Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[Vendetta]

Reince Priebus is out.

President Donald Trump on Friday removed his chief of staff, Reince Priebus, and tapped Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly for the job.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politic ... ly-n787656

Scaramucci seems to be making the most of his turn to drive the orange party bus, which is the motive for this particular purge of the administration. (can he do away with Bannon, who he appears to have described as "trying to suck his own cock"? Time will tell. He doesn't hate him as much as he does Priebus.)

[The Romulan Republic]

A second question from this, the Army Chief of Staff just publicly called the President unstable and reckless, can we expect orders coming down to fire him?

On the one hand, can you blame him (the Chief of Staff I mean- you can blame Trump for everything)?

On the other hand, open hostility between the armed forces and their civilian oversight is not a healthy thing for a democracy in the long run.

When the civilian oversight in question is this much of a complete and utter dumpster fire, I'm... not entirely sure about that. Having the armed forces say "we will conduct ourselves sanely and professionally no matter what this bozo you elected and saddled us with says" can be more reassuring than the alternative of imagining the armed forces totally subject to the will of the crazed bozo.

I mean, for me, it's kind of good to reflect that if senior Army brass aren't going to fire six thousand transgender soldiers just because Trump says so, they're a lot less likely to start rounding up dissidents and shooting protestors on his say-so, either.

[Also, that's a lot of transgender soldiers, more than I would have expected to exist given the overall size of the military, although I suppose 0.3% or so of the total population of military personnel isn't that much higher than I thought, given that the military skews young and less likely to be utterly closeted about gender identity issues]

I suppose so.

I'm not faulting anyone in the military for disrespecting Trump or disregarding his random idiocy, despotic declarations, and bigotry. I just think its unfortunate that we have a civilian executive so unable to properly play the role the Constitution intended for him in a responsible manner.

But after all, the military swears to follow the Constitution, not the President.

[Simon_Jester]

Scaramucci seems to be making the most of his turn to drive the orange party bus, which is the motive for this particular purge of the administration. (can he do away with Bannon, who he appears to have described as "trying to suck his own cock"? Time will tell. He doesn't hate him as much as he does Priebus.)

My theory is that the notorious fairweather friend Tony Scaramucci* has finally succeeded in convincing Trump through flattery and trash-talking Turmp's other minions that he, Scaramucci, is uniquely qualified to run everything.

In other words, Scaramucci is pulling the same scam on Trump that Trump pulled on the Republican voterbase. With luck, Scaramucci will be to managing Trump's affairs what Trump is to managing the nation's affairs. Because from the point of view of poetic justice... honestly, I think no one on the Earth could POSSIBLY be more worthy of the agony of being served by treacherous incompetent vindictive assholes than Donald Trump. He has done so very, very much to earn having bungling flatterers worm their way into his good graces and ruin his life.

*(sorry, but he's SO a Tony, not an Anthony)

---

Murkowski and Collins also voted no but for some reason McCain gets all the credit. Never mind he was the reason it came to a vote at all in the first place. Doing better than the other Republicans perhaps, but let's not lionize him.

Oh, Murkowski and Collins are already lionesses. My respect for them is going to be permanent, unless they do something terrible to lose it.

It's just that their being lionesses isn't news to me.

McCain? He's, like, I don't know, an ocelot or something. He's not a lion, he's a puny thing compared to a real lion. But he's maybe trying to be a lion for once in his life, long after the point where I'd given up on him ever even trying. And it's kind of nice to see that for a change. It's not impressive, but at least it's refreshing- like a single puff of fresh air from the wind picking up for a minute, temporarily allowing me to forget the stench of the manure piles around me.

Read it and weep.

Yep. Pretty much.

---

One thing I've heard a lot about McCain is that he's the kind of person who holds grudges, and is very slow to forget them. So with all the talk about whether he's being maverick-y or is trying to preserve his legacy or was visited last night by three spirits, here is my theory as to why he voted the way he did.

McCain wants vengeance against at least two, probably three or more, people directly involved in this whole thing. The two definite players, from what I see, would be Obama (for beating him in 2008) and Trump (for those "War heroes don't get captured" comments he made during the campaign). I can also see him having it out for McConnell and Ryan, though I'm not aware of any public events that could serve as a source for that. From that standpoint, some of his votes make a lot of sense...

Hell, I'll even settle for that.

See, Trump has insulted and shat on a lot of Republicans. So far, most of them have just smiled and taken it. Cruz? Rubio? Ryan? Graham? Perry? Priebus? All of them are now or were recently acting in support of Trump's agenda, after having been at best exasperated and aggravted by him, and at worst outright his enemy.

So if McCain did like you said? I consider that admirable on some level. If every Republican who had reasons to be bitter about something Trump said or did to them were that fucking vindictive, willing to at least stand up for their own right not to be abused and then used by a babbling demented manchild? Then the situation regarding Trump would be far, far less bad. In order to accomplish anything, Trump would have to do what some used to speculate he'd do: compromise. He'd have to give something in order to get something. He might even (gasp!) have to find appointees that can attract Democratic support because he'd made so many personal enemies among the Republicans.

...

See, the thing is, politics (like many things) can be modeled as an iterated prisoner's dilemma. The classic prisoner's dilemma features two people. Both are offered an incentive to betray the other, but if they both betray, they both lose- whereas if they both cooperate, they are relatively well off together.

In the iterated version, this happens to you repeatedly, so you get a chance to react to whether a person betrayed you last time.

One of the best strategies for success in the iterated prisoner's dilemma is "tit for tat." When people hurt you, you hurt them back- but if you are not provoked, you make a point of never hurting them. This has the advantage of being simple enough that even asshole psychopaths can understand it, which makes it a good strategy for dealing with Donald Trump.

The problem is, the "tit for tat" approach to dealing with Trump has broken down, because he can count on the loyalty not just of a small clique of lickspittles who depend on him personally for power and success, but on the loyalty of the Republican Congress as a whole. Like, he can get caught red-handed committing impeachable offenses and a lot of them will just NOT vote to impeach, because they have this notion that being a Republican is more important than either following basic rules of how democracy is supposed to work OR whether Trump personally is fit to be the Republicans' poster boy.

As a result, Trump has basically zero incentive to do anything except that which is utterly terrible. Because the terrible things he does still get Republican rubberstamps. He can appoint his son-in-law as Assistant Minister-Without-Portfolio for everything. Who cares? Not the congressional Republicans! He can leverage the power of the presidency for personal profit. Who cares? See previous!

If Trump were actually having to deal with the full consequences of having stepped on the faces of nearly every powerful Republican in Washington to get where he is now, the nation would be noticeably better off. So if McCain voted as he did out of pure vindictiveness, I still think that's good, because pure vindictiveness would be better than what we have now.

---

I'm pretty sure John "Crashy" McCain voted the way he did because he knows that the people who will be wiping his ass for him as he dies a slow cancer death may not be as quick to do so if one of his last votes was to take away healthcare for millions. He certainly shouldn't receive praise for doing the right thing at the very last minute. The sooner he exits the Senate (and then Earth) the better. I mean this is the shithead that gave us Palin, so fuck him.

Hell, I'll settle for this. He's not the only old man in the Senate, or in the Republican Party. A lot of the men who voted to take away fifteen or twenty-five million Americans' health insurance are old men who are going to be dying in hospitals some time in the next ten, twenty, or thirty years. If more of them had the bare minimum puny scrap of enlightened self-interest you describe... We wouldn't be having this problem. See previous.

It's not that McCain is good, it's that the average Republican congressman/senator is behaving so utterly fucking contemptibly. Even motives like grandstanding, or revenge, or not wanting to die of neglect because your nurse's cousin was killed thanks to your repeal of his health insurance, seem pretty good by comparison. Those are at least motives that make sense and can be attributed reasonably to a sane person.

[Lost Soal]

I don't know senate procedures but apparently the fact that McCain voted yes to actually bring it to a vote then no to help defeat it means the GOP cannot bring health care repeal back under the budget reconciliation process, i.e. simple majority, for the rest of the fiscal year. They can no longer just change one mind and pass it, they will need 60 votes.

