caulfield12

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 07:56 PM) by the way, as for the next 2, 4 and 8 years... 2 years= Obama wins re-election in a very close, and nasty race. He's helped in part by a 3rd party GOP splitoff after the party nominates a Moderate (Romney) and the tea party nominates their own candidate who gathers 10-15% of the vote nationwide. 44-40-14-2% results nationwide. Meanwhile, the Republicans keep the house (losing 15 seats) and pick up 2 more seats the senate. They knock off democrats (McCaskill, Tester, NE Open (after Nelson decides to not seek re-election), and Conrad) The Democrats pick off Scott Brown and John Ensign. New Senate is a 51-49 split. Bottom line, this country is a near 50/50 division. House lead of 224-211 for Republicans 4 years= Two houses moving in 2 different directions. Nationally, the country is swing back to the Democrats They take back the house by picking off 20 seats to take a 231-204 advantage. The economy is rocking. DOW hits 17,000. However the mathematics of the Senate, moves the house back to the Republicans. They pick off 4 senate seats. (Begich, Landrieu, Baucus and Johnson). Senate is now 51-49 Republican. Say hello to Speaker Van Hollen and Majority Leader McConnell. 6 years= All hell breaks lose. There's simply no way they can nominate Palin. Romney would certainly be the odds-on favorite right now, but he's definitely going to have to show more of a personality, he was so wooden and boring in the last campaign. If he had the charisma of Rubio, and his speaking ability, he would be more dangerous. Daniels in Indiana, Christie in NJ, those guys are getting all the ink now, but not so long ago, Jindal in the GOP and John Edwards were the "heir apparents" and look how far they've both fallen. I think there will be some serious consideration given to dumping Biden in an effort to win back one of those states like Florida, Pennsylvania or Michigan. I'm thinking of names like Crist, Strickland and Rubio if I'm on Obama's team. Delaware doesn't matter. Of course, you can argue the VP choice can hurt a candidate but usually can't help very much. Undoubtedly, it would be hard to get Rubio, but I think putting the first Hispanic (or Asian) on the top ticket would send a strong signal.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:32 PM) Oh yeah well I....but..ug...I agree. My point was that the system wasn't designed with the current realities in mind, and that it's significantly harder to pass legislation, particularly in the Senate, than when the Senate first formed. The executive has consistently expanded, and it's not like Obama is doing anything to stop that. This is going to go back and forth. I would argue that no president in recent history came close to exerting as much power as Bush did from September 12th, 2001 through the 2006 election cycle (with the Patriot Act, wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus, waterboarding and rendition, Guantanomo Bay, etc.) Look at how weak Clinton was in 94-95, Obama now, Bush Sr. in the last year or so of his administration after sporting a 91% approval rating at the conclusion of the first Gulf War...most presidents (except Clinton, there some unique elements with his situation) have lost power because of the economic situation deteriorating. The only ones who don't fit that profile would be Nixon (impeachment), Reagan (Iran Contra and various scandals like the S&L bailout, but not enough to keep Bush Sr. from winning) and LBJ (Vietnam war and protest movement). Carter, Bush Sr., Bush Jr. (the economic universe was falling apart in October, 2008) and Obama all have been on the wrong sides of economic cycles.

