Holland reports: "On the day before an election that's supposed to hinge on jobs, taxes and the middle class, Bain Capital, the company Mitt Romney founded, will...ship 170 good, high-tech jobs to China."
Mitt Romney at Bain Capital in the early 1990's. (photo: David L. Ryan/The Boston Globe/Getty Images)
Romney's Bain Capital to Send High-Tech Jobs to China Right Before the Election
17 October 12
The story of Sensata Technologies is about the hollowing out of America's economy by a rapacious 1 percent.
n the day before an election that's supposed to hinge on jobs, taxes and the middle class, Bain Capital, the company Mitt Romney founded, will close the doors of a factory in Freeport, Illinois, and ship 170 good, high-tech jobs to China.
The employees of Sensata Technologies were forced to train their Chinese replacements, and the American flag that long flew over the factory was reportedly removed while the Chinese engineers were visiting the site. A group of workers have set up camp across from the factory - calling it "Bainport" - and some supporters have tried to block the trucks hauling equipment out of the plant. According to Dave Johnson, there have been several arrests.
Sensata workers have asked to meet with Mitt Romney and hoped to enlist his help keeping their jobs in the United States, but he has refused, instead remaining on the campaign trail where he speaks often about "getting tough" with China.
The most important part of the story is that Sensata Technologies is profitable operating in Illinois. Net income last year was $355 million, up 16 percent from 2010. The company reported total revenues of $1.8 billion in 2011, up almost 19 percent from the year before. According to a company financial statement, "both 2011 net revenue and adjusted net income represent record levels for the company."
So this has nothing to do with "making hard choices" in the process of turning around a failing business, which is how the Romney campaign describes Bain's corporate raiding. Bain's partners are looking for a modest boost in profits by locating the plant closer to the booming Asian automotive market (Sensata makes high-tech automotive parts). They'll get a small tax break for relocating the plant - the one Mitt Romney insisted did not exist during the first debate - and possibly defer taxes on some of the income the company generates.
It takes both capital and labor to make a successful business like Sensata Technologies. In order to make a few more bucks, 170 of the people who helped make the company thrive will be cast aside like so much trash. The layoffs will surely have a ripple-effect in Freeport - a town of 25,000 with a declining population and a poverty rate well above the national average. The move is the epitome of corporate America's lack of patriotism - it's capital unmoored from any sense of responsibility for the people that make the profits or the communities where they live. The city passed a resolution Monday asking Romney to intervene.
But the Sensata story has, so far, had little impact on the presidential race, mostly because Mitt Romney has no direct involvement in the operations of the company he established (despite continuing to make millions as a "passive retired partner"). But this is reading the story of Bain Capital too narrowly. Mitt Romney is directly responsible for its business model.
As Tom Gaulrapp - a lifelong resident of Freeport and 33-year employee of Sensata - told the Huffington Post's Amanda Terkel, "They're still using his business model. He's the one who taught them how to do this. These guys were put there by him. So you can say he doesn't run the day-to-day operations, but he's still at blame for the way they do business."
Mitt Romney started the firm, and built it up on a strategy of buying firms with little money down, loading them with debt, raiding their pension funds and breaking their unions and then "harvesting them" - in his words - for a profit. Romney is the only person to ever serve as Bain's CEO - since his departure, the firm has been run by a managing committee.
The story is bigger than Sensata, and bigger than Bain. The issue is the turn America's corporate culture has taken, and what the consequences of its model are for our economy and, indeed, our society. And it is Mitt Romney's embrace of that model - ravage capitalism that is loyal to no nation-state and blind to every human virtue but profit - that should be disqualifying.
In the New York Times, Chrystia Freeland, author of "Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else," wrote about the historical tendency of elites to self-destruct by extracting wealth from the broader community to such a degree that the society becomes dysfunctional and mired by social problems. She recalls how the Venetians became the most prosperous society in the world during the 14th century by opening their economy to a broad swath of the population. Then, at the height of its golden age, "the upper class acted to lock in its privileges, putting a formal stop to social mobility with the publication of the Libro d’Oro, or Book of Gold, an official register of the nobility. If you weren’t on it, you couldn’t join the ruling oligarchy."
