ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Friday, February 01, 2008

Only in France

Could you lose $7.2 billion and not lose your job because of inflexible labor protections:

In a French Twist, Infamous Trader Gets Hero Treatment
Bank Finds It Hard to Say Au Revoir to Mr. Kerviel;
'Che Guevara of Finance'
February 1, 2008; Page A1

PARIS -- Société Générale says wayward trader Jérôme Kerviel lost the bank $7.2 billion. But that was last week. He's now on his way to cult celebrity -- and he still hasn't lost his job.

Société Générale has stopped paying Mr. Kerviel and told him not to come to the office, but it hasn't managed to formally fire him. French law stipulates that to do that, the bank must first call him in for a sit-down meeting and explain its dissatisfaction. He has the right to bring along a trade-union official, a lawyer or anyone else he'd like.

That will be complicated: A pair of Paris judges this week released Mr. Kerviel from custody but forbade him to have contact with the bank. "This is a very peculiar case," says Emmanuel Dockès, a law professor at l'Université Lyon 2, Mr. Kerviel's alma mater in central France.

Reviled by Société Générale as a malevolent fraudster and "mutating virus," Mr. Kerviel, 31 years old, is now being hailed by a growing band of fans as "Robin Hood," "the Che Guevara of Finance" and even a genius worthy of the Nobel Prize in economics.

"Let's be honest: No one likes banks...and people like the rich to get cheated," says Christophe Rocancourt, a celebrated French con man who swindled wealthy Americans in the 1990s by masquerading as a French member of the Rockefeller family, a film producer and various other people.
The French Communist Party, meanwhile, has compared Mr. Kerviel with Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish French army officer whose persecution by the military hierarchy at the end of the 19th century has become a byword for gross injustice.

Société Générale, which sees Mr. Kerviel in a rather different light, has said it definitely wants to fire him and is trying to find a legal way to do it.

Firing has never been easy in France, where on-the-spot dismissals à l'américaine are viewed as brutal and very un-French. "This is not like America or England. We have rules that protect employees, no matter what they do wrong," says Stéphane Boudin, a Paris lawyer specializing in labor disputes.
Société Générale has "no intention whatsoever" of keeping Mr. Kerviel on its staff, said François Martineau, one of the bank's lawyers, earlier this week. But, he conceded, the bank can't formally fire him without following an elaborate process laid down by law. "We have to follow procedure," said Mr. Martineau, rolling his eyes.

Another member of the bank's legal team said yesterday that the bank had sent a formal letter to Mr. Kerviel calling him to a dismissal rendezvous. It scheduled the meeting for yesterday but the trader didn't show up, according to the lawyer.

The bank is intent on seeking at least some compensation for the damage Mr. Kerviel caused. It won't get back the €4.9 billion ($7.2 billion) in losses his trades allegedly triggered. But Société Générale could establish a claim to any future earnings by Mr. Kerviel should he turn his adventures into a book or a movie.

Mr. Kerviel's own lawyer, Elisabeth Meyer, said earlier this week that she was still waiting for the bank to initiate dismissal proceedings.

"They've got 120,000 employees, and they can't find a single person to send a letter," she said.

Ms. Meyer said the bank had left Mr. Kerviel in a bind: He can't go to work, but because he's still technically an employee of Société Générale, he can't sign up for unemployment benefits.

Ahh, the enlighted French.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Coulter Endorses Billary

Did I say something nice about Ann Coulter in a previous post? Good that she reminded me why that's a rare occurrence:

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

All You Ever Need to Know about Socialized Medicine

For those that can't wait for Obama-Clinton style healthcare, be sure to watch the videos below.

These excellent videos were sent to me by my friend Maddog. The filmmaker that produced them has a website, Free Market Cure and it is just great.

Here is the second video from Free Market Cure which is must see:

The claims about the uninsured in America are grossly over-exaggerated. As I've pointed out several times, the more you know about the 45 million uninsured, the less likely that you'd be willing to support socialized medicine.

  • 16 million (or 37%)live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau.
  • 6 million (or 19%) are in households making more than $75,000 a year
  • 9 million (or 20%) are not citizens
  • 14 million (or 33%) are already eligible for existing government programs, but choose not to enroll.
If we implement socialized medicine, where will the Canadians get quality healthcare? To eliminate the claims that our free market system is "selfish," let's rally behind the fact that we want free market healthcare for the benefit of the Canadians!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

I Miss Fred!

Thanks to NRO The Corner and whoever made this.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Thursday, January 31, 2008

The Thrilla in Manilla at the Kodak Theater

Watching the Democratic debate on CNN's website through live feed, which gives me the bonus of seeing the Luntz-O-meters track up & down for the two candidates.

