Author Topic: On Political Correctness  (Read 30616 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 238,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,900
  • It's all good
On Political Correctness
« on: June 19, 2018, 19:33:21 »
An interesting take on a wholly over-used term.....and on faux-outrage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/06/19/a-cage-is-a-cage-is-a-cage/?utm_term=.236f1068ae6e

Quote
Look who’s politically correct now
By Molly Roberts
June 19
 
When liberals refuse to call things what they are and sub in carefully calibrated euphemisms instead, far-right conservatives respond with one of their favorite phrases. This, they say, is political correctness run amok. But now it’s the far right that’s refusing to call the cages holding immigrant children separated from their families “cages” — they’re “chain-link partitions” instead. This hypocrisy reveals how much of a sham the crusade against political correctness among the far right has always been.

The far right loves to skewer the left for covering up inconvenient truths with consoling language: In the oft-quoted words of conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, “facts don’t care about your feelings.” But up against the decidedly inconvenient truth that children in detention centers are crying out for their mamas and papis, the right has responded with … consoling language.

Television and talk show host Laura Ingraham may have come up with the pleasantest description possible of the sterile rooms surrounded by metal fences where terrified kids squirm under astronaut blankets on floor mats: “essentially summer camps.”

The Border Patrol’s bureaucracy is playing the same game. The agency contacted a “CBS This Morning reporter on Monday to tell him they were “very uncomfortable” with his use of the word “cages” to describe those ostensible summer camps. It wasn’t that the word was inaccurate, they said. It was just that, though these might technically be cages, the children weren’t being treated like animals.

This is a paradigmatic case of convoluted logic and language designed to disguise a grim reality: The very fact that the Border Patrol is keeping these children in cages shows the administration is treating them like animals. The complaint that talking about cages makes the administration “uncomfortable,” too, is straight out of the campus culture wars, yet when liberals lodge this complaint, conservatives label them snowflakes faster than you can say “microaggression.”

No one seems entirely able to agree on what exactly political correctness is, but those on the far right often gripe about the policing of vocabulary as an example of the left’s penchant for shutting down disagreement. How dare you refuse to name radical Islamist terror, they ask? How dare you say “holidays” instead of “Christmas”? And what is up with these genderless pronouns?

This is a strong argument only when the stifled speech is actually an attempt at truth-telling in the face of censorship. Yet when the Trump camp cries out against political correctness, it usually has nothing to do with truth-telling or censorship at all.

“I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct,” Trump said during the campaign. And what was the politically correct autocracy stopping him from doing? Calling women “slobs,” “dogs” and “pigs.” But women are quite literally not dogs, or pigs. They’re women. Describing Megyn Kelly as a “bimbo” isn’t laying bare some suppressed reality — it’s nastiness for nastiness’s sake.

The same phenomenon appeared during the “******* country” controversy. Commentators were in an uproar not because Trump was describing these locales for what they really were, as his far-right defenders insisted that liberals refused to do, but because he was implying that those who come from those countries are “*******” people. And in any event, it’s possible to critique conditions in Haiti or El Salvador without invoking the human anus.

The pro-Trump right has weaponized “political correctness” to mean they get to say whatever they want, and those who disagree with them don’t. We’ve seen the first side of that equation plenty of times, and now, with the “cages” controversy, we’re treated to a crystal-clear example of the second.

So, in this instance, Ben Shapiro’s fans ought to reflect on how his mantra applies to them, too. Facts don’t care about feelings. They don’t care any more than the Trump administration and its euphemism-toting defenders seem to care about the children in the cages.
.
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 58,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,657
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2018, 20:25:38 »
David Grahams write up in The Atlantic takes on this ******* absurdity as well.  He characterizes it as "violence to the English language."  https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/ceci-nest-pas-une-cage/563072/ 
... Move!! ...

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 336,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,879
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2018, 20:37:01 »
I saw a good quote today, to the effect of "nobody on the right side of history has ever had to quibble over the definition of 'cage'".

If you're gonna come up with and enforce a policy, have the balls to own your decision, call it what it is, and defend the necessity- if you can. History is not kind to those who quibble and lose on such matters.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline QV

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 17,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 640
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2018, 20:54:01 »
I saw a good quote today, to the effect of "nobody on the right side of history has ever had to quibble over the definition of 'cage'".

If you're gonna come up with and enforce a policy, have the balls to own your decision, call it what it is, and defend the necessity- if you can. History is not kind to those who quibble and lose on such matters.

Indeed, looking at you 9th circuit court on a pre-Trump ruling (according to Ben Shapiro). Let us not let an opportunity pass to blame Trump for something that was ok while Obama reigned.  But I bet you Trump will fix this issue. 

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 336,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,879
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2018, 21:40:53 »
Indeed, looking at you 9th circuit court on a pre-Trump ruling (according to Ben Shapiro). Let us not let an opportunity pass to blame Trump for something that was ok while Obama reigned.  But I bet you Trump will fix this issue.

Pretending the situation is the same as under the last administration is dishonest- deliberately so given how easy it is to ascertain fact on this.

The law has not changed, that much is true, but what is happening now was not happening under Obama's government. Had it been so, that would have been just as wrong. What has happened is that the current administration has chosen to remove discretion in enforcement of immigration laws.

It is an offense (a misdemeanour, so a relatively minor one) to cross illegally into the States. It can indeed be prosecuted criminally. Conventionally, though, immigration issues have been handled through civil deportation proceedings. Out of the country is out of the country. There was nothing that required the current administration to alter this conventional exercise of discretion and to mandate that all such issues shall be pursued criminally. Setting aside for a moment the ridiculous overburdening of the courts that will soon be happening because of this, there was no inherent necessity to impose this policy. It was a choice.

It is a new practice in the past few months - one demanded by the executive branch - to go about it this way. They have chosen the behaviour and so they have chosen the consequences. That consequence is that a law that has historically only been used in really serious cases where criminal prosecution is warranted is now being used across the board in all cases, a removal of the conventional discretion border officers have had. This has indeed resulted in children being forcibly separated from parents and interned in camps, locked in cages in some places. 'internment camp' and 'cage' are awkward things to see said, but they are utterly accurate. It is a deliberate governmental policy to pressure the democrats in the legislature on immigration reform - basically to pay for the wall that Trump swore up and down Mexico would pay for. Funny, that.

In any case- the law is not new but the way it is being used is. It is being used indiscriminately, when conventionally proceeding criminally has been an exception.

Over and above being on the wrong side of history in interning children forcibly separated from their parents, this is going to have a pretty brutal impact in terms of the burden on criminal courts and all the due process that entails. The psychological damage on many thousands of children is going to be very considerable. What's going to be hilarious - in the schadenfreude type of hilarity - will be when some of the asylum claims are successful (because illegal entry is irrelevant to asylum), and they then sue the everliving crap out of the government for what they were put through in the interim. On the very sad side, given the separation of thousands of children, inevitably there are already accounts beginning to surface of kids being subjected to some inexcusable abuses. I fear there will be more of that.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2018, 21:56:58 by Brihard »
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 58,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,657
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2018, 22:16:15 »
There has to be a credible fear of torture or similar harm to underpin a law suit in the US, the SCOTUS has been clear on that. Economic migrants do not qualify, and I believe ( stand to be corrected) that is also the case in Canada???
... Move!! ...

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 336,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,879
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2018, 22:27:21 »
There has to be a credible fear of torture or similar harm to underpin a law suit in the US, the SCOTUS has been clear on that. Economic migrants do not qualify, and I believe ( stand to be corrected) that is also the case in Canada???

Generally speaking to claim asylum there has to be a credible and specific fear for your safety, and yes it's similar in Canada. We're dealing with this in the ongoing border issues in Quebec. I'm not suggesting that most people will be granted asylum, or even many- but some will be fleeing specific enough and grievous enough danger that they will get asylum.

As for lawsuits, you can sure for pretty much anything. It has to have merits to go anywhere. The US government is putting itself in great jeopardy of children coming to unnecessary and avoidable harm due to government policies, and civil action will likely be a result of same. It won't change what has happened and it will take years, but it will keep this ugly spectre in the public eye from time to time for years to come.

This policy is basically a big lose in just about every way. There's nothing worthwhile to be achieved by this that couldn't be accomplished otherwise, and the political harm both domestically and in terms of international credibility is going to be considerable. I mean, it *should* be, because this is bloody awful, but from a purely pragmatic standpoint, the political math on this will not play out in the administration's favour. It will appeal strongly to a fairly narrow hard-right base, but most moderates are going to find this really gross. Not the smartest step to take leading into the midterms.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 372,816
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2018, 22:31:27 »
Parents also have the option of not illegally crossing the border.



As brutal of a practice this is, I wonder if it will reduce the number of illegal border crossings, which their government may laud as a victory.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 336,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,879
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2018, 22:36:19 »
Parents also have the option of not illegally crossing the border.

As brutal of a practice this is, I wonder if it will reduce the number of illegal border crossings, which their government may laud as a victory.

Certainly they do have that option, and that is part of the tactic of fear being used here. 'Cross illegally, we'll take your kids from you by force and you won't know if you'll get them back'. If America has become comfortable with doing things that way, that's frightening to me. The brutal approach can be effective, but at what cost?

Hopefully the brisk and loud outrage at this and the domestic political impact it may have will help the administration to recognize the advisability of pulling back form this approach- if moral reasons don't suffice for that, hopefully pragmatic political calculus will. I don't expect Trump to care about what anyone else in the rest of the world thinks, but an impact on the midterms will carry weight.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2018, 22:51:06 by Brihard »
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 58,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,657
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2018, 22:59:57 »
Ok, well getting back on track to verbiage of political correctness, they are not chain link partitions with a summer camp nostalgia, they are pens and kennels with kids in them. Brutal> Yes.
... Move!! ...

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 336,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,879
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2018, 23:03:08 »
Right. The photos are incredibly damning.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline QV

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 17,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 640
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2018, 23:37:09 »
Do you mean the photos from 2014?  You sure this didn’t happen under Obama?

Online GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 220,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,979
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #12 on: June 20, 2018, 00:15:40 »
Parents also have the option of not illegally crossing the border.

As brutal of a practice this is, I wonder if it will reduce the number of illegal border crossings, which their government may laud as a victory.

I doubt it.....they have already travelled this far, paid fees and bribes, to stop and wait is not feasible nor safe....
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 307,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,692
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #13 on: June 20, 2018, 00:43:08 »
Do you mean the photos from 2014?  You sure this didn’t happen under Obama?

We're sure. The Obama issue back in 2014 dealt with UNACCOMPANIED minors who were escaping principally from Guatemala. Since they came without parents or guardians the administration was forced into providing facilities and processes for their safeguarding.

For a better understanding of the situation see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_American_immigration_crisis

The current administration's actions are a form of weaponizing the legislation on the presumption that once families south of the border hear what is happening they will stop coming-- a form of pour decourages les autres. When you consider that the primary consideration in child welfare is always "what's in the best interest of the child", it's really not that hard to see that the current Trump administration policy is out of line for what right thinking people find acceptable. Even Republican lawmakers are aghast at it and quite frankly, IMHO, the true purpose behind way the administration is doing things is to make the Republicans in Congress uncomfortable in order that they will  give him money for the wall which they denied him earlier this year.

The situations are apples and oranges.

 [cheers]
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 203,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,742
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #14 on: June 20, 2018, 00:43:40 »
Quote
And in any event, it’s possible to critique conditions in Haiti or El Salvador without invoking the human anus.

This was the key take-away.  Political correctness is generally a form of greasy misdirection. Being blunt, direct, or "calling it like it is" is something appreciated when greasy language and misdirection are the norm.  One can, however, be blunt, direct, or "call it like it is" without being crass, obscene, or just a plain a**hole.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 322,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,399
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2018, 01:15:04 »
Beware the 'triggered' moral voices....

“moral voices can also become sanctimonious bullies.”

― Nicholas Kristof

“To stand on the firing parapet and expose yourself to danger; to stand and fight a thousand miles from home when you're all alone and outnumbered and probably beaten; to spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary.”
— Jerry Pournelle —

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 336,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,879
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #16 on: June 20, 2018, 06:30:26 »
Do you mean the photos from 2014?  You sure this didn’t happen under Obama?

Let’s see something substantive and reasoned in reply to my first post to prove you’re not just cherry picking the points you’re least afraid of engaging with, and then we’ll chat. Thus far you’re not showing any inclination to honestly address the facts as laid out by myself and others.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Online Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 586,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,518
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #17 on: June 20, 2018, 08:08:22 »
Thus far you’re not showing any inclination to honestly address the facts
You're new at these Politics threads, aren't you...   :pop:

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,541
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,463
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #18 on: June 20, 2018, 08:47:07 »
Let’s see something substantive and reasoned in reply to my first post to prove you’re not just cherry picking the points you’re least afraid of engaging with, and then we’ll chat. Thus far you’re not showing any inclination to honestly address the facts as laid out by myself and others.

Yes please. Whataboutism at its best I think.
Stop assuming I'm a man!

Don't know how long I want to keep playing this game...

Offline QV

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 17,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 640
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #19 on: June 20, 2018, 11:14:28 »

Brihard I'm not inclined nor wish to dedicate the time to go through your lengthy posts point by point.  Frankly I have other things to do.  Having said that, I do enjoy reading these forums for all of the different opinions and perspectives, including yours Brihard.  On occasion I drop my two cents in as well.  I try not to insult anyone or infer they are idiots simply because they haven't sufficiently responded to my post.  Truthfully, for me, your post was TLDR - so I skimmed it.  Maybe that means I don't have sufficient mental stamina to spar with you about this, or I just don't care that much.  My point is all of a sudden something that is in law and has been going on for years is all Trumps fault and this is a huge disaster.  Well, it's not really.  This is just dirty politics.  There is no honesty left anymore.   

I will just drop this link here as well for another perspective on this topic:   

https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2018/06/19/really-2/



Offline JesseWZ

  • Directing Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 45,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 567
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #20 on: June 20, 2018, 11:54:34 »
Brihard I'm not inclined nor wish to dedicate the time to go through your lengthy posts point by point.  Frankly I have other things to do.  Having said that, I do enjoy reading these forums for all of the different opinions and perspectives, including yours Brihard.  On occasion I drop my two cents in as well.  I try not to insult anyone or infer they are idiots simply because they haven't sufficiently responded to my post.  Truthfully, for me, your post was TLDR - so I skimmed it.  Maybe that means I don't have sufficient mental stamina to spar with you about this, or I just don't care that much.  My point is all of a sudden something that is in law and has been going on for years is all Trumps fault and this is a huge disaster.  Well, it's not really.  This is just dirty politics.  There is no honesty left anymore.   

I will just drop this link here as well for another perspective on this topic:   

https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2018/06/19/really-2/

You can't have it both ways. Either input your two cents and defend it as Brihard has done, or be content to simply read the various opinions and perspectives. Dropping in tid-bits of opinion, getting called on them, and then refusing to debate the counterclaim is TROLLING. Brihards posts are hardly lengthy - this is a nuanced issue which he articulated very well... it's not rocket surgery. If you don't feel like doing the work of defending your argument, or even reading the follow on discussion, don't bother posting.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2018, 12:02:20 by JesseWZ »
I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard...

Offline BeyondTheNow

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 114,250
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,793
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #21 on: June 20, 2018, 12:15:28 »

Folks, a reminder: Every user on this forum is encouraged to post in the manner they’re most comfortable with as long as it doesn’t contravene Army.ca policies/guidelines in any fashion. At no point is it mandatory for users to respond to/debate/defend posts—their own, or other’s. They are free to disengage at any point.

“Trolling is making a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.” Google

Choosing not to debate any and all arguments in singular or multiple posts is not trolling. That being said, as this is a thread prone to passionate responses, let’s be cognizant of that in order to allow the discussion to continue.

Staff
”You don’t have a right to the cards you believe you should have been dealt. You have an obligation to play the hell out of the ones you’re holding. ”
~Cheryl Strayed

“The aim of argument, or of discussion should not be victory, but progress.”~Joseph Joubert

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -7995.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 283,582
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,683
    • Army.ca
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #22 on: June 20, 2018, 12:39:16 »
You can't have it both ways. Either input your two cents and defend it as Brihard has done, or be content to simply read the various opinions and perspectives. Dropping in tid-bits of opinion, getting called on them, and then refusing to debate the counterclaim is TROLLING. Brihards posts are hardly lengthy - this is a nuanced issue which he articulated very well... it's not rocket surgery. If you don't feel like doing the work of defending your argument, or even reading the follow on discussion, don't bother posting.

Point to that in the rules. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether you like it or not. Nobody here, is required to spend time and research, arguing against others. Maybe it's an opinion formed from the CBC, they're honest and trustworthy right? Nobody is required, likewise, to satisfy any questions or queries you may have. Just because you post an opinion doesn't mean you have to spend hours defending it against all comers. Now, if a person feels no need to respond to certain questions, you have a choice. Accept it or ask for clarification. If you get an answer, the poster wishes to confer with you, if they don't respond, they don't want to or are required to. Or maybe you are on ignore and they didn't see your question. It's good form to defend your opinion, but it's not required.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 372,816
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #23 on: June 20, 2018, 16:39:26 »
Certainly they do have that option, and that is part of the tactic of fear being used here. 'Cross illegally, we'll take your kids from you by force and you won't know if you'll get them back'. If America has become comfortable with doing things that way, that's frightening to me. The brutal approach can be effective, but at what cost?


From a pragmatic (and fairly heartless) perspective it seems to me like an effective way to combat illegal immigration. If you don't want to be seperated from your kids don't try and sneak in the country. That kids are allegedly suffering abuse is perhaps an even stronger motivation to not risk it.

Not saying I agree with the practice mind you.

Aside from the usual Americans who are outraged over anything and everything Trump does, and even some of his supports who may oppose this practice, there's probably a lot of Americans who don't really care if children from Mexico illegally entering the US are detained for a month and change without their parents.
Considering my first point some might even approve.


As for PC language it's a great example of the political right being guilty of the same language/behavior they accuse the left of. Cage is a cage don't mince words.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 186,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,398
Re: On Political Correctness
« Reply #24 on: June 20, 2018, 18:25:44 »

Looks like the President has decided to reverse his own policy on separating families.  A day after he said his hands were tied. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-separation-policy-criticism-1.4713950

Politics aside this is a good move.

Optio