She then notes parallels to the United States, which featured one of the most egalitarian economies through much of the last century, but is now plagued by rising inequality and decreasing economic mobility. She writes:
The 1 percent cannot evade its share of responsibility for the growing gulf in American society. Economic forces may be behind the rising inequality, but as Peter R. Orszag, President Obama’s former budget chief, told me, public policy has exacerbated rather than mitigated these trends.
Even as the winner-take-all economy has enriched those at the very top, their tax burden has lightened. Tolerance for high executive compensation has increased, even as the legal powers of unions have been weakened and an intellectual case against them has been relentlessly advanced by plutocrat-financed think tanks. In the 1950s, the marginal income tax rate for those at the top of the distribution soared above 90 percent, a figure that today makes even Democrats flinch. Meanwhile, of the 400 richest taxpayers in 2009, 6 paid no federal income tax at all, and 27 paid 10 percent or less. None paid more than 35 percent...
Educational attainment, which created the American middle class, is no longer rising. The super-elite lavishes unlimited resources on its children, while public schools are starved of funding. This is the new [Venice]. An elite education is increasingly available only to those already at the top. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama enrolled their daughters in an exclusive private school; I’ve done the same with mine.
Much of this is the result of the 30-year assault on organized labor. It's worth noting that Sensata Technologies is a non-union shop, which is a big reason the firm can move profitable operations abroad without much resistance.
Employment, in raw jobs numbers, should not be the defining issue of this election viewed in isolation. We also need to consider what kinds of jobs are being created. A recent study conducted by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) found that while only 21 percent of the jobs lost during the recession were low-paying (with median hourly wages from $7.69 to $13.83), a majority of those created during the recovery - 58 percent - have come with such low wages.
These trends are not Mitt Romney's doing, but he is the walking, talking personification of what's been happening in the American economy. Mitt Romney was an innovator in offshoring. He and his family will make a few more dollars as a result of shipping those jobs to China, at the expense of the workers who "built that" in the first place. That's why the story of Sensata Technologies should have an impact in this race.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
'Ro-money' and Bain are in the business of making money, they are not in the business of making jobs.
Romoney is a capitalist, not a patriot... and that's just one more reason why he should never be president.
Ed Schultz is pulling in more of an audience then Bill Orally, from Fox. Hmm does that mean only 1 person is watching Bill-O?
Atleast its not made up BS like what appears on Fox to keep the nut jobs appeased and in a nonsensical bubble of misinformation and lies.
From Mon Oct 15. (numbers in 000's)
O'reilly 3662
Schultz 1151
For the 11pm replay
O'reilly 1368
Ed show 698
For Prime time, NOT ONE MSNBC show beats ANY Fox News show.
BTW,
Hannity 2778
Maddow 1351
So O'reilly beats Ed 3-1 (not even close) and Hannity beats Madcow 2-1
So Please tell me again that Ed has a bigger audience than O'reilly and how is the orange flavored kool-aid?
How's that glue sniffing going? Or do I need to ask?
It's about uninformed Americans who are fooled by your fox friends.
Wake Up America, before Mitt runs the Show.
I agree that many in the populace are not smart enough to cast an intelligent vote, like the Obama-phone lady. Are anyone you suggesting that we have some sort of test to qualify people to vote? Since you state that there has been a dumbing down (especially in politics) of the people, may I suggest that since libs have been running the schools for the last 40 or so years that they are to blame. Maybe less "conflict resolution" and "self-esteem" classes and back to basics.
I also find it interesting that you 3 seeem to think that you are informed while the masses are not. Kind of elitist if you ask me but then I find that alot when talking with progressives. Many/most progressives believe that the masses are stupid and can't survive without the help of government run by the elites. Thus such programs as social security, medicare, affirmative action, welfare, job training (govt run) etc.
So maybe you will all have dachas in the forest and drive in the "official" lanes while the masses just take public transportation.
I agree that much of "the left" is just as elitist (the "vanguard party" model) as "liberals" or even those on the right but this is not true for all leftists e.g., the autonomia or "autonomist" marxists or say the Zappatistas in Mexico or genuinely democratic socialists/comm unists/anarchis ts/syndalissts etc around the world.
Also, to say that "liberals" are to blame for the state of public education in this country when it has been hollowed out for decades by both parties is a little one-sided don't you think?
And, one can say that "the masses" have been so confused by the mainstream corporate-owned and controlled media (not to mention both parties) that they more often than not vote against their own interests. This is not an "elitist" statement i.e., saying "the masses" are too stupid or not intelligent enough to know the truth but it is to recognize that capital has been very effective at hiding the true sources/causes of most of our really serious problems such that it is not easy for people to see beneath/past them. As Antonio Gramsci wrote about nearly 100 years ago, or those more recently and like Foucault understood that the system does not and cannot function via repression alone but also needs people's acceptance (a big part of what Gramsci meant by hegemony) of the system as a whole.
Nobody said anything about a "voting" test. But are you for having a special ID to vote?
The Liberal label again. This has gotten really old.
You kinda twist what poeple are posting here regarding being dumb downed. It's not elitist to have an education, politcally. But there sure are people who merely show the potential of thinking politically (Legimate rape?)
Now there's another prime example of reactionary mean-spirited pointlesness.
No motive but underhanded insult and it just makes you look like what you must be (I'll stop there).
This is a discussion forum, not a children's tattle-tale exchange.
I should just ignore it like I have come to abandon exchange most other reactionaries who post here but at least they occasionally make their own point which they are quite free to do so pleas explain y'r motive really, what is the point of this piece of spoiled-baby-ta lk?
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
The alternative is a snake in the grass.
One can imagine what would happen if Romney as President acted as if the country is a business.
This may seem highly esoteric - what's the difference, after all? But it's important, for the simple reason that we recover our power when we recover our discernment of where it is possible to act.
Just as governments control the movements of people and goods, based on laws that emerge from a process in which flesh and blood people contest and eventually agree as to the terms of the permitted movement, governments also control the movement of funds under the legal rules that define when these contracts can be honored. For instance, if you're a money launderer, your attempt to transmit can now be stopped, indeed must be stopped if the transfer raises red flags.
The countries of the world, in the thrall of finance capital, have created laws that allow this magical instant transfer of capital. But we the people did not have an informed say in this. If the people of the world were to begin demanding capital movement controls commensurate with those imposed on goods and people, for reasons equally good, we would not see capital fleeing so easily - it would become more responsible.
While, i agree with you in theory that we need controls on the movement of money capital i don't think it is realistic to expect that we can really regulate this as it is particularly in the nature of financial capital to find ways around these. A better strategy at this point i think is to begin to talk about the need to in some ways create two economies designed to deal with the provision of basic needs and services (which is thus not based on maximizing profit or "shareholder value" and another in which the capitalists can "play" with their own monies and move them around as they want but which we will never "insure" and which are sufficiently separated from the "real economy" that they are much less likely to take the rest of us down with them when their next boom inevitably busts.
And I agree about organizing labor. We need a real IWW -- Industrial Workers of the World. All the so-called Free Trade Agreements which guarantee the rights of capital should also guarantee the rights of workers. If the same labor standards and wages were required in every place on earth, there would be no reason for Romney or Bain to move Sensata to China. The cost of labor would be the same everywhere.
Yada-yada-yada.
Man, this reminds me of when I was in college and my liberal profs kept preaching Marx/Lenin/Che BS.
Oh the poor poor workers. ROFLMAO!!!
Closed-minded conservatives UNITE!!!
ROFLMAO!!!
The quote is actually "workers of the world unite" so either, as BB notes you weren't paying attention in class/school or you have never read the people you criticize.
I actually fancied this one even more...
"The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope"
...though it still seems to be an open historical question as to who, if anyone, actually said it.
The fact that you can "laugh" at the plight of billions of workers and the poor around the world says it all though.
Marxism/Leninis m/Che/etc are wrong and will always be wrong.
I guess I must have listened enough to get my degree in Poli Sci (even with all those lib profs). I admit it was fun debating them in class. Just like here.
Marx never said that it is "inevitable" that capitalism would lead to socialism and then communism. that was/is the point of his line that "class struggle is the motor force of history". In Marx's view, capitalism will only be overcome by people's struggle to do so and the outcome of this is never "inevitable". The only thing that was "inevitable" for Marx was that capitalism would develop what he called the "forces of production" to the point where it made socialism (and communism) possible but that is far from saying it is inevitable.
And, though I am not now nor have I ever been a "Leninist", Lenin, likewise, said very much the same thing which is why he (and the rest of the socialist movement) believed that revolution would happen first in Germany where the forces of production were far more developed and did not expect it to take place in Russia. Lenin was also clear (see his What Is To Be Done) that socialism needed to emerge out of "bourgeois democracy" which is why he supported fighting for political democracy (i.e, multiple parties, elections) in Germany unlike virtually all of the rest of the German Social Democrats that considered this not only unnecessary but anti-socialist.
Yet as history has shown, countries that are Marxist/Leninis t/Maoist etc hve been some of the most repressive and do not in fact lead to less government but one that controls every facet of the life of an individual.
As one Russian said, "they pretend to pay us so we pretend to work." Communal living failed under the Jamestown Charter and has failed every other time.
People's own self-interest will ALWAYS win out because people are motivated to improve themselves first and if that improves the rest of society then great.
And, anyone using "evolution" to say that things "must" have turned out as they did understands nothing about evolution since that is not what it says...it tries to explain why things developed as they did (as does marx) but that does not mean that this was the only way things could have turned out. To say otherwise is simply deeply flawed logic.
And, yes, anyone who says that Marx talked about capitalism necessarily collapsing or necessarily leading to either socialism or communism is simply wrong. Show me one passage in Marx where he says this. As for Marxism being a "theology", well some may consider it so but surely Marx did not. For Marx (as for myself) his is a method of analysis, a way to understand how the capitalist economic system works. much of modern "bourgeois" economics is based on him whether they acknowledge it or not and I believe is still the best method for understanding how the system works.
Lenin, prior to the Russian revolution was also clear on the need for political democracy as the basis for socialism. unfortunately, he abandons this when the soviet union is invaded by numerous countries (including the US) and is plunged into civil war. However, if you read the last 3 pieces Lenin wrote (surpressed by Stalin) he critiques the bureacratizatio n of the early soviet state, warns against turning power over to any one person (Trotsky or Stalin) and renews his earlier call for "all power to the soviets" i.e., participatory democracy from the bottom up. so, it is also simply wrong to draw a straight line from lenin to stalin (though i have never been a "leninist" or accepted the "vanguard party" model and rather have always embraced the participatory democratic strands of left-wing thought of which there is also a long tradition (inlcuding in this country whether it bee the IWW, Debs, Emma Goldman etc).
So, just as "democracy" was used to justify slavery (but this does not make the democratic ideal "wrong") the fact that others used Marx to justify their own repressive regimes does not mean that this is to be found anywhere in marx or that marx's analysis of how the system works is "wrong".
So, no i don't think any of these writers (unlike alot of the contemporary dreck written by so-called "post modernists" which is if not deliberately, then needlessly turgid, dense and unclear).
"Democracy is indispensible to Socialism."
-- Vladimir Lenin
"Socialsm needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen."
--Leon Trotsky
"A prpoer measure of democracy should be put into effect in the army, chiefly by abolishing the feudal pracitce of bullying and beating and by officers and men share weal and woe."
--Mao Zedong
Of course, theory didn't always turn into practice.
I would love to continue this discussion but I had to put my dog to sleep this morning and to be perfectly honest, I just don't give a flying F right now about Marx, politics, the economy etc. It was fun though. Maybe later.
"I'm an anti-anti-communist."
--Gore Vidal
Ya'll come back now. You may have gotten fun out of the discussion, but not a furthering of your intelligence. If it has gone further in the first place. But it'll be "playtime" once again. You must say that.
I guess the closest the Republicans have come to a great president was a Marxist? Only in the fevered brains of the ignorant.
Only workers have ever cared about workers which is why the UAW should be talking with chinese auto workers (as well as other auto workers around the world) and call for organizing workers internationally to provide a "living wage" to all no matter what country they are from...this will do more to make the US "competitive" without this meaning that we engage in a race to the bottom regarding wages.
You mean the guy who saved the US auto industry as opposed to the guy that wanted them to go into bankruptcy with no way for them to come out again as viable, solvant companies?
And, China, has more than a billion people. Why would anyone not expect them to produce more cars than we do since their market is in the early high growth stage and ours is in the "mature" slow growth stage?
I wish Obama had made it Gov't Motors or even better had fired all of the old mangagement and board and turned the companies over to the workers as worker-owned cooperatives... .sadly, Obama is far from the "socialist" you fantasize he is.
GM has enjoyed expanding sales and operations. For example, it announced in January that it is building a new, $200 million stamping plant in Arlington, Texas. And it states: “Since June 2009, the company has announced more than $6.9 billion of investment to upgrade or expand operations in 12 states, creating or retaining more than 17,600 jobs.”
In May of 2009 it was $1....and, most publicly traded companies no longer pay any dividends so that too proves nothing.
Oh yeah, spending 6.9 billion means a temporary lowering of dividends and in an electronic system of millions of trades a minute, that results in lower prices. But the investment means greater profits in the future when those electronic trades will go the other way.
God, are conservatives even able to think things out or do they just parrot hateful wingnut garbage?
And, the fact that GM now makes more cars in China than here just proves my point that the unions (in this case the UAW) needs to be organizing internationally and making alliances with chinese auto workers...if the wages of china's workers goes up their products will be less "competitive" in the US and increase the cost to US manufacturers for doing business in china.
usatoday.com/money/autos/2011-01-24-gm-china-sales_N.htm
Bain and the other blood sucking vulture companies are killing OUR country off. Romney and the likes of him have NO INTENTION of working to crate more GOOD jobs in THIS COUNTRY.
They intend to totally make OUR country into a third world country, which is also why they ARE NOT GOING to IMPROVE EDUCATION. Working drones do not need to be educated, They can be taught to fight the wars, these people want to have with other countries, to get THEIR resources.
We HAVE to get this out, as many as possible need to know about Sensata BEFORE THE ELECTION. Romney, Rove, the RIGHT WING and the neocons have been planning and working for years to take over. Remember Rove had the plan to make the republican part invincible while he was with Bush. THIS IS SERIOUS
I don't think he is a bad guy because of that.
$3 million is hardly rich these days, just comfortable. I have friends who were working men their whole lives with more money than that.
Why do you think CNN is covering the story? I have not seen that anywhere. It would be helpful if they did. I looked through the article. But I did not see any mention of CNN??
Simple greed, and because China owns us. China can shut down the US government in a week by just not buying any more US bonds. That is why Romney's threat to "get tough" on China is so ludicrous.
At a certain point, when you own so much of another's debt (in their currency) they become "too big to fail" for you and so it is not in china's interest to see a huge drop in the value of the dollar since so much of their reserves are held in dollars (the same reason they were so concerned with the collapse of fannie and freddie since they also owned so many shares).
Furthermore, I googled and duckducked it and found only one CNN report: On September 16, "Why Romney Can't Help Sendata Workers" concluded: "Not saying such a strategy [pressuring a state investment fund] would have necessarily worked, but it would have been time better spent than hounding Romney."
Hounding Romney. That's CNN for you -- and all the other US mega-buck media prostitutes.
The problem for Sensata is that most of these concerns don't exist for its overlords. Bain executives do not live in the community and their own peers are utterly amoral so there are no social sanctions that can be brought to bear; they are unconcerned about goodwill because their market is elsewhere; and there is no link between them and their workers nor any expectation that a betrayal would endanger any future relationship.
[Continued next post]
In other words, all the things that go into the creation of a moral economy within the context of a capitalist political economy are absent in the modern class of un-rooted international corporate capitalists. That is the problem. Yes it is endemic to modern capitalism, but it is not necessary for the functioning of capitalism.
Alternatives within capitalism are possible. I personally think that the pendulum will start swinging back the other way as environmental costs start coming home to roost and the rapacity of this type of capitalism loses its cost advantages. The rate of return to this style of capital deployment is already falling, and more sustainable businesses, that more profitably manage the on-balance-shee t costs that global degradation is causing, I believe - or at least hope - will earn greater returns than jurassic capitalist practices. When this happens then everyone will have to imitate success or lose the game.
A previous post in response to another article is also pertinent to this issue. (Continued)
Please tell us what your congressman said...It must have been powerfully bad, to make you want to turn your back on the party you believed in your whole life??
I very much doubt that CNN or any of our mega-buck media will be showing much interest in this story. They are all whore -- for sale to whomever has the up-front whip-out cash.
Its more then about money, its power over everyone. Its the bully mentality, get what you want at all cost, regardless who you have to step on, ruin, or destroy to get it. Dont let this narcissistic bully become president, he will strip us all down and sell us to China to make the most profit. He will say or do anything...hasn t that become apparent by now?
Romneyhood, he steals from the poor and gives to the rich...what a bitch.
1. Buy the business with little money down (cost of election which is someone else's money)
2. Load the business with debt, (cut taxes for the rich and increase defense spending)
3. Raid their pension funds (destroy, reduce or privatize social security - not to mention medicare and medicaid)
4. Break the unions (like Scott Walker did in Wisconsin) and then
5. Harvest the business (after 8 years walk away from what's left, get a big payoff through his Bain investments, lucrative lecture tours and book rights, and finally go home and bathe in luxury.
In the mean time, we, the 99%, get to pay for it all and are left with the dregs.
PS Romney will need to increase spending for national security because as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the rich are going to need more protection for their wealth.
Below is one of my previous posts.
As you devoted posters on RSN know, I have been and still am a firm believer that we need a viable 3rd Party presidential candidate to salvage our nation from the challenges we face. But, with 6 - 9 billion dollars being projected to be spent on this election, no non corporate independent 3rd party candidate superior to President Obama was willing to expose themselves to the reprehensible abuse being heaped on the opponents of the multinational corporations' funded U. S. Chamber of Commerce and all the other undisclosed billionaires' phony "educational" Super PAC's. Despite that fact I would have been willing to deny President Obama my vote for his complicity in his corporate acquiescences, and let the chips fall where they may, until Romney's threat to position Paul Ryan a heartbeat away from imposition of the Fourth Reich. I still have reservations about President Obama's ability to substantially overcome corporate control of our total government, but I have no such reservations concerning the total demise of this country descending into apocalyptic civil war resulting from the 1%'s total enslavement of the 99% under a Ryan influenced administration. The destruction of the great state of Wisconsin was just a trial run for the dictatorship of the 1% over the entire world. VOTE FOR OBAMA! or be responsible for the self-fulfilling religious prophesies of Armageddon. A vote for Obama is a vote AGAINST RYAN!
We cycle and recycle as though it never happened before. We know it happens, yet we deny that it will happen again to us because we are exempt from the insidious repetition and its reprecussions.
Bain is both a vampire and a cannibal in fiscal terms and has never been a force for progress other than inadvertantly. It is destructive for the many and beneficial for the few in accordance with the current right wing philosophy that if you destroy enough lives a few will reap massive benefits and the damaged people can be ignored since they lack the resources necessary to fight back unless they collectivize which will not happen if all unions are eradicated and purged from our society.
Forcing workers to train their Chinese replacements and putting up the Chinese flag in place of the U.S. flag WHILE ON U.S. SOIL is borders on treason!
Mitt Romney's Bailout Bonanza
http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza
There still must be an "umbilical cord" between Romney and Bain. Romney has shown once again his fondness for the old saying, "Do what I say, don't do what I do." Mr. Anti-China really has no justification to verbally sabre-rattle. He definately has a real money addiction, comparable to a meth user.
Nothing has changed since then except that the plutarchs have taken more of our nation's wealth. If we don't fix this, history tells us that state socialism or in the end communism becomes the cure. And the cure is as bad as the disease. Romney represents this class and they need him as bad as they needed Ronnie although Reagan would never be let into the club and worse, he may not have even known that the club was running the show.
Obama and all of his shortcomings is the only alternative available until we decide that enough is enough.
RSS feed for comments to this post