I'm frankly surprised by the low ratings that Obama is getting: Hillary seems to rocket to 80+ on all questions. Perhaps it's just the orgasmic coverage that the MSM is giving Obama that I'd think his ratings would be 99 (or perhaps going all the way to 11) whenever he opened his mouth.

Perhaps there's an anti-Obama bias in the focus group... or perhaps it's that "ceiling" that Obama keeps hitting which no one mentions, but keeps alluding to.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Obama most Liberal Senator

From the National Journal:

But NJ's vote ratings are designed to draw distinctions that illuminate the differences among lawmakers. The calculations ranked senators relative to each other based on the 99 key votes and assigned scores in three areas: economic issues, social issues, and foreign policy. (House members were scored in a separate set of rankings. The full results for both chambers will be published in our March 8 issue.)

On foreign policy, for example, Obama's liberal score of 92 and conservative score of 7 indicate that he was more liberal in that issue area than 92 percent of the senators and more conservative than 7 percent. Clinton was more liberal than 83 percent of the senators on foreign policy and more conservative than 16 percent. The ratings do not mean that she voted with liberals 83 percent of the time, or that she was 83 percent "correct" from a liberal perspective.

The ratings system -- devised in 1981 under the direction of William Schneider, a political analyst and commentator, and a contributing editor to National Journal -- also assigns "composite" scores, an average of the members' issue-based scores. In 2007, Obama's composite liberal score of 95.5 was the highest in the Senate. Rounding out the top five most liberal senators last year were Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., with a composite liberal score of 94.3; Joseph Biden, D-Del., with a 94.2; Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with a 93.7; and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., with a 92.8.

So, Barack Hussein Obama is to the LEFT of Bernie Sanders, Communist-VT?

Dear God...

Hot Air has more...

Meanwhile, I'm listening to some idiot on Hannity tell us that the evidence of McCain's appeal is the Obama campaign - that people want a change and want to get things done. Well, if I take the most Mstrike>liberal socialistic Senator and have him compete against an unreliable conservative, that doesn't seem like a fair compromise to "move to the center" in my mind.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Turning to the Real Enemy in This Election - Bubba Proclaims "All We Have to Do Is Slow Down the Economy"

Good God and sweet sonny Jesus! (With apologies to Full Metal Jacket) Bill Clinton spoke truth, i.e. what the global warming gang really wants. As everyone is running in circles trying to outdo one another to "stimulate the economy," here is what Clinton, Gore et al really think.

From ABC News:

Bill: "We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy" to Fight Global Warming
January 31, 2008 9:26 AM

Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? "Slow down our economy"?

I don't really think there's much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?

He went on to say that his the U.S. -- and those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases -- could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan..

So there was something of a contradiction there.

Or perhaps he mis-spoke.

Or perhaps this characterization was a description of what would happen if there isn't a worldwide effort…I'm not quite certain.

You can watch that one clip HERE or you can watch the whole speech at the website of ABC News' great Denver affiliate KMGH by clicking HERE.

It's worth watching -- he also pushed back against a 9/11 conspiracy theorist heckling him.

"Everybody knows that global warming is real," Mr. Clinton said, giving a shout-out to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize, "but we cannot solve it alone."

"And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties -- would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that.

"But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.

"And guess what? The only places in the world today in rich countries where you have rising wages and declining inequality are places that have generated more jobs than rich countries because they made a commitment we didn't. They got serious about a clean, efficient, green, independent energy future… If you want that in America, if you want the millions of jobs that will come from it, if you would like to see a new energy trust fund to finance solar energy and wind energy and biomass and responsible bio-fuels and electric hybrid plug-in vehicles that will soon get 100 miles a gallon, if you want every facility in this country to be made maximally energy efficient that will create millions and millions and millions of jobs, vote for her. She'll give it to you. She's got the right energy plan."

In other Bubba News, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, told the spectacular Kate Snow yesterday that this is her campaign, not Bill's, and told Nightline anchor Cynthia McFadden last night that she can control him.

(Which begs the question -- does she want to slow down the economy?)

-- jpt

UPDATE: Not so difficult to predict -- the RNC just issued a statement in response to the former President's comment.

“Senator Clinton’s campaign now says we must ‘slow down the economy’ to stop global warming," said Alex Conant, RNC Spokesman. "Clinton needs to come back to Earth. Her ‘tax-it, spend-it, regulate-it’ attitude would really bring the economy crashing down. No amount of special effects will hide Clinton’s liberal record.”