1) With the expiring Bush tax cuts, change the amount from its present level to ANYONE earning above $500,000 per year in earnings WOULD NOT get a permanent tax cut. Everyone below $200,000 per year would get a tax cut for 2011. In terms of future years, those earning between $200-500,000, it would be assessed on a yearly basis depending on the economic recovery. Draw a line in the sand. Ask for ANY specific/quantifiable evidence of how providing tax cuts or lowering the capital gains tax to zero has helped to balance the federal deficit since January of 1981. Point out that giving all income groups a permanent tax cut would blow another $700,000,000 hole in the deficit. 2) Dare the GOP to shut down the government again on January 3rd, 2011. Bring in Mr. Lee (UT), Mr. Johnson (WI), Mr. Rubio (FLA), Mr. Toomey (PA), Mr. Paul (KY) and even Sarah Palin to make them a part of the deficit reduction bipartisan committee that will announcing its findings the first week of December. 3) Ask for no earmarks from the new Congress or a line-item veto. The new House has no desire to give up earmarks now. Call them on it, even if it's a drop in the bucket, put their feet to the fire, it's worth points symbolically. 4) Ask what specific cuts the GOP would like to make to entitlement programs in order to cut the deficit and balance the budget....with every piece of legislation, ask how many new jobs will be created and at what cost per job created. Call them out (the likes of Mr. Ryan and Mr. Paul) to provide specifics on cost-cuttiing plans for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (indexing based on income, raising the age or payroll deduction, etc.) Continue to point out that the non-partisan CBO has signed off that the Obamacare health law will save $700,000,000 from the deficit and ask for the GOP exactly how they plan on lowering health care costs while simultaneously providing coverage to nearly every American. 5) Drive a wedge between the Tea Party/libertarians and the traditional GOP defense hawks by threatening defense cuts and/or a drawdown of all the troops in Afghanistan. 6) Work with the Republicans on school choice, vouchers, Race to the Top/No Child Left Behind...knowing that the teachers' unions have nowhere to go in 2012 and that you need to firmly stake out the center. 7) Mr. Rubio as Vice-Presidential candidate in 2012 on the Democratic ticket. 8) JOBS, JOBS, JOBS...every press conference or public appearance, convince the American people that the most important item on your agenda is lowering the unemployment rate to ZERO. 9) Executive Order, shutdown of all tanning salons in southern Ohio and D.C. 10) Fight like hell and "man up" to get minorities and 18-29 year old voters back on your side...act as President as you did as a candidate in 2007-2008. Minorities and young voters, are rapidly growing as a percentage of the American population. Eighty percent of the population growth in the country over the last decade has come from minorities. According to the Census Bureau, in the next decade, the Hispanic population will grow another 40 percent. That’s enough growth, over a relatively short period of time, to even turn Texas blue. The youngest generation too, is reshaping the landscape. Every year between now and 2018, four million more Millennials will become eligible to vote. By 2018, they will be 90 million strong—bigger than the baby boomers—and will make up 40 percent of the eligible voting population in America. 10A) Immigration Reform...nobody in the GOP wants to touch this issue right now, especially the likes of John McCain

Yeah, the only one you see as being remotely realistic is Kemp, simply because he's the typical "buy low/temporarily undervalued" player that KW usually goes after...except the problem is that the chemistry/mix is always questionable when you don't have enough homegrown players who came up learning the same system or style like the Twins/Rays/Rangers now have in place. It's logical enough to imagine Quentin at DH, Viciedo at 1B and Kemp in RF...which means it's probably unlikely to transpire. Except for that small little factor of not having the type of players in our minor league system capable of fetching a Kemp or Upton, even at reduced rates. That's also where you have to start bringing Danks or Floyd into conversations...and also where you give up the one position of strength you have.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ti-h...vepreview102510 Dunn, of course....could be back in play if we actually had any money to spend. Seems pretty likely that the Tigers are going to be another force to be reckoned with this off-season. Can't imagine the Sox making a $10 million + closer out of Soriano...it has never been their style, with the one year exception of the Koch trade. No mention of Konerko.

But .733 is REALLY good for a catcher, in terms of OPS. He's obviously a platoon player and shouldn't be overexposed, so be it. I don't think anyone envisions him with 130-140 GP. If that does happen, it means Flowers failed and/or AJ wasn't resigned, and definitely those numbers aren't going to hold up with that much playing time.

It's going to take another 2004-05 offseason (and we can't jettison Lee/Ordonez/Valentin and reallocate those resources) to be competitive. We're hemmed in by Teahen, Linebrink and Juan Pierre (to an extent)... Basically, the Twins have to decide to pull back on spending, not re-sign Pavano (definitely), not replace Pavano with an even better frontline starter (they will undoubtedly rue not putting together a package of Ramos, another minor leaguer and/or Slowey/Blackburn/Baker for Lee), for Morneau/Neshek/Nathan (2 of the 3) not to come back 100%, losing Cuddyer/Guerrier/Rauch, etc. They can replace Orlando Hudson and probably non-tender Hardy and instead throw Hughes and Casilla out there to save $10-15 million. It's going to take a fallback from the Twins (75% chance) more than I believe that we can improve our team dramatically (25% chance) going into 2011.

I don't really think you can predicate your offseason on trying to build a line-up specifically to beat the Yankees. It's just bad luck that the Twins have had to face them 4/6 times. If the Rays wouldn't have pulled ahead in the final days....if the Twins would have tanked even more, etc., they could just have easily ended up facing Tampa, who they fare much better against on paper. I do think one significant difference from the 2002-2004 teams is that those teams were a lot more athletic and could steal some bases...ironic, that the Twins' have become more and more like the White Sox (traditionally) in being a station-to-station team, whereas the White Sox have improved their speed and defense but have come up short offensively...bullpen/starting pitching, etc. One thing is that even though the Twins were great with their defensive numbers, watching them would tell you that Hardy/Hudson both are lacking in range up the middle, that Mauer wasn't nearly as good defensively as in the past, that Cuddyer anywhere on the diamond poses danger and the corner outfielders (Young/Kubel/Cuddyer) were basically atrocious except for when they played the White Sox. Even Span, the most gifted defender, seemed to have a down season offensively as well as defensively. Of course, the Twins were still a 94 win team...not exactly chopped liver. But they were able to use home field advantage and they really played well in the ALCD, that was the main key. I'm just not sure that Cuddyer is going to be worth the money to the front office...but you need some RH bats, and Young is far from a sure thing to put up the same season in 2011. He could be even better, that's true, but you can't count on him for 30 and 100. Quentin for Kubel? Maybe. That idea scares me a little...but only if Quentin will be their DH and that will keep Thome from beating us, lol. I really don't think Smith would do it. Quentin has been too injury prone, and they already have to deal with the aches and pains of Mauer and Morneau. Liriano...for whatever reason, he just has those moments when he falls asleep mentally and lets the other team back into it. That's one thing that Johan Santana rarely did, at least against the White Sox. Against Liriano, you have the feeling that there's a 30-40% chance he will beat himself, with Santana or Sabathia, not so much.

Too bad you can't merge the Twins' offense with the White Sox starting pitching. We have Peavy (theoretically), Jackson, Danks and Floyd who can all dominate games. Obviously you feel Cuddyer is not that elite RH bat, the problem is who is it, then? I could see the Twins going after Vladimir Guerrero as their primary DH, but that pushes Thome out. It's tricky, since you don't know what you'll have in Morneau, the White Sox have the same issue with Peavy. You certainly can't shed Kubel, Thome AND not know what you have in Morneau. That's a huge gamble. And can Thome be counted upon to be as effective again next year, it's doubtful.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/10...?page=1&c=y Six ways to improve the Twins going into next season. It will be interesting to see if KW takes a shot at Crain if they don't resign him...although he'd be overpaying based on 2010. Guerrier could become available, Rauch obviously as well. Pavano might be gone if he asks for too much money (and more than 2 years, which he arguably might get from someone)...Hudson will undoubtedly be gone as well, and they're going to have to make a decision on JJ Hardy. The writer's main idea was trying to deal Young and Slowey for Greinke. I think it would take more than that, personally. I don't think Danks (or Floyd) and Quentin would be enough, either.

QUOTE (Elgin Slim @ Oct 10, 2010 -> 08:39 PM) For the time being there are only 2 ways to win the AL pennant: The first way is to spend like the Yankees and Red Sox, on both the Major league and Minor League levels. The second way is to go into the s***ter for a 5 year period, and emerge with the amount of talent that the Rays have built over the last 5-7 years. Another note: When you spend or draft, at the end of the process, you must possess 2 pitchers with #1 stuff, one of which pitches like a #1, and the other of which pitches like a #2 or #3. The period between 2004-2008 was special because the Yankees made some really bad contract choices. When the marquee free agents returned to the market it was back to this way. As long as the Yankees have a $200 MM payroll and spend it wisely, these are the only ways to compete with them. It does not matter what you do, The Yankees will always win unless you have somewhere close to the amount of talent that they do. This is why, IMO there should be a cap of a $150 MM payroll in baseball. Unfortunately, there is a more level playing field in the NL. Not to mention from the early 80's through 1995.

http://espn.go.com/new-york/columns/story?...&id=5656406 Since Ron Gardenhire took over as manager in 2002, the Twins are 16-45 (.262) against the Yankees during the regular season, which Elias says is the worst record any team has against an opponent during that span. The record is even worse when you include Minnesota's 2-10 postseason mark against the Yankees: 18-55 (.246). That's a worse winning percentage than the 1962 Mets had. The Twins so resemble the Washington Generals to the Yankees' Harlem Globetrotters that I keep expecting to see Derek Jeter pull down Joe Mauer's pants and toss a bucket of confetti into the Minnesota dugout.

They've won 3 out of their last 22 post-season games. That's even worse than our record against Minnesota in the 2nd half this past decade. What are the odds of losing 12 in a row? One more to go for the Twins to tie the Boston Red Sox record with that loss next year, haha. Not sure if that idea will stick long with the marketing team....well, at least they sent out their season ticket renewal packages and got commitments before this series, just like the White Sox in 2008. Three sweeps in a row (NYY, NYY, Oakland in 2006). The only team they've beaten in a series is the Oakland A's, 3-2 way back in 2002. 2-12 versus the Yankees. I think I read that they had the lead in something like 8 of the last 9 playoff games against the Yankees and ended up coughing up all those leads. Normally, you score the first run or lead in a game, you have around a 55-65% chance of winning. Pretty amazing. It will be also interesting to see if they keep Capps AND how well Nathan comes back next year. Easy to forget about that guy.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Oct 9, 2010 -> 09:47 PM) That's why Johann Santana wanted out. Which makes me bring up another subject. Some guys that leave the Twins organization don't have the best careers after that. Sure there's a few but how many guys on that roster would be great on another team? Twins finished 2/17 with RISP. Hunter did pretty well his first two seasons in LA, but I think that was a bad contract and will get worse over time. Jacque Jones really faded after leaving Minnie...same with Koskie, Rivas, Shannow Stewart, Mientkiewicz, Hawkins, Guardado (he was okay for a couple years), etc. David Ortiz is the big exception, although the PEDS obviously played a role. AJ Pierzynski has continued to have a decent career with the exception of the 2004 season in SF. Kyle Lohse pitched pretty well in the NL after leaving the Twins. JC Romero has hung around, but never as good as 2002-04, another PEDS case with Rincon as well. Losing Radke from the heart of that rotation also hurt...he was the "bulldog" of that team. Pavano's kind of taken on that role, but still not the same.

They're looking very beatable to the Yankees, not the White Sox. They have another possible ace coming up quickly in former 1st rounder Kyle Gibson from Univ. of Missouri. Possibly they'll lose Hudson and Thome...but they could bring back both without any problems. Casilla could end up as the starting 2B again or Punto. If Morneau comes back (BIG IF), then the need for Thome is less pressing if they hold onto Cuddyer/Kubel/Young again. My guess is that Cuddyer might be the odd man out. Then again, paying Mauer $23 million is going to start to affect their overall payroll structure as well. Plus you're going to have to deal with a little bit of apathy from the fanbase after the "Braves reputation" starts to affect their psyche. Not so fun when you're something like 3-20 since 2003 and have lost 12 post-season games in a row. Was just listening to their announcing team and they think that Sabathia coming far inside to Thome with no retaliation is one of the keys to this series. How many times have the White Sox been hit or busted inside or been run over by the likes of Hunter and Young without any attempt at shoving them back in the face? Same story, same song. Just different teams. They're even arguing the stadium music and crowd get the fans more charged up in NY than Minnesota. The Twins' fans kind of gave up and had that "oh no, here we go again" feeling, which it's hard to blame them for really. And the Twins, unlike against the White Sox...are off the top steps of the dugout and hanging their heads in defeat. 1. Liriano 2. Pavano 3. Gibson 4. Blackburn 5. Duensing 6. Slowey 7. Perkins

I guess a lot of the stories in the NY papers have been about the 2004 collapse against Boston and the fact that the Yankees have never advanced and won the World Series when they came in as the Wild Card. Haha.

I would like someone to enumerate why they believe things will actually get better in the US over the next two years...assuming that House will turn over to the GOP and the Dems will lead by 1-2 in the Senate. Basically, NOTHING will happen over the following two years. There will be endless House hearings and investigations into Obama's citizenship, repealing or euthanizing the health care bill and vilifying illegal immigrants and Muslims. We can't get a NY/NJ tunnel, but you can be sure we will find the funds for a wall to protect us from Mexico. In essence, we'll have wasted two more years that will put us further behind (China, India and Germany) because we'll eventually end up giving tax cuts to the top 2%, which will blow another $700,000,000 into the deficit, even though the deficit is supposedly our biggest problem all of a sudden, even though it was mysteriously wasn't for 8 years under Bush. The funny thing is that Obama will be blamed for obstructionism (and effectively) when he attempts to block the extension of the Bush tax cuts! Basically, the best chance the Democrats have is Sarah Palin winning the nomination or running as the Tea Party candidate...or a Tea Party candidate like Ron Paul running as a 3rd party and siphoning off votes like Ross Perot did in 1992 (essentially electing Clinton with his 19.5%) or Ralph Nader did in 2000 (essentially changing the course of history completely by giving us Bush instead of Bore, I mean Gore).

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_leagu...?urn=mlb-275698 Funny column since it's poking fun at the Twins...but, indirectly at the AL Central teams like the Sox for getting run over 6 (almost 7) out of 9 years. As Dick Allen says, it's pretty hard to be overconfident as an organization when you've won a total of two post-season series in 93 years! Of course, the corollary to that is the last 11 years for the White Sox have been comparatively great as we've put up seasons with 95 wins, 86, 99, 90, 89 and 88 victories.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 11:23 AM) British treatment of indigenous people was pretty abhorrent no matter the continent. Colonialism, in general, is terrible for existing populations. But you're hearkening back to the great days of the British Empire as some sort of glory period or situation to strive for. While simultaneously asking for all troops on foreign soil to be withdrawn. Your arguments are not only bad, they're self-contradicting. edit: except your tea party=pity party line. The observation that it's really just pissed off typical conservatives is spot-on imo. I was merely replying to Northside by providing a better example of comparison....as he took issue with my devolving into another Russia line. One can only wonder how China and India will wield their newfound economic power and what will happen when political self-interest and natural resources accumulation and protection come into direct conflict around the world over the next half century. It seems pretty apparent we simply cannot continue our present level of military spending without destroying our social umbrella. Of course my arguments are bad and indefensible...unfortunately, I think there's a 25% minority of Americans who might agree with them and agree that they should pay no taxes to Washington and that every function of government can be done more efficiently and cheaply at the local level. I think we already tried that experiment, it was called the Articles of Confederation and it was a complete debacle, starting with individual currencies printed by each of the colonies as well as zero coordination of state militias to protect against potentially overwhelming threats both from Europe and a few more aggressive Native American tribes.

Of course, the main purpose of all this is to play Devil's Advocate...to force one to defend the idea of Federal government functions. Obviously, we wouldn't do well without a Federal court system, checks and balances, Supreme Court, etc., no matter what our respective opinions of the individual decisions they've made over the last decade, dating back to the Gore decision in 2000. I would love to believe the Tea Party is something other than dressed-up libertarianism with a racist bent because of Obama's presence in the White House....and I fear we will be hearing the phrase "starve the beast" hundreds of times over the next two years. Well, whatever you say about the GOP, they've predicated their election strategy around simply saying no to all spending...even though this spending was obviously okay with them from 2001-2008. So they're to be applauded for that nakedly-obvious obstructionism which has not effectively been countered by Obama and his administration.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 11:13 AM) What does that have to do with the validity of British Colonialism and how terrible it was for the indigenous populations? Because IMO, America has done almost as many horrible things as Britain.... And the same things can be said about our treatment of Native Americans as well, although it was mostly contained on the N.American continent. Obviously, the treatment of aborigines in Australia was pretty abhorrent, though.

QUOTE (G&T @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 09:13 AM) Honestly, why don't we want to settle into a reduced role in the world? This is something that I ponder. I know there is a chest thumping aspect to it, but would it really hurt the US? I remember all the talk of the "peace dividend" at the end of the Clinton administration and defense spending was headed for the 12-15% range versus 20-22%, but then 9/11 happened and Iraq....and the rest is history. Of course, Japan and Germany both have had their periods of imperialism too. My Chinese students are still being taught to hate Japan because of something that happened almost 60 years ago.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 07:46 AM) Yeah, it's a damn shame British colonialism finally came to an end. I'll leave the issue of the assassinations of Guevara, Allende, Lumumba, Castro (multiple attempts), Trujillo in the Dominican Republic...for another debate. I do think it's hard to list many countries that are DEMONSTRABLY better off for our involvement over the last 40-50 years. South Korea, certainly. But North Korea has evolved into one of our biggest enemies. Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, jury's still far from out. Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos....probably no appreciable difference, except in the lives of all the Vietnamese immigrants and "boat people" who were given asylum in the US. Haiti or the Dominican? Don't see how things could possibly be worse in the first country, despite all of our attempts at helping them. Grenada? Too small to matter... Nicaragua and Panama? While Japan emerged neutered at the end of World War II, we did a great amount to help rebuild their country and eventually their burgeoning economy. Yugoslavia/Bosnia-Herzegovina/Serbia/Croatia...time will probably argue this as a "net win" compared to what might have happened. Somalia? Big PR disaster. Colombia? Maybe a slight improvement. Pakistan? Disaster, especially Musharraf and the inability to get to bin Laden. Rwanda? Even bigger failure of Clinton's leadership not to get involved when we had the werewithal to do so, but instead deferred to incompetent UN troops. It is interesting to me that India and Australia have two of the strongest economies in the world...not sure what if any conclusion can be drawn from that, versus the

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 07:45 AM) You're not going to get 75% of the country to agree on anything beyond very high-level "policies" like "we need a military". You're also asking for a completely unbalanced mob rule government. How can you enforce any laws without an executive? How do you check the validity of laws and violations of them without courts? What are you going to do to provide for the millions of jobs lost when you shut down the federal government for a year, and the billions in revenue that state and local governments rely on from the federal government? And there's the problem that a complete democracy is going to give us the best government and the best policies. That people won't vote with little or no knowledge of short, mid and long term implications of decisions. That they wouldn't be swayed by emotional rhetoric and corporate spending. What are you going to do to provide for the millions of jobs lost when you shut down the federal government for a year, and the billions in revenue that state and local governments rely on from the federal government? Isn't this exactly what happened until Gingrich back down 16 years ago? I'm actually hoping that the GOP will overplay their hand and go for the jugular and it will backfire, because I've lost my confidence in Axelrod, Plouffe and Emanuel to deal with the messy day-to-day business of governance versus campaigning. President Obama went more than 18 months without making a major White House address on the biggest concern to most Americans, the economy, and specifically, their job/employment status. That will turn out to be the same level of mistake as the Clintons getting bogged down in Don't Ask, Don't Tell and health care reform their first two years in office. And it's going to take a lot more than H. Clinton as the VP replacing Biden in 2 years if the Republicans get their way in 2011 and 2012. The biggest problem is that I don't feel that the American people believe that the President actually cares about them...on an intellectual level, yes. But this is the single biggest issue going forward, to me...anyone can look at the banks, the stock market, etc., and see that many corporate executives have better lives and bigger bonuses than before, but almost no members of the middle class would say their lives are fundamentally better than they were in the 80's or 90's. I hope Obama can learn to have that political touch with everyday Americans that Clinton and GW Bush had...otherwise, he will end up in history more like GHW BUSH or Carter, unfortunately.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 08:33 AM) China's total revenues inbound are $157B, $77B or more (they say it may be more) are spent on the military. That means China is spending HALF its budget on its military. This is from your own article. Because they have almost ZERO taxation, almost no social safety net (in terms of health care or pensions/Social Security) to speak of...and invest much of their money into foreign reserves like USD and Japanese Yen in order to keep the level of RMB artificially lowered. When you compare per capita GNP, the US is still 10X-12X higher on average, something like $3800 USD in China and around $40,000 USD per person in America. So there's a huge income inequality between the middle class in both countries. The Chinese government is cash rich, but it saves and it also spends money on infrastructure and improvement projects we no longer even dream about. If you've ever been to Shanghai or Hong Kong or Beijing, it would be more apparent where that investment is going.