[Highlord Laan]

I think that may be the case, especially since the orange mouth-shitter is pitching yet another manchild tantrum on Twitter about how the Senate rules need to be changed.

[Zaune]

Trump promotes police brutality in speech to cops

President Donald Trump on Friday appeared to encourage police abuse of suspects.

Speaking before a crowd of law enforcement officers at Suffolk County Community College in Brentwood, Long Island, Trump urged police to not be “too nice” when dealing with suspects.

“When you see these towns and when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just see them thrown in, rough, and I said, ‘Please don’t be too nice,’” Trump said. “Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over, like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody, don’t hit their head, I said, ‘You can take the hand away, OK?’”

The crowd met his remarks with cheers and applause.

President urges officers to commit acts of brutality, officers laugh and cheer wildly. Beginning to think problem isn't a few bad apples. pic.twitter.com/o1sSgw6lGy

— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) July 28, 2017

Trump’s speech, which focused on immigration and law enforcement, offered his administration’s plan to dismantle the MS-13 gang, one of the most violent gangs in the United States.

The gang, which originated in El Salvador, has spread from Los Angeles across the United States. A particular concentration of gang members is active in Long Island, where, the Federal Bureau of Investigation says, the gang is believed to have committed at least 20 brutal murders. MS-13 is believed to have some 10,000 members across the U.S.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) condemned Trump’s conflation of gang violence and immigration during his speech in Brentwood, calling it a “cynical ploy” to “push his anti-immigrant agenda.”

“President Trump’s visit to Suffolk County is a cynical ploy to capitalize on recent headlines, cast aspersions on entire communities and push his anti-immigrant agenda. Trump’s vile rhetoric and cruel deportation machine mean that vulnerable immigrants must fear both gangs and the government at once,” New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman said in a statement. “As New Yorkers, we refuse to look at each other with that kind of suspicion or contempt. As the New York Civil Liberties Union, we will continue to push back against Trump’s demonization and his deportations.”

It is in the context of gang slayings and other horrific acts of violence that Trump suggested police not treat suspects with care or respect. However, the Trump administration’s broader emphasis of “law and order” is accompanied by a disregard for civil rights violations. In February, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reportedly dismissed a major report on police abuse without reading it.

“For years and years, [laws have] been made to protect the criminal,” Trump said in Friday’s speech. “Totally protect the criminal, not the officers. You do something wrong, you’re in more jeopardy than they are. These laws are stacked against you. We’re changing those laws.”

Posted without comment.

[TheFeniX]

It is in the context of gang slayings and other horrific acts of violence that Trump suggested police not treat suspects with care or respect. However, the Trump administration’s broader emphasis of “law and order” is accompanied by a disregard for civil rights violations. In February, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reportedly dismissed a major report on police abuse without reading it.

“For years and years, [laws have] been made to protect the criminal,” Trump said in Friday’s speech. “Totally protect the criminal, not the officers. You do something wrong, you’re in more jeopardy than they are. These laws are stacked against you. We’re changing those laws.”

Politicians get to maintain the facade of "tough on crime" while taxpayers pick up the tab for the million dollar civil rights violation and police abuse lawsuits.

The system works!

Have that money come directly out of congressional and presidential war-chests and see how long their attitude holds up. Fucking cowards.

[The Romulan Republic]

Authoritarian demagogue engages in authoritarian demagoguery.

I'm disgusted, but not surprised.

As to McCain and health care... God knows I've disagreed strongly with McCain's politics many times, but I think people have been too hard on him over health care. Yes, he voted to proceed, but when it came to the final vote, he made the right choice in the end. And he's one of the few Republicans in Congress who still seems to have some concept of personal integrity and loyalty to something besides hatred of the Other and winning at any cost. If more Republicans were like John McCain, I wouldn't vote Republican, but I probably wouldn't fear and despise the party so much either.

[Elheru Aran]

Nobody thinks the voting to proceed wasn't done on purpose? A pretty decent take I've seen today is that McCain cast the vote to proceed precisely so he could nix the repeal movement. Since it was being done under the budget-reconcilation process... it can only be done once per year, something like that. So either they have to start from scratch, or actually start working with the Democrats.