Sen. Clinton's campaign, meanwhile, has a new TV ad (watch it HERE) that calls her "the person you can depend on to fix the economy and protect our future."

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

How McCain Can Win My Support

the Wall Street Journal provides an excellent analysis on the problems that McCain has with conservatives and how he could repair the breech.

McCain's Apostasies
January 31, 2008; Page A16

John McCain's hard-fought victory over Mitt Romney in Florida on Tuesday, combined with Rudy Giuliani's exit, has made the Arizona Senator the clear favorite. Now that the nomination is within Mr. McCain's grasp, he can close out Mr. Romney and help his prospects in November by showing he intends to repair the breach with all parts of the GOP coalition.

Mr. McCain's great political strength has also long been his main weakness, which is that his political convictions are more personal than ideological. He believes in duty, honor and country more than he does in any specific ideas.

These personal qualities are genuine political assets, and they are part of his appeal as a potential Commander in Chief. Among other things, they help explain why he held firm on Iraq when the fair-weather hawks lost their resolve. But he is now on the cusp of leading a coalition that also believes in certain principles, and its "footsoldiers" (to borrow a favorite McCain word) need to be convinced that the Senator is enough on their side to warrant enthusiastic support.

Mr. McCain's sense of honor in particular can sometimes veer into a righteousness that has alienated many who should be his natural supporters. Campaign finance reform is the best example. He adopted it as a way to cleanse what he thought was the dishonor of the Keating Five scandal, where he played only a bit part. Yet he has too often turned the cause into a morality play, accusing opponents of "corruption" when their belief in free political speech is at least as principled as his call for cleaner campaigns.

Mr. McCain could heal some of the wounds merely by acknowledging the obvious, which is that McCain-Feingold has had unintended consequences, such as making money in politics less accountable. Saying he'll appoint conservative judges, even if they might find McCain-Feingold unconstitutional, would also help reassure many of those who have voted for his opponents in this primary season. Mr. Giuliani's team of conservative legal advisers led by Ted Olson is now available, and Mr. McCain ought to recruit them.

On taxes, too, the Arizonan still has reassuring work to do. We've long thought the Senator's opposition to the Bush tax cuts was as much personal as ideological -- a rebuke to the antitax conservatives who opposed him in 2000. He's come a long way since then, and Mr. McCain now says the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent. He's also endorsed a cut in the corporate tax rate to 25% from 35%, among other tax reforms. This progress is welcome, but he'll need to make a more vigorous, articulate case for why the tax cuts are essential to growth than he has so far. Especially going into the fall campaign, taxes and the economy are going to be major, maybe even decisive, issues.

The former prisoner of war has a natural advantage on national security, as the primaries have demonstrated. And he might conclude he can defeat any Democrat on those credentials alone. But the primaries have also demonstrated that even Republicans are less sure of Mr. McCain on domestic issues. To pick one example, his health-care reform proposal has many good parts -- including an emphasis on tax equity and competition to reduce costs. But his articulation of it so far is nothing short of terrible and would get him mauled against Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Mr. McCain has already moved to accommodate his many critics on immigration with his talk of "sealing the borders first." And judging by the primary results, this has neutralized immigration as a voting issue. The restrictionists will never be satisfied until he vows to deport every illegal immigrant in the country, and that position is a loser in the fall. After months of immigrant bashing by most of the GOP field, Mr. McCain is the one Republican who might be able to retain his party's Bush-era gains among Hispanic voters.

Senator McCain can take pride in his remarkable political comeback, and it will now be tempting for him to think that he can ignore the conservatives in the party who have opposed him. The press corps will goad him to do so, and some of his own advisers still haven't figured out that this is no longer the 2000 primary. Perhaps he might even be able to defeat Mr. Romney playing that game.

But to win in the fall, he will need the active support of a broad, motivated coalition. The Democrats are energized like they haven't been in a generation, and they will rally around any nominee. If Mr. McCain wants to prevail in November, he'll show with his policies and magnanimity that he wants to be the leader of the entire Reagan coalition.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Served my Country for Patriotism, not Profit

It's the leftist rhetoric such as that that gives me agita. I sent the following into the Romney campaign this morning, offering a bit of advice on how to counter any attack about layoffs resulting from one of Romney's turnarounds:

The next time anyone questions Romney on layoffs, the response should be that the Washington bureaucracy could use some layoffs.

For too long the bureaucracy has grown and become bloated under the stewardship of previous Presidents, Senators, and Congressmen. It's time for a change.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

McCain: Bob Dole for the 21st Century

All of the talk by the McCainiacs and the MSM about how lack of support for the MaverickTM is inexplicable and based on emotions is just ridiculous. Nothing could be further from the truth.

