the pork barrel
>+to shore up their constituencies from time to time but
>+sometimes they reach new highs in cynicism and ruthlessness.
>
>[snip]
>
>Beazley's promised to pay "struggling musicians" the dole while they
>practise their art.
Oh Rubbish - he has slated that professional musicians will
be recognised as having a legitimate means to attain
employment by centerlink as long as they can demonstrate
that they have a realistic business model.They will receive
assistance in the same way that other people undertaking
small and micro business initiatives have in the past.
>Nothing for painters or sculptors or anyone else
>trying to build a profession - just musicians.
That's because the music industry is a multi billion dollar
domestic industry with good employment prospects for more
than just headline acts.
Go down to the local pub on a Saturday night and see for
yourself.
Painters, sculptors and other miscellaneous creative
occupations are hardly a profitable activity for the pleb
artisan.
>Talk about targeted benefits!?!
Just recognising the obvious.
Scott Steel
Andrew D
scott...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
+On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 09:05:20 +0800,
+right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote:
+
+>In article <3BDFF022...@alphalink.com.au>, Chris O'Neill
+><con...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
+>
+>+We all know that politicians like to roll out the pork barrel
+>+to shore up their constituencies from time to time but
+>+sometimes they reach new highs in cynicism and ruthlessness.
+>
+>[snip]
+>
+>Beazley's promised to pay "struggling musicians" the dole while they
+>practise their art.
+Oh Rubbish - he has slated that professional musicians will
+be recognised as having a legitimate means to attain
+employment by centerlink as long as they can demonstrate
+that they have a realistic business model.They will receive
+assistance in the same way that other people undertaking
+small and micro business initiatives have in the past.
From the ALP website:
"ArtStart - Labor will trial a proposal to allow contemporary musicians
who can demonstrate they are attempting to establish a career and who meet
a strict activity test to retain unemployment benefits."
"..contemporary musicians who can demonstrate they are attempting to
establish a career..." is pretty open-ended. Use of the word
"contemporary" is interesting. How can any artist attempting to establish
a career be anything other than "contemporary"? Or is the word used in the
more artistic sense, as a substitute for "different", "unusual", "weird"
or "unpopular"?
+>Nothing for painters or sculptors or anyone else
+>trying to build a profession - just musicians.
+That's because the music industry is a multi billion dollar
+domestic industry with good employment prospects for more
+than just headline acts.
So why do we need to pay unemployed musicians the dole without also
expecting them to participate in the same jobsearch criteria as other
unemployed people? Most people are expected to find work wherever it's
available regardless of their preferred occupation.
+Go down to the local pub on a Saturday night and see for
+yourself.
Don't drink, don't smoke. The pub is the last place I'd be going on any night.
+Painters, sculptors and other miscellaneous creative
+occupations are hardly a profitable activity for the pleb
+artisan.
Speak for yourself. I paint and sell and have very good prospects of
becoming a professional lanscape artist yet am barely able to build a
reputation because I cannot go on the dole and claim my artistic pursuits
as a valid, job-related activity. I have to work fulltime to support my
family and paint whenever there's time.
If I could paint fulltime knowing I had the sort of income security being
promised to guitarists, I would bet I'd be earning a reasonable living
from my art in a very short space of time. But I still won't be able to do
it even if Beazley gets in. Unlike someone who plays a guitar
occasionally, I will not be considered important enough for support.
+>Talk about targeted benefits!?!
+Just recognising the obvious.
That there's potentially more votes in bribing the music indutry?
Scott Steel
Sounds like the usual "show me a business model and get some
assistance" type initiative.
Same thing has been going on under various guises for more
orthodox ventures since Working Nation.
>"..contemporary musicians who can demonstrate they are attempting to
>establish a career..." is pretty open-ended.
As open ended as a Centerlink activity test.
Professional music is a business opportunity that deserves
to be recognised equally to other more orthodox, profitable
areas.Like making and selling widgets for instance.
>Use of the word
>"contemporary" is interesting. How can any artist attempting to establish
>a career be anything other than "contemporary"? Or is the word used in the
>more artistic sense, as a substitute for "different", "unusual", "weird"
>or "unpopular"?
Maybe "what people will listen to".Not much of a business if
you produce intolerable shit that gives people headaches.
B^p
>+>Nothing for painters or sculptors or anyone else
>+>trying to build a profession - just musicians.
>
>+That's because the music industry is a multi billion dollar
>+domestic industry with good employment prospects for more
>+than just headline acts.
>
>So why do we need to pay unemployed musicians the dole without also
>expecting them to participate in the same jobsearch criteria as other
>unemployed people?
For the same reason that micro business initiatives and
self-employment development has had welfare support.If you
need limited support to get a job by making your own,
where's the problem?
Far better than a drip feed of futile work-for-the-dole
programs, dodgy "work experience" initiatives and dubious
centerlink training programs.
> Most people are expected to find work wherever it's
>available regardless of their preferred occupation.
Most people still will.
But they can try and start their own business, and seek
assistance for that like anyone else.
>+Go down to the local pub on a Saturday night and see for
>+yourself.
>
>Don't drink, don't smoke. The pub is the last place I'd be going on any night.
>
>+Painters, sculptors and other miscellaneous creative
>+occupations are hardly a profitable activity for the pleb
>+artisan.
>
>Speak for yourself. I paint and sell and have very good prospects of
>becoming a professional lanscape artist yet am barely able to build a
>reputation because I cannot go on the dole and claim my artistic pursuits
>as a valid, job-related activity.
So you're just pissed that other people get help and you
dont?
Go for an arts grant, or a business development assistance
package.
>I have to work fulltime to support my
>family and paint whenever there's time.
That's a choice YOU make.
>If I could paint fulltime knowing I had the sort of income security being
>promised to guitarists,
I'm holding back laughter here at the notion of the dole
being "income security", but that aside.......
The program, if its like every other business assistance
program run through centerlink, will be limited in the time
that a person can be using it.
6-12 months is it.
Why would this be any different?
>I would bet I'd be earning a reasonable living
>from my art in a very short space of time. But I still won't be able to do
>it even if Beazley gets in. Unlike someone who plays a guitar
>occasionally, I will not be considered important enough for support.
Oh boo hoo hoo.
If you think you can earn a reasonable living, do what most
people do when confronted with such a problem - CHOOSE
whether to take a risk and pursue it.
>+>Talk about targeted benefits!?!
>
>+Just recognising the obvious.
>
>That there's potentially more votes in bribing the music indutry?
That the domestic music industry is big enough to be
recognised as a legitmate career means like others.
Scott Steel.
Andrew D
scott...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
+On Fri, 02 Nov 2001 12:38:28 +0800,
+right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote:
+
+>In article <7324ut4gsfpv0mvua...@4ax.com>,
+>scott...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
[snip]
+>+Painters, sculptors and other miscellaneous creative
+>+occupations are hardly a profitable activity for the pleb
+>+artisan.
+>Speak for yourself. I paint and sell and have very good prospects of
+>becoming a professional lanscape artist yet am barely able to build a
+>reputation because I cannot go on the dole and claim my artistic pursuits
+>as a valid, job-related activity.
+So you're just pissed that other people get help and you
+dont?
Absolutely. The proposal is discriminatory - that was my point form the start.
+Go for an arts grant, or a business development assistance
+package.
Arts Grants are reserved mainly for artists who produce works unlikely to
be "popular" in their own right. Painting a beautiful landscape in oils
will not get you an arts grant. Sticking computer keyboards to the
backside of a dissected cow and mounting the piece in the city centre
might qualify though.
+>I have to work fulltime to support my
+>family and paint whenever there's time.
+That's a choice YOU make.
As a guitarist makes a choice.
+>If I could paint fulltime knowing I had the sort of income security being
+>promised to guitarists,
+I'm holding back laughter here at the notion of the dole
+being "income security", but that aside.......
Better security than painters and sculptors are being offered.
+The program, if its like every other business assistance
+program run through centerlink, will be limited in the time
+that a person can be using it.
+6-12 months is it.
That's a big "if" Scott. I see know stated time limit in the proposal and
have heard of no suggested limits.
+Why would this be any different?
I don't know. Why are guitarists different?
+>I would bet I'd be earning a reasonable living
+>from my art in a very short space of time. But I still won't be able to do
+>it even if Beazley gets in. Unlike someone who plays a guitar
+>occasionally, I will not be considered important enough for support.
+Oh boo hoo hoo.
Amazing isn't it? When women cry foul, the left jump to defend them. When
aborigines, ethnics or gays and lesbians shout "discrimination" the left
stand alongside them condemning inequitable laws that fail to recognise
them as valuable members of society. But when someone points out a major
flaw in Labor's own discriminatory policy, you just mock the victims.
+If you think you can earn a reasonable living, do what most
+people do when confronted with such a problem - CHOOSE
+whether to take a risk and pursue it.
So why don't you oppose this proposal and tell musicians to take that risk too?
+>+>Talk about targeted benefits!?!
+>+Just recognising the obvious.
+>That there's potentially more votes in bribing the music indutry?
+That the domestic music industry is big enough to be
+recognised as a legitmate career means like others.
Go to your nearest art shop Scott - there's lots around - and check out
the depth and breadth of talent on offer in these commercial
establishments. Painting is hardly an underground movement.
Labor's policy is discriminatory.
Andrew D
<con...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
+Andrew D wrote:
+>
+> In article <3BDFF022...@alphalink.com.au>, Chris O'Neill
+> <con...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
+>
+> +We all know that politicians like to roll out the pork barrel
+> +to shore up their constituencies from time to time but
+> +sometimes they reach new highs in cynicism and ruthlessness.
+>
+> [snip]
+>
+> Beazley's promised to pay "struggling musicians" the dole while they
+> practise their art. Nothing for painters or sculptors or anyone else
+> trying to build a profession - just musicians.
+
+Not quite in the same league for cynicism and ruthlessness as the
+aged persons tax rebate. A succeeding Coalition government could
+drop the dole for musicians policy in a second without any adverse
+political consequences. Perhaps the thread title should be changed.
Beazley's also promising to subsidise childcare for two-income families
whilst offering one-income families a short-term loan for their benefits -
to be paid back through reductions to future family payments. This, I
suspect, would play out like Howard's decision to pre-pay pension
increases. Happy faces at first, followed by a disgruntled electorate
annoyed that the pre-payment affected future payments.
Beazley's proposed "Baby Bill" is just more discrimination from the party
that claims to stand for fairness and equity.
Scott Steel
right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote:
>In article <4p76uts9tcvbj85k1...@4ax.com>,
>scott...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
>
>+On Fri, 02 Nov 2001 12:38:28 +0800,
>+right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote:
>+
>+>In article <7324ut4gsfpv0mvua...@4ax.com>,
>+>scott...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
>[snip]
>+>+Painters, sculptors and other miscellaneous creative
>+>+occupations are hardly a profitable activity for the pleb
>+>+artisan.
>
>+>Speak for yourself. I paint and sell and have very good prospects of
>+>becoming a professional lanscape artist yet am barely able to build a
>+>reputation because I cannot go on the dole and claim my artistic pursuits
>+>as a valid, job-related activity.
>
>+So you're just pissed that other people get help and you
>+dont?
>
>Absolutely. The proposal is discriminatory - that was my point form the start.
Fair dinkum
So you're pissed that the music industry is treated equally
to more orthodox industries in terms of business assistance
and small business development programs through Centerlink
- because, its discriminatory?
Is there *_anything_* you dont whinge about?
>+Go for an arts grant, or a business development assistance
>+package.
>
>Arts Grants are reserved mainly for artists who produce works unlikely to
>be "popular" in their own right. Painting a beautiful landscape in oils
>will not get you an arts grant. Sticking computer keyboards to the
>backside of a dissected cow and mounting the piece in the city centre
>might qualify though.
So you havent tried then - fair enough.
>+>I have to work fulltime to support my
>+>family and paint whenever there's time.
>
>+That's a choice YOU make.
>
>As a guitarist makes a choice.
>
>+>If I could paint fulltime knowing I had the sort of income security being
>+>promised to guitarists,
>
>+I'm holding back laughter here at the notion of the dole
>+being "income security", but that aside.......
>
>Better security than painters and sculptors are being offered.
>
>+The program, if its like every other business assistance
>+program run through centerlink, will be limited in the time
>+that a person can be using it.
>
>+6-12 months is it.
>
>That's a big "if" Scott.
Hardly.All other programs run for the same period.
> I see know stated time limit in the proposal and
>have heard of no suggested limits.
>
>+Why would this be any different?
>
>I don't know. Why are guitarists different?
>
>+>I would bet I'd be earning a reasonable living
>+>from my art in a very short space of time. But I still won't be able to do
>+>it even if Beazley gets in. Unlike someone who plays a guitar
>+>occasionally, I will not be considered important enough for support.
>
>+Oh boo hoo hoo.
>
>Amazing isn't it?
It certainly is - with all the self-proclaimed victims in
this country you'd think our violin industry would be
absolutely booming.
>When women cry foul, the left jump to defend them. When
>aborigines, ethnics or gays and lesbians shout "discrimination" the left
>stand alongside them condemning inequitable laws that fail to recognise
>them as valuable members of society. But when someone points out a major
>flaw in Labor's own discriminatory policy, you just mock the victims.
I mock everybody you sits around with their thumb up their
arse whinging about how the government "doesnt have special
programs for me.....<sniffle> "
Instead of looking at whether public policy is rational and
analysing its potential at producing succesful outcomes (you
know - the actual fucking point) , people bitch and moan
about how its bad because it "doesnt include us landscape
artists"... or .... "it doesnt include us patagonian
woodturners"... or ..."it doesnt include benefits for us
Alpaca turd sculptors!"
Bloody hell.
>+If you think you can earn a reasonable living, do what most
>+people do when confronted with such a problem - CHOOSE
>+whether to take a risk and pursue it.
>
>So why don't you oppose this proposal and tell musicians to take that risk too?
Because the music industry is large enough, diverse enough
and has the financial capacity to be treated like other
industries when it comes to small business development
initiatives through Centerlink.
The point is to get people of the dole.If this program gets
more people into work and subsequently causes less public
welfare outlays than would have ordinarily been the case by
the time those people found employment in other industries -
the policy would be rationally considered to be a success.
If it produces that outcome - keep it.If its doesnt, scrap
it.
Look at the size of the music economy, then compare it to
the landscape artist economy and tell me which one has the
most realistic chance to absorb employment.
>+>+>Talk about targeted benefits!?!
>
>+>+Just recognising the obvious.
>
>+>That there's potentially more votes in bribing the music indutry?
>
>+That the domestic music industry is big enough to be
>+recognised as a legitmate career means like others.
>
>Go to your nearest art shop Scott - there's lots around - and check out
>the depth and breadth of talent on offer in these commercial
>establishments. Painting is hardly an underground movement.
Big whoop - when art has the financial capacity and
magnitude of the music industry to absorb employment -
you'll have a point to get specialist art oriented business
development programs to run under Centerlink.
What's important is if initiaives work or have a realistic
potential to work, not whether they should or should not be
there purely on the basis that Centerlink doesnt recognise
your pet hobby horse.
Scott Steel
Andrew D
scott...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
+On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 09:14:32 +0800,
+right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote:
+
+>In article <4p76uts9tcvbj85k1...@4ax.com>,
+>scott...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
+>
+>+On Fri, 02 Nov 2001 12:38:28 +0800,
+>+right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote:
+>+
+>+>In article <7324ut4gsfpv0mvua...@4ax.com>,
+>+>scott...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
[snip]
+>+Go for an arts grant, or a business development assistance
+>+package.
+>Arts Grants are reserved mainly for artists who produce works unlikely to
+>be "popular" in their own right. Painting a beautiful landscape in oils
+>will not get you an arts grant. Sticking computer keyboards to the
+>backside of a dissected cow and mounting the piece in the city centre
+>might qualify though.
+So you havent tried then - fair enough.
I've had the paper work - it states clearly that the work needs to use
media in new ways [paraphrased]. This counts out traditional painting
styles and that has been confirmed to me by colleagues who have applied.
+>+>I would bet I'd be earning a reasonable living
+>+>from my art in a very short space of time. But I still won't be able to do
+>+>it even if Beazley gets in. Unlike someone who plays a guitar
+>+>occasionally, I will not be considered important enough for support.
+>+Oh boo hoo hoo.
+>Amazing isn't it?
+It certainly is - with all the self-proclaimed victims in
+this country you'd think our violin industry would be
+absolutely booming.
+>When women cry foul, the left jump to defend them. When
+>aborigines, ethnics or gays and lesbians shout "discrimination" the left
+>stand alongside them condemning inequitable laws that fail to recognise
+>them as valuable members of society. But when someone points out a major
+>flaw in Labor's own discriminatory policy, you just mock the victims.
+I mock everybody you sits around with their thumb up their
+arse whinging about how the government "doesnt have special
+programs for me.....<sniffle> "
So you're opposed to feminists, aborigines, refugees and pensioners too?
Sorry, my mistake but I hadn't got that feeling form your posts.
+Instead of looking at whether public policy is rational and
+analysing its potential at producing succesful outcomes (you
+know - the actual fucking point) , people bitch and moan
+about how its bad because it "doesnt include us landscape
+artists"... or .... "it doesnt include us patagonian
+woodturners"... or ..."it doesnt include benefits for us
+Alpaca turd sculptors!"
+Bloody hell.
You mean like people who sat around and moaned about how "it doesn't
include us guitarists"?
+>+If you think you can earn a reasonable living, do what most
+>+people do when confronted with such a problem - CHOOSE
+>+whether to take a risk and pursue it.
+>So why don't you oppose this proposal and tell musicians to take that
risk too?
+Because the music industry is large enough, diverse enough
+and has the financial capacity to be treated like other
+industries when it comes to small business development
+initiatives through Centerlink.
+The point is to get people of the dole.If this program gets
+more people into work and subsequently causes less public
+welfare outlays than would have ordinarily been the case by
+the time those people found employment in other industries -
+the policy would be rationally considered to be a success.
So perhaps I should go on the dole then argue my case?
+>+That the domestic music industry is big enough to be
+>+recognised as a legitmate career means like others.
+>Go to your nearest art shop Scott - there's lots around - and check out
+>the depth and breadth of talent on offer in these commercial
+>establishments. Painting is hardly an underground movement.
+Big whoop - when art has the financial capacity and
+magnitude of the music industry to absorb employment -
+you'll have a point to get specialist art oriented business
+development programs to run under Centerlink.
+What's important is if initiaives work or have a realistic
+potential to work, not whether they should or should not be
+there purely on the basis that Centerlink doesnt recognise
+your pet hobby horse.
So if I can demonstrate a serious professional potential I should benefit
from Centrelink support while I become established. I can demonstrate it -
but I can't get the support and Beazley isn't offering it because I don't
play a guitar. Sheesh!
Scott Steel
Well that's probably what happens when you look at New Media
arts grants %^/
I suggest you look for more mainstream ones.
http://www.philanthropy.org.au/
http://www.visualarts.net.au/Web/aw/tertiary.asp?SectorID=15&OrgTypeID=44
http://www.ozco.gov.au/vac/index.htm
Good luck.
>This counts out traditional painting
>styles and that has been confirmed to me by colleagues who have applied.
>
>+>+>I would bet I'd be earning a reasonable living
>+>+>from my art in a very short space of time. But I still won't be able to do
>+>+>it even if Beazley gets in. Unlike someone who plays a guitar
>+>+>occasionally, I will not be considered important enough for support.
>
>+>+Oh boo hoo hoo.
>
>+>Amazing isn't it?
>
>+It certainly is - with all the self-proclaimed victims in
>+this country you'd think our violin industry would be
>+absolutely booming.
>
>+>When women cry foul, the left jump to defend them. When
>+>aborigines, ethnics or gays and lesbians shout "discrimination" the left
>+>stand alongside them condemning inequitable laws that fail to recognise
>+>them as valuable members of society. But when someone points out a major
>+>flaw in Labor's own discriminatory policy, you just mock the victims.
>
>+I mock everybody you sits around with their thumb up their
>+arse whinging about how the government "doesnt have special
>+programs for me.....<sniffle> "
>
>So you're opposed to feminists, aborigines, refugees and pensioners too?
I'm opposed to stupidity and incesent whinging regardless of
its flavour.
>Sorry, my mistake but I hadn't got that feeling form your posts.
>
>+Instead of looking at whether public policy is rational and
>+analysing its potential at producing succesful outcomes (you
>+know - the actual fucking point) , people bitch and moan
>+about how its bad because it "doesnt include us landscape
>+artists"... or .... "it doesnt include us patagonian
>+woodturners"... or ..."it doesnt include benefits for us
>+Alpaca turd sculptors!"
>
>+Bloody hell.
>
>You mean like people who sat around and moaned about how "it doesn't
>include us guitarists"?
Im not aware that "guitarists" were bitching and moaning
about public policy on such inane grounds.
>+>+If you think you can earn a reasonable living, do what most
>+>+people do when confronted with such a problem - CHOOSE
>+>+whether to take a risk and pursue it.
>
>+>So why don't you oppose this proposal and tell musicians to take that
>risk too?
>
>+Because the music industry is large enough, diverse enough
>+and has the financial capacity to be treated like other
>+industries when it comes to small business development
>+initiatives through Centerlink.
>
>+The point is to get people of the dole.If this program gets
>+more people into work and subsequently causes less public
>+welfare outlays than would have ordinarily been the case by
>+the time those people found employment in other industries -
>+the policy would be rationally considered to be a success.
>
>So perhaps I should go on the dole then argue my case?
I dont really give a fuck what you do. %^/
The choice is entirely yours.
>+>+That the domestic music industry is big enough to be
>+>+recognised as a legitmate career means like others.
>
>+>Go to your nearest art shop Scott - there's lots around - and check out
>+>the depth and breadth of talent on offer in these commercial
>+>establishments. Painting is hardly an underground movement.
>
>+Big whoop - when art has the financial capacity and
>+magnitude of the music industry to absorb employment -
>+you'll have a point to get specialist art oriented business
>+development programs to run under Centerlink.
>
>+What's important is if initiaives work or have a realistic
>+potential to work, not whether they should or should not be
>+there purely on the basis that Centerlink doesnt recognise
>+your pet hobby horse.
>
>So if I can demonstrate a serious professional potential
......and you're unemployed, you know, the raison de'tre of
the existence of Centerlinks employment development
programs.
>I should benefit
>from Centrelink support while I become established.
For a limited time - sure.
>I can demonstrate it -
Good for you.
>but I can't get the support
Because you're not unemployed!
Faaark.
What, you think Centerlink should be some middle aged
daycare center for working class types who are pissed that
the circumstances of their life arent what they'd really
like them to be?
Oh, get a grip.
>and Beazley isn't offering it because I don't
>play a guitar.
....or make widgets, or have the capacity to provide a
commercial service as defined by Centerlink, or
<drum roll>
.....because you aint *_UNEMPLOYED_*.
Ta da....
>Sheesh!
Indeed.
Scott Steel