[TheFeniX]

Nobody thinks the voting to proceed wasn't done on purpose? A pretty decent take I've seen today is that McCain cast the vote to proceed precisely so he could nix the repeal movement. Since it was being done under the budget-reconcilation process... it can only be done once per year, something like that. So either they have to start from scratch, or actually start working with the Democrats.

I'd like to believe this. McCain's been in the shit (politics) for about as long as I've been alive. But he was always fairly moderate, considering his age.

2008 broke him and he went into full-shill mode and really hasn't dropped it much since. But I recall him being constantly ousted by Republicans before-hand for being a moderate and/or a RINO. But I could easily believe McCain has both the ability and grudge to pull this off to really fuck Trump and other Republicans for years of bullshit thrown back and forth.

Whatever the reason, I have to give credit for McCain's ACTIONS if not his motivations.

[Dragon Angel]

I'll be hard on McCain because I've seen him talk the talk but 99% of the time not actually walk the walk. One vote contrary to the party line--no matter the reason behind it--is great, do not get me wrong, but I am not going to start lionizing him for "integrity". He's had years upon years to really prove his maverick reputation and no, he stumbles upon himself constantly. He is a coward, and if he thinks he can buy one contrary vote to cleanse his entire history (and if God, Heaven, and Hell are real, a ticket into at least Purgatory), then he will be naive until he dies.

If there were more Republicans like John McCain, I'd consider the rest of them just as much of moral cowards as he is.

[The Romulan Republic]

He's been pushing back against Trump on Russia too, and so far as I can recall, he's been fairly consistent (understandably, give his history) in his anti-torture stance.

He's a warmonger, and I can never excuse him for nominating Sarah Palin for VP, but he is, at least, a cut above the likes of McConnel, or, worse, Trump. Damning with faint praise though that may seem.

Edit: He also worked with Bernie on a bi-partisan veterans bill a while back, IIRC.

[Dragon Angel]

and so far as I can recall, he's been fairly consistent (understandably, give his history) in his anti-torture stance.

Behold: Quantum McCain. Time allows us to forget many things...

Maverick Fails The Test: McCain Votes Against Waterboarding Ban
By Satyam Khanna

Today, the Senate brought the Intelligence Authorization Bill to the floor, which contained a provision from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) establishing one interrogation standard across the government. The bill requires the intelligence community to abide by the same standards as articulated in the Army Field Manual and bans waterboarding.

Just hours ago, the Senate voted in favor of the bill, 51–45.

Earlier today, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a former prisoner of war, has spoken strongly in favor of implementing the Army Field Manual standard. When confronted today with the decision of whether to stick with his conscience or cave to the right wing, McCain chose to ditch his principles and instead vote to preserve waterboarding:

Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted “no” on Wednesday afternoon.

The New York Times Times notes that “the White House has long said Mr. Bush will veto the bill, saying it ‘would prevent the president from taking the lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack in wartime.’”

After Bush vetoes the bill, McCain will again be confronted with a vote to either stand with President Bush or stand against torture. He indicated with his vote today where he will come down on that issue.

John McCain: He was against waterboarding before he was for it.

[Flagg]

John McCain can be summed up as a mean old shit whose death is long overdue based on a joke he once told in public:

"You know why Chelsea Clinton (then just a child) is so fucking ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father!"

That's mister "straight talk" for you. And can we stop praising shitheads for doing what they should do? I don't expect a parade when I take out the garbage, McCain doesn't deserve a media blowjob for not further ruining people's lives.

[Elheru Aran]

Scaramucci out after 10 (11?) days

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday removed Anthony Scaramucci from his position as communications director, the White House announced, ousting him just days after Mr. Scaramucci unloaded a crude verbal tirade against other senior members of the president’s senior staff.

“Anthony Scaramucci will be leaving his role as White House Communications Director,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said in a statement. “Mr. Scaramucci felt it was best to give Chief of Staff John Kelly a clean slate and the ability to build his own team. We wish him all the best.”

Mr. Scaramucci’s abrupt removal came just 10 days after the wealthy New York financier was brought on to the West Wing staff, a move that convulsed an already chaotic White House and led to the departures of Sean Spicer, the former press secretary, and Reince Priebus, the president’s first chief of staff.

In a Twitter message just before 5:30 on Monday morning, just hours before the announcement about Mr. Scaramucci, Mr. Trump insisted that there has been “No WH chaos!”

The decision to remove Mr. Scaramucci became public as Mr. Kelly, who replaced Mr. Priebus as the top adviser in the White House, began his first day in charge of the White House staff. He told aides gathered in early-morning staff meetings that he intended to impose a new sense of order and operational discipline that had been absent under his predecessor.

Mr. Scaramucci had boasted about reporting directly to the president, not the chief of staff. But the decision to remove him came at Mr. Kelly’s request, the people said.

It was not clear whether Mr. Scaramucci, who is known informally as “The Mooch,” will remain at the White House in another position or will leave altogether. The White House had originally said that his official start date as a government employee was to be August 15, although he appeared to begin performing his duties immediately.

While Mr. Kelly’s objection was the decisive factor in Mr. Scaramucci’s departure, people close to the decision said that Mr. Trump had quickly soured on the wisecracking, Long Island-bred former hedge fund manager, and so had his family.

Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter, and Jared Kushner, her husband, had pushed the president to hire Mr. Scaramucci, seeing him as a way to force out Mr. Priebus, the former national Republican committee chairman, and his allies in the West Wing.

In that, Mr. Scaramucci was successful. Mr. Spicer, a close ally of Mr. Priebus, resigned just hours after the news about Mr. Scaramucci’s hiring was made public. And shortly after Mr. Scaramucci called Mr. Priebus a “paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac,” — adding a more vulgar term to the beginning of the phrase — Mr. Priebus, too, offered his resignation.

Mr. Trump was initially pleased by Mr. Scaramucci’s harsh remarks, directed at Mr. Priebus and Steve Bannon, the chief White House strategist. But over the weekend, after speaking with his family and Mr. Kelly, the president began to see the brash actions of his subordinate as a political liability and potential embarrassment, according to two people familiar with his thinking.

Mr. Scaramucci’s swift departure is an early indication that Mr. Kelly intends to assert his authority over the operations of the White House, and that several of the big personalities there — including Mr. Kushner, Ms. Trump and Mr. Bannon — may be inclined to defer to him.

It also suggests that, at least for the moment, Mr. Kelly has the president’s support in that effort.

The president still values Mr. Scaramucci, according to people close Mr. Trump and his family, and is hoping to find another, less high profile, position for him in the White House — although it is uncertain if Mr. Scaramucci would be willing to accept a demotion.

A few tasty lines bolded for emphasis.

One wonders what other changes John Kelly is going to bring to the White House and the President's administration...

[The Romulan Republic]

He'll bring zero change that matters. The White House is an unending landfill fire, and will continue to be so until impeachment or an election removes the Orange One.

[Solauren]

Kelly might be able to reign the White House in if he is given the authority to do so (including telling Trump who he needs to toss from his staff/advisors)

Trump has surrounded himself with aggressive successful corporate types. Some of the behaviors needed to succeed as a corporate type also line up with being a psychopath. So of course, the White house is in shambles at the moment.

However, put a no nonsense military man in a position of authority over them, especially a military man Trump respects (Trump has a history of working well with Generals apparently), he'll either reign them in, or get them tossed.

Am I expecting that? Not really. Just pointing out it COULD happen.

I could also win the lottery this weekend. I'm not expecting it to occur, but it COULD happen.

[Lord Revan]

Kelly might be able to reign the White House in if he is given the authority to do so (including telling Trump who he needs to toss from his staff/advisors)

Trump has surrounded himself with aggressive successful corporate types. Some of the behaviors needed to succeed as a corporate type also line up with being a psychopath. So of course, the White house is in shambles at the moment.

However, put a no nonsense military man in a position of authority over them, especially a military man Trump respects (Trump has a history of working well with Generals apparently), he'll either reign them in, or get them tossed.

Am I expecting that? Not really. Just pointing out it COULD happen.

I could also win the lottery this weekend. I'm not expecting it to occur, but it COULD happen.

I would say that biggest problem Kelly has to overcome is controlling Trump himself the advisors can do only so much if all Trump wants to hear is "that's a brillant idea mister president" regardless of the actual merits of the idea.

[Flagg]

So Donnie Douchebag called the Whitehouse a "dump." I'm not upset, though. He would know a dump when he sees one since he's made his money building them.

[Simon_Jester]

I'll be hard on McCain because I've seen him talk the talk but 99% of the time not actually walk the walk. One vote contrary to the party line--no matter the reason behind it--is great, do not get me wrong, but I am not going to start lionizing him for "integrity". He's had years upon years to really prove his maverick reputation and no, he stumbles upon himself constantly. He is a coward, and if he thinks he can buy one contrary vote to cleanse his entire history (and if God, Heaven, and Hell are real, a ticket into at least Purgatory), then he will be naive until he dies.

If there were more Republicans like John McCain, I'd consider the rest of them just as much of moral cowards as he is.

I'm not gonna lionize him, I'm not going to say this makes up for his whole career of constantly selling out his own avowed beliefs and going along with terrible Republican policies when he truly, deeply ought to know better.

I'm just glad that one fucking time, JUST ONCE, at least ONE semi-prominent Republican congressional figure opposed the party consensus in order to do a thing that was not in itself actively shitty and terrible, and that may have done the country some good for a change.

Can you give me that much?

It's like, I find the conduct of the Republican Party during my adult life to be so terrible... I'm honestly worried about turning into a man who is literally incapable of even noticing when the opposition party or a member thereof is in the right or does a correct thing. Not even "is a good person on the whole" or "is right most of the time," but just got one damn thing correct.

The inability to notice such things is not a place I want to travel.

[Dragon Angel]

I'm just glad that one fucking time, JUST ONCE, at least ONE semi-prominent Republican congressional figure opposed the party consensus in order to do a thing that was not in itself actively shitty and terrible, and that may have done the country some good for a change.

Can you give me that much?

It's like, I find the conduct of the Republican Party during my adult life to be so terrible... I'm honestly worried about turning into a man who is literally incapable of even noticing when the opposition party or a member thereof is in the right or does a correct thing. Not even "is a good person on the whole" or "is right most of the time," but just got one damn thing correct.

The inability to notice such things is not a place I want to travel.

Yeah, hence my qualification.

This was mostly a response to TRR's post, but I thought I'd make it generic because there is a wave of liberals elsewhere who are trying to wash away McCain's past that makes me rather annoyed.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not saying McCain's in the right all the time, or even most of the time.

Just that he's better than the average Republican politician.

Which, yes, I recognize is an extremely low bar.

[Simon_Jester]

Suffice to say that I think we're better off in an argument where it's at least possible to say some nice things about members of the opposing party who cross the aisle on an issue of great importance to our own side, without having to load it down with three paragraphs of qualifications about how they're still terrible people. It leads to meanness and a frame of mind in which "the enemy" is viewed with monolithic dehumanizing hatred... at which point that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Lord Revan]

I have to agree with Simon if you can't admit that your political opponent did a good thing without adding "he's still evil and here's why", you've essentially given up on democracy regardless what you might think or claim.

The thing to remember here is that republicans or what ever major political party isn't made up of demons or elemental embodiments of evil but rather normal human beings with all the flaws and virtues that come with it, so republicans are physically capable of intentionally doing good things and we shouldn't forget that. (I'm using them as they're the subject of discussion here, personally I don't care much of either the major american parties, but then the uninentional comedy that is US internal politics doesn't effect me much).

With democracy you have to accept that sometimes you hear things you don't like but a democracy that allows only things that *insert group here* wants to hear is a democracy in name only and the Twitter war Trump is having with the press shows that they're not just mouthpiece of the GOP regardless of what some may claim to justify their bloodlust.

[Gandalf]

So Donnie Douchebag called the Whitehouse a "dump." I'm not upset, though. He would know a dump when he sees one since he's made his money building them.

Maybe he's going to remodel it, and add that Trump flair that got him a few hundred electoral votes?

On the upside, there's a chance that the Trump house may not use slave labour, so that's an improvement on the original.