My beef with McCain isn't over "personality, emotions, or feelings," rather it is purely on the issues. In fact, I could argue that the much of the criticism of Romney is based on emotion and personality, but I don't want to stray to far off topic. Here's a quick rundown of the problems with McCain, followed by my analysis of why he won't win the White House (regardless of who he faces):

  1. Economics & Free Markets - The Republican Party's centerpiece of economic policy is tax cuts (aka letting people retain the wealth that they created). Yes, the GOP likes spending cuts as well, but we don't pass up a tax cut even if spending cuts aren't included. How well would our economy have performed without both of the Bush tax cuts? And it is not just McCain's positions on tax cuts, it's also his class-warfare rhetoric - such as when he said he opposed the tax cuts because the benefits go those who don't need it.
  2. Illegal Immigration - I am a fan of a guest worker program, but only if English is the official language and the borders are secured. McCain is out of step with the base on this one and there is little doubt that McCain-Kennedy will be signed by him if it were passed again
  3. ANWR and Energy Policy - One of the big opponents of opening up ANWR for oil exploration. His rhetoric often mirrors that of the enviro-left and Algore.
  4. Global Warming - President McCain will reign in our sluggish economy even further with taxes and regulations which the Asians and Europeans can't wait to impose.
  5. Campaign Finance Reform (aka Incumbent Protection Act) - McCain tied the hands of average Americans who are willing to pool their resources to make political speech on the airwaves. It wasn't just that McCain was wrong about this as a matter of the Constitution - he could be forgiven for not being a Constitutional scholar. Rather, the problem was that he sought to attack the motives of conservatives who had valid arguments against the bill, saying that they were bought & paid for by corporate interests.
  6. The War On Terror - Yes, he is better than Clinto or Obama here. Yet there is no difference between McCain's position on using "enhanced interrogation techniques" on illegal, nation-less combatants and Obama's or Clinton's. Given a rhetorical question about a ticking-timebomb scenario, McCain promised that he would not use these enhanced techniques which he considers too be torture.
  7. His disdain for the Christian conservatives who have played a critical part in the success of the GOP; As the Dems begin courting these voters, is it a good idea to nominate a guy who has shown utter contempt for them?)
  8. His fondness for John Kerry.
  9. His dislike of Alito's conservatism
  10. His fondness of Hillary Clinton
  11. His fondness for the MSM, from his chumminess with Don Imus all these years to his habit of finding the nearest camera to criticize fellow Republicans
  12. the looks of joy on the faces of Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, and Norah O'Donnell on the night of the Florida primary, all proclaiming that this was a re-alignment of the Republican party. (If they know McCain's not a conservative, why don't we?)
The biggest issue with McCain is that, when push comes to shove, he'd rather be disliked by conservatives than by the New York Times' editorial board. While his legislative position on abortion is comforting, the very judges required to overturn the ridiculous ruling of Roe v. Wade are the same type of judges who would laugh Campaign Finance Reform out of the books.

The man has a great biography and his patriotism cannot be questioned. However, loving your country doesn't mean you don't make some boneheaded decisions.

Now, here's why McCain's current lead over Hillary and Obama won't hold:

McCain's current appeal to the primary voters is his strength in national security, especially his steadfastness with regard to Iraq. Unfortunately, there's no way that this position can be enhanced.

Clinton certainly has a higher negative than McCain with independents. However, if Iraq starts to go sour, it's unlikely that the country will turn to McCain - the very guy who's been touting that his strategy has been working for the past year. If Iraq continues to improve and our troops are on their way home, there's no need for us to reward McCain for his foresight - Bush, McCain, and the GOP will be the victims of the positive results.

If Al Qaeda makes some terrorist attack, either on US soil or against US interests overseas, the MSM will cover it as a failure of the Bush administration and the GOP. There will be a clamor for a new approach and new ideas, not a continuation of policies which McCain has championed for 7 years.

The GOP is viewed by most Americans as having a serious approach to the War On Terror, but are uncomfortable with the duration of the war in Iraq are willing to give the Dems a chance to end that front. McCain is the single-issue candidate for the War in Iraq and leaves much to be desired by conservatives in other aspects (as documented above). If the War in Iraq isn't popular with the American people, why would we nominate its cheerleader who brings little else to the dance?

The contest will be closer if it's Clinton vs. McCain, but only because Clinton has such high negatives. Obama will have a blowout tsunami over McCain, after Obama thrashes him in the debates and on the stump. Obama will rise above it all, thanking McCain for his service and his patriotism, but it's time to transform Washington and bring about the Change that the people so desperately want in this new century.

The Democrat base is energized and if their choice is between a candidate who's a real liberal and a candidate who merely wants laudatory coverage from the liberal press, they'll choose the former.

If McCain does win the Presidency, we will be able to take one comfort - If he were to pass a tax cut, appoints an Alito-style judge, or says something flattering about a vocal conservative, it would be a pleasant surprise.

I'm not a fan of Ann Coulter - well documented that I think she's off her rocker most of the time - but I think she hits the nail on the head with McCain; McCain is Bob Dole 2.0:
John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most "electable" Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn't lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk.

Of course, I might lie constantly too, if I were seeking the Republican presidential nomination after enthusiastically promoting amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws.
Or, as Joe Scarborough pointed out on Tuesday night, John McCain's straight talk express in 2008 is 1) More War; 2) More illegal immigration; and 3) Fewer jobs.

Me? I'm leaning towards Romney on Feb 5th... However, I might be inclined to vote for Ron Paul, on the hopes that some less-crazy libertarian Republican - someone who values the Constitution, individual liberty as the result of limited government, and a sane foreign policy - will run sometime in the near future.

If my outlook is correct, the next 4 years will be good years to own stocks in cheap Scotch Whiskey distilleries. Although Michael Graham apparently favors the Irish variety...

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

A Bridge Beachfront Condo Too Far

With McCain's win in Florida yesterday, Rudy's strategy of concentrating his strength in Florida is getting a little bit of a short shrift today.

I guess it was just a bridge too far, for ol Rudy. That being said, I don't think the strategy can be faulted. It was Rudy's only shot, really.

He had no shot in Iowa, he had a modicum chance in New Hampshire, but with a "maverick" running with McCain, an existing Northeastern "liberal" Republican right next door in Romney, Rudy could only hope for limited things out of New Hampshire. He had no shot in South Carolina or Nevada. That leaves Florida. Especially with the compressed primary schedule, his hope must have been that it would have been a 2-3 man race by the time it got to Florida. If Rudy had gotten out of Florida with a win, the whole ballgame on Super Tuesday would have been in play, with New York, et. al. all voting on that day.

I know my family liked the straight talk of Rudy on the issue of terrorism, but unfortunately, with the economy being the dominant issue he had no shot.

I expect that we might see a Rudy in a McCain administration however, and he's a young man. I for one think he'd make an excellent Attorney General.

Michelle Malkin is covering the Rudy endorsement of McCain here; Sweetness & Light has more here.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

And Then There Were Two

McCain did it. He won a closed primary. Any attempt to diminish that accomplishment would be churlish.

That brings me to Rush.

I do not know what is stuck in his craw about McCain. Rush has gone over the edge. He has been petty, bordering on childish, with the bad impressions. I am disappointed in him.

McCain has problems, no doubt about that, mostly personality problems. That is not unlike my now departed candidate, Rudy. McCain can be obnoxious and imperious. But, he is not the Anti-Christ.

My first issue is national defense. Given the world we live in, that seems reasonable to me. It is why I was with Rudy. It is also why I can live with McCain. He will not give up the fight against the jihadists.

It is also why I am reluctant to support Romney. The folks who are pros at killing bad guys, people like Schwartzkopf, are with McCain. For me, that is persuasive.

McCain is also right on budgetary matters. There is no greater deficit hawk. I believe him when he says earmarks are doomed in his administration.

I hope Rush calms down.

As I started writing this, I was undecided as to for whom I would vote. I was thinking I was leaning toward Romney. Now I am not so sure. (There you have it, stream of conciousness blogging:)

My absentee ballot for California is sitting on my desk.

And now there are two.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Monday, January 28, 2008

Liveblogging the SOTU

After a small emergency with a washing machine, I've now poured myself a Gibson, I'm going to start watching the SOTU. Follow along in the comments.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Is Hillary Toast? - The Kennedys' Endorsement

I think so.

Teddy may be a dottering old fool, but he is a powerful old fool, and his support means a lot. I think his impact here in California on Tsunami Tuesday will mean a great deal. As he helped bring Lurch Kerry through in Iowa in 2004, I think Teddy will do the same for Obama across the country among Democrat primary voters.

The presence of Caroline on the same stage was of meaning. The clan has decided among themselves who they see to be the new torch bearer of JFK. The torch has been passed to a new geration.

Hillary and Co-President in Waiting Bill did this to themselves. Their relentless Clinton low road approach to politics forced old Teddy and his family out of the neutral corner. The Clintons may yet recover their footing, but what happened today indicates to me that it is over.

Is Hillary toast?

We shall see quite soon.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn