I guess the question that interested me enough to start the (duplicate) political leanings poll is this:

 

Most urbanophiles I've met trend heavily left, but where do Republicans fit into the grand scheme of urban affairs?

 

To the Republicans who walk among us: Kingfish offers you his protection.

 

Stand up and be heard...

What exactly are you asking?

"Most urbanophiles I've met trend heavily left, but where do Republicans fit into the grand scheme of urban affairs?"

 

If that's a sincere question - you really, really, really don't get it, do you?

I'm totally sincere. Yes, it's obvious that urban centers trend heavily Democrat, but somebody in the city is voting Republican. In NYC, lots. Columbus too.

 

I guess my question is a two-parter: 1) Are there Republicans on this forum, and 2) What keeps you here amongst all us moonbats?

" somebody in the city is voting Republican."

 

Usually the anti-choice, anti-gay crowd who interprets God's word as oppression and hellfire-and-brimstone, in spite of other social ills exacerbated by many Republican-led policies.

As far as the Republicans I've ever known that live in the inner city, none of them live there because they want to.

 

Anti-choice is probably one of the reasons why Republicans tend to like their homogenous suburban communities so much. It definitely fits that idea.

I think for those people concerned with urban affairs in just the last several years partisnship doesn't really matter. I will admit here that although I disagree with the Republican party on many national issues, I do consider myself a Republican. I generally support Republican leadership in local politics in Cleveland.

I think for those people concerned with urban affairs in just the last several years partisnship doesn't really matter. I will admit here that although I disagree with the Republican party on many national issues, I do consider myself a Republican. I generally support Republican leadership in local politics in Cleveland.

 

I can see that. A Delaware County Republican I know is a big Mike Coleman fan. Coleman had to reach across I lot of borders to get where he is, so that makes sense. It also follows that an urban Republican would vote more on the basis of local issues and that a suburban Republican might take the longer, more ideological (fire, brimstone, etc.), national party view. Your position also helps explain the Bloomberg/Giuliani factor.

"I generally support Republican leadership in local politics in Cleveland."

 

Yes, with all those Republicans so entrenched in local politics in Cleveland! :lol:

I never voted party line Republican but I have pretty much bailed on those guys & embraced the Libertarians.

Some of their ideas are kooky but they certainly don't have a monopoly on that.

^^It really wasn't that long ago the George Voinovich ruled the roost at city hall.

 

I guess I'd say I'm independent/democrat leaning. That said, I think Cleveland would be greatly served by a strengthened presence of Republicans. Mind you, I'm not talking about the far right, drag God into every issue crowd. The Republicans stance on social issues is really distubing to me.

 

On the other hand, I believe moderate Republicans, with a more liberal view on social issues, could really prosper.

 

I find that the difference between mere growth and real prosperity in a community comes from the private sector. Mayors certainly are the most visable figureheads and wield a city's agenda. Churches/Mosques/Synagogues and community organizations often provide the manpower for grass roots initiatives that change a city on a human level. But without a courageous business community, serving both as economic engine and unifying entity, a vital and robust community becomes limited in what it can accomplish.

 

That's why I am disappointed at the reluctant nature of business leaders in Cleveland, in general. I understand stability is a virtue in the eyes of investors of business, but so too is active engagement and leadership in the community. It is in the nature of leaders, maybe in the very definition, to be bold. That is just not the word I'd use to describe the Cleveland business community. Granted, there are exceptions (whichever bank was offering $200 or $300 million in low interest loan investments in the University Circle area, for one), but those seem too few and far between.

 

Back to Republicans. General wisdom would say business lines up more with the right side of the aisle than with the left. A stronger, moderate Republican voice in Cleveland, NEO and indeed all Ohio, would, I hope, tie business more closely to the communities in which they reside. I think the role of leadership, as it relates to community and human investment-not just abstractions of profit and economic stability, needs to be constantly reminded to our business community. Politicans serve as our representative, and, by extension, our leaders. Republicans, generally, are closer aligned to business. I therefore am looking for Republicans to engage our business leaders about how to lead in a community and their incumbent responsibilities.

 

As for the social agenda, please get your heads out of your asses.

The very fact that someone has to ask the question just astonishes me.  Are progressives and liberals truly that insular, that self-focused, that unable to see the other side of the argument?  Is it really inconceivable that someone might be of good will, and yet come to differing political conclusions from one's self?

 

Obviously not.  The only way a person might possibly disagree with us is if they're anti-choice and anti-gay Evangelical hellfire and brimstoners, or if they're stuck in the city against their will (because we know their kind all seek their fortresses of suburban solitude).

 

Really, you folks should step back listen to yourselves.  I've been reading your posts here for a couple years now, and I know for a fact that none of you are as close-minded as you're making yourself sound.

 

 

Kingfish, yes, it's possible to live in the city and yet agree with the Republicans on issues.  On the war?  I'm a Truman democrat who has, alas, found his foreign-policy home with the Republican party over the last five years.  Just as I agreed with Clinton using our strength to stop Milosevic in Kosovo, independent of the UN, so too I supported the Afghanistan war, and the Iraq war.  Different reasons behind each of those conflicts, no doubt, and if you really do care about what I thought about the Iraq war at the time, you can slog through this set of arguments between a very anti-Bush guy and me from two years ago: http://home.fuse.net/gaslight/BD/BDIndex.htm.  Basically, using our blood and treasure to spread liberty and prosperity to an area that's belligerent, dangerous, and politically oppressed - I'm gonna be on that bus every time, whether it's Belgium and France, or Poland and Berlin, or Vietnam and Korea, or Kosovo and Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

If a person truly believes the unfettered free market is, in the long term, the single greatest tool yet invented by mankind for raising people out of poverty; and if one believes that Republicans are most likely to step back and pull the fetters off the free market, then one can actually still love children - even poor children - and vote republican.  Personally, I'm not as much on this boat.  I dig the free market, but I see plenty of areas where governmental restraint is necessary and good, and I see claims that Democrats are socialists to be utterly ahistorical and unhelpful.  But I certainly won't say that someone has to be a glutton or a dupe to disagree with me.

 

 

There's just two of the big issues.  And I'd suggest that if you can't answer the question, "why might someone disagree with me" without resorting to answers like, "they obviously must be blinded by their hatred or their lust for money or their fear of brown people," then you really aren't the liberal you claim to be.  You may be progressive, but you're as close-minded as anyone against whom you may rail.

 

^Riverviewer, I couldn't have said it better myself! I believe our political leanings are very similar.

 

 

As for the social agenda, please get your heads out of your asses.

 

Well now.

The very fact that someone has to ask the question just astonishes me.

 

Me, too.

 

The thing I love most about urban living is that it forces people to accomodate each other. The media and necon makers of 2004 Electoral Map Mousepads would have us believe that we're cast in our beliefs based on state borders, but we here of this forum among forums should realize otherwise. There are angry people everywhere and some folks will never agree based on priniciple alone. But the purpose of this thread, ideally, is to do something that politicians and pundits tend to avoid: exploit our similarities.

 

I hope it works.

 

By the way...

 

Basically, using our blood and treasure to spread liberty and prosperity to an area that's belligerent, dangerous, and politically oppressed - I'm gonna be on that bus every time, whether it's Belgium and France, or Poland and Berlin, or Vietnam and Korea, or Kosovo and Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

...we've never done DICK for Poland.

^Depends on your definition of "DICK".  If one believes we won the Cold War, then that turned out to be kind of a big deal for Poland.  Countering the Soviet presence in every corner of the globe for forty years, building our entire foreign policy for two generations on direct opposition of the USSR, enduring the realpolitik which set up the world that endangers us today, all for the sake of ridding the world of the Soviet yoke - I'd say we've done much for Poland, and Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Romania, Moldova, Georgia, Bulgaria, etc., etc., etc.  We may never have deployed troops on Polish soil, but we absolutely gave our blood and treasure to, in part, help free Poland.

 

Definitely not as direct an action as the Berlin Air Lift, which was definitely not as direct an action as the others - but I'd hardly characterize our committments and actions on behalf of eastern europe over the last sixty years as never having done DICK...

 

^And that's exactly the US-centric view of the Cold War that drives me bonkers.

 

POLAND stood up to the Soviets. POLAND went on strike in the face of martial law. POLAND won free elections. And I'll argue that Poland's extraordinary display of self-determination, compounded by a Polish Pope, did as much, if not more, to end the cold war than Reagan's fever dream of laserbeams in space. Yes, the US outspending the Soviets dollar for ruble helped. And maybe the US funneled influence and dollars into a few of the former Soviet Satellites. But the wholesale rebellion of the most populous Soviet block nation outside of Russia (and possibly Ukraine) did wonders to push the roof in on the wet-rotted timbers of the Soviet Union.

 

Regrettably, Poland herself is all-to-willing to spill blood for our government, and that drives me doubly bonkers. The reason? Bush is a Republican. And a Republican is not a Democrat. And FDR was a Democrat, and he let the Warsaw Uprising go unaided by the allies, which resulted in the deaths of 250,000 Polish civillians. And that's what I call a grudge.

 

But the fact remains: to this day, it's no easier for a Pole to travel to the US than it was during the Cold War. So John Kerry isn't the only one who forgot Poland. And that feels like dick to me.

Not that it has anything to do with my original post, but nonetheless...

 

I don't understand what we're disagreeing about.  You think the US played a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union - I too think the US played a role in it.  You think the nobility and courage of the Polish people also played a significant role in the collapse of the Soviet Union - I too believe that.  Is the problem here that you don't think I believe in the Polish contribution

enough or something?

 

And doesn't the whole discussion strike you as a tad ancillary to my point, that I support a robust foreign policy, and do so not out of fear or greed, but actual, honest-to-goodness good will?  And, though you may come to differing conclusions, that perhaps I actually can see the policies I support in a logical and historical context, albeit one with which you disagree?

 

 

(Sorry, typing this on a blackberry, so please forgive typos/spelling issues.)

During the Cold War, the US did something for Poland, but Poland did more. And now that there's no reason for us not to do more for Poland, we do nothing. This does not strike me as robust foreign policy.

 

And for heaven's sake: put away that Blackberry. We can yammer on and on about history and shit later.

You may be progressive, but you're as close-minded as anyone against whom you may rail.

 

And that is my problem with the "liberal" America today.  It is essentially the Republican stance, only with a reactionary response (meaning, pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-Affirmative Action, etc).  While being progressive is fantastic (I always support the evolution of man), I believe to be a true open-minded person, one has to take into all of the facts, appreciate all sides spoken, and form an opinion based on one's own interpretation (as eventually, we all become close-minded at some breaking point).

 

Perhaps that's my real issue with the whole "red/blue" "liberal/conservative" "Bush/Anti-Bush" "red state, blue state, greens eggs and ham" thing.  They are both fools and will eventually drive this country back into a Civil War.

I don't care what you say: I do NOT like green eggs and ham.

 

I do not like them, Sam I am.

A couple quick corrections on the Polish record...we gave them hundreds of millions of dollars in agricultural assistance under the Reagan administration, we had consular relations with them from the 1970's on, we gave them MFN trading status in the 1980's, we supported Solidarity, we gave them a few more hundreds of millions of dollars under Clinton in economic assistance in the years following the Soviet collapse, we championed their entry into NATO, and we supported their entry in the EU.  And the Bush administration has been talking for a couple years now about loosening the Visa requirements for Polish citizens to visit the US.  In fact, Prime Minister Kaczynski is in DC today, and it may be that the Visa Waver program is announced, though it looks doubtful...

 

Could we have done more?  Doubtless.  Could we do more now?  I'm sure of it.  Ought we to do more now?  Well, with an economy growing at 5%/year, I'm not sure what they really need from us, other than time...I don't understand why the Bush administration is so reluctant to end the Visa requirements, and until I hear a good explanation for it, I'll happily stand by you in protest.  But overall, even though the pace is slow, Poland is moving in the right direction, and we're helping them to do so.

 

None of this is to say that everything Poland is today is due to our benevolence - by no means.  All I'm saying is that we've helped Poland over time, not hindered them; and that I support that.  In fact, I'd have supported even more than what little we directly did.  So it's just one example among many of a foreign policy I support.

 

*********************

 

ColDay: I believe to be a true open-minded person, one has to take into all of the facts, appreciate all sides spoken, and form an opinion based on one's own interpretation

 

Amen.  And I'd assert that there's really no other kind of open-minded person.  Sure, some folks can be written off as nutcases - the KKK, Ted Kazinski (although I did read the Unabomber's manifesto, and found it at least interesting up until the point where he said, "OK, so that's why humans are feeling a little disconnected from nature today.  What's the solution?  Kill the scientists!  Yee haw!").  But if you've got half the country holding contrary opinions to your own, regardless of what that opinion is, and you're just writing that all off as a) they hate America/are lazy/are stupid, or as b) they hate brown people/are greedy/are stupid, then you should really take that as a sign to step back and reconsider things.

 

/^^ They've been talking about loosening the visa program for years, and Kaczinski is going to go home empty-handed, too. It was strongly assumed that marching into Iraq with us would result in a liberalizing of the visa requirements. Unfortunately, nie.

 

Thanks for the money trail, but I'm just cynical enough to point out that while money is nice, child support is not parenting. But yes, Poland was the beneficiary of the US's foreign aid largesse. I stand clarified.

 

The other stuff still bugs me. We supported Solidarity? That's like taking credit for OSU's trouncing Texas (go bucks?) because you cheered louder than anyone. And I'm not sure what kind of championing we needed to do for their entry into NATO; Poland has undeniable strategic value (hence it's perpetual state of war/partition/occupation), and no championing was necessary for their entry into the EU; it was entirely up to them to satisfy the rigid criteria. In fact, it may be the US's meddling that will get Poland bounced out of the EU if they're officially implicated in our screwy CIA prison scheme.

 

And 5% growth in Poland looks entirely different from 5% here, or so says the missus who's over there now. Hint: it doesn't look good.

 

I dunno. Over the years I've become Polish by association: I've become a world-class complainer. But in the words of my cousin-in-law in Chicago, "Whatcha gonna do..."

We supported Solidarity? That's like taking credit for OSU's trouncing Texas (go bucks?) because you cheered louder than anyone.

 

Well, what did the Pope do to help Solidarity?  He spoke about it, expressed support, condemned martial law and Soviet hegemony.  And, from what I've seen, the Catholic Church helped support the movement directly, using US aid money - millions of dollars for printing equipment and communications gear, distributed by the Catholic church.  And we shared intelligence.  And Reagan also spoke about Solidarity, expressed support, condemned martial law and Soviet hegemony.

 

Did we fight the battle?  No.  Did we give material and moral support?  Yes, and yes.  Were we the lynchpin in the Solidarity movement?  Absolutely not.  Do we deserve credit for the it?  Of course not.  But we were a trifle more involved than just cheering for OSU.

 

Our contribution to Solidarity was small zlotys compared to the funds pumped up through the Catholic Church. Solidarity would've died in the creche without the church. Having a Polish Pope on their side intesified that immeasurably. It was in everybody's interest in the west for Poland to win. The US made out the biggest, and in my opinion, as of today, they've yet to share the spoils with Poland.

 

Enough. I have to hit the road for home: Hamtramck, for a time the only free Polish city in the world. Now with Adhan!

 

Ma asalama / do zobaczenia

I guess the question that interested me enough to start the (duplicate) political leanings poll is this:

 

Most urbanophiles I've met trend heavily left, but where do Republicans fit into the grand scheme of urban affairs?

 

To the Republicans who walk among us: Kingfish offers you his protection.

 

Stand up and be heard...

 

I used to be a Democrat many years ago in Kentucky, but have been a Republican since the mid 1980s.

 

As you can tell by my pix threads my interests in cities are as historical hobby of sorts , as sort of a "heritage tourism" thing.

 

 

 

 

...we've never done DICK for Poland.

 

You're correct.

There has yet to be a UrbanOhio photothread on Poland, Ohio (just south of Youngstown)

We should ask for volunteers to correct this slight.

Not from Ohio (and 14 years old), but just as good.  :laugh:

...More common are retired high-school principal Robert Eicholz and his wife, Beverly, who interrupted a car trip from their home in California to South Carolina to tour Presley's estate. 'We're Republicans,' asserted Robert Eicholz. 'I depend on the Republican Party for financial stability. You can't do everything for everybody.'

As far as the Republicans I've ever known that live in the inner city, none of them live there because they want to.

 

Anti-choice is probably one of the reasons why Republicans tend to like their homogeneous suburban communities so much. It definitely fits that idea.

 

I am a republican, I live in OTR because I want to (I voluntarily moved from MT. Adams) I work here because I want to (I voluntarily left the Montgomery office of Huff in Montgomery to go to OTR) I volunteer here because I want to (I am a sector captain for Mulberry/McMicken, Chair of the Mt. Auburn Group to Improve the Community events committee, Citizens on Patrol Captain, and Chair of the Mulberry Hill Tour)  I am at every clean up including tomorrows tree planting at Frintz st. because I want to.

 

There seems to be many who say because my political leanings are a particular way then they automatically must care more.  For those of you who believe this, join this Republican on the steps of Frintz st tomorrow morning and dig holes in the mud and cold to make this inner city community look a bit better.

I don't really have a political party, but I tend to vote slightly to the right.  I'm left-leaning on social issues (gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, etc...), but right-leaning on the economy issues (in favor of lower taxes, fewer welfare programs, and market based solutions, etc...).

 

Some issues, however, I don't have a party.  No politician is in favor of a hike in the gas tax like I am (out of fear), and no parties are especially interested in transportation related issues.

 

The republican party has lost it's identity lately though.  They used to be penny pinchers, but now, in an effort to get the Nascar votes, they've spent like mad on "homeland security" and war-related issues.  I just hear $400 billion for the Iraq War and think of how much good that money could have done within our borders.  Needless to say, I'll be voting a heavily democratic ticket this time around.

No politician is in favor of a hike in the gas tax like I am (out of fear)

 

I hear ya Brewmaster.  I think gas should be like $5.00 a gallon and then maybe people would realize they shouldn't live 30 miles from where they work.  And then light rail and other public transportation might be looked as an alternative.

^That is one of the drawbacks of democracy, you are never going to find a voter base big enough for legislation like that.

They used to be penny pinchers, but now, in an effort to get the Nascar votes, they've spent like mad on "homeland security" and war-related issues. 

 

I really don't have a problem with that.  Of all the things he Federal govenment spends money on this is probably the most legitimate.  The Constitution does, after all, mention "provide for the common defense" in the preamble.

 

As for Michael Redmonds comments upthread, there are plenty of voluntary urban Republicans in Dayton, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is anyone familar with communitarianism? I've been considering myself a communitarian lately. It is between liberal and conservative, but opposite libertarianism. I think it applies well to justifying strong urban planning and regionalism.

Terrorism in the Middle East and Africa didn't start with 9/11 or Munich or even Israel. It started way back at end of the 19th century. Europeans in their "enlightened" wisdom decided that they would decide the boundaries of countries throughout these regions with no regard to the population base. Gerrymandering to the nth degree, they split people with common beliefs into different countries. Unfortunately, when these people "won" their freedom, they immediately went to war with each other. India-Pakistan, Israel and everyone around them, countless African countries. And lets not forget that the Europeans pulled out without cleaning up the mess they made. They threw a piddling amount of cash at these countries and slammed the door. What little revenue these countries had when they became free, they spent on killing their neighbors. Now that most of these folks are beyond destitute, radical 'whatever' rules these regions. Good luck solving that!

 

Israel is our puppet to help us gain stability in the middle east!

Can anyone explain the government subsidy for gas? Why is Canada's gas so expensive and ours so cheap? How much is the subsidy?

Maybe its not a subsidy maybe Canada just taxes the hell out of it.

This is why I hate politics, politicians, labels and simplicity. We try so hard to herd people under umbrellas we call political parties so that simple-minded people don't have to think about what people are actually saying and can instead spend more time hating them for the label they now wear.

 

I'd rather judge people one at a time. Seems a fairer approach.

 

As for how much we subsidize our gasoline/oil industry, check out the press release (and the link to the full report) at this location:

 

http://www.icta.org/press/release.cfm?news_id=12

^If it's anything close to the amount stated, that's staggering.

Okay, some inner-cities, or most, do have some republican voters. 

 

Especially as you begin to get a large gentrification crowed that isn't gay but retired or just well off.

However, republican voters in inner-city columbus are hardly easy to come by.  Franklin county as a whole now leans democrate.  The actual city of Columbus has a republican minority by large.  There are republicans but their votes are no where near close to ever actually forumulate any change in the final result. 

 

Offically now Columbus city council and Franklin County commissioners have no republicans serving on either. 

 

Just a few years there were some, but slowly each election year since it has proven near impossible to have a republican win in especially city and usually county government. 

 

Just this election the last Franklin county commissioner was ousted, and he was a nice good man.  However, a female democrate ran and Franklin has tipped to have enough people who only vote democrate, to almost ensure a democrate win. 

 

In a way I think this isn't really a good thing because now Columbus has only a few checks and balances repulicans left.  On the other hand it speaks volumes on how much more progressive the city became since the 80s, when columbus and franklin county still had a functioning republican party.  (ugh)

^Dewey Stokes got voted out?  :?

I thought he was going to be re-elected.

To answer the question asked, and nothing else---- I am a proud republican.

Same here! I am more of the fire and brimstone Republican. I live in the suburbs, but their is something about the "urban" lifestyle/culture that interest me. Believe me, living in the suburbs, while it has its good points, is not the most exciting thing. I like Mayor Coleman because he has been so instrumental in redeveloping downtown Columbus which I see as beneficial to everyone and party neutral. Outside of this area, Mayor Coleman isn't quite my cup of tea. But thats besides the point.

^After you bumped this thread, I ran across this letter to the editor and had to post it:

 

You might be a liberal

 

There seem to be a great deal of people that you do not know whether they are liberal Democrats or evil conservatives. I thought I would help by pointing out some easy liberal views.

 

If you think that if we could just get bin Laden and Mr. Bush to sit down on the Dr. Phil show and talk about their feelings, you might be a liberal.

 

If after listening to Bill Cunningham or Glenn Beck, your ears start to bleed ... you might be a liberal.

 

If you believe George Bush is Hitler and Nancy Pelosi is a moderate Democrat, you might be a liberal.

 

If you are still saying Bush stole the 2000 election, you might be a liberal.

 

If you would rather read a column by Bill Rentschler or Maureen Dowd over having your fingernails pulled out by vise grips, you might be a liberal. ...

 

If you wished every city was like San Francisco, you might be a liberal.

 

Michael Byrd, Fairfield

 

http://www.journal-news.com/o/content/oh/story/opinions/editorial/2006/12/15/hjn121506letters.html

If you think that if we could just get bin Laden and Mr. Bush to sit down on the Dr. Phil show and talk about their feelings, you might be a liberal.

 

Well, Jesus would like that...so...

 

If after listening to Bill Cunningham or Glenn Beck, your ears start to bleed ... you might be a liberal.

 

I think even a conservative's ears would bleed after that one...

 

If you believe George Bush is Hitler and Nancy Pelosi is a moderate Democrat, you might be a liberal.

 

Hitler atleast was intelligent.

 

If you are still saying Bush stole the 2000 election, you might be a liberal.

 

Well, he did lose the popular vote...

 

If you would rather read a column by Bill Rentschler or Maureen Dowd over having your fingernails pulled out by vise grips, you might be a liberal. ...

 

Hmmm...

 

If you wished every city was like San Francisco, you might be a liberal.

 

Stunning, gorgeous city...or...um...West Chester.  Gee...

This is why I hate politics, politicians, labels and simplicity. We try so hard to herd people under umbrellas we call political parties so that simple-minded people don't have to think about what people are actually saying and can instead spend more time hating them for the label they now wear.

 

I'd rather judge people one at a time. Seems a fairer approach.

 

As for how much we subsidize our gasoline/oil industry, check out the press release (and the link to the full report) at this location:

 

http://www.icta.org/press/release.cfm?news_id=12

 

Very well said and my thoughts exactly. No wonder why this is my first political related post (reply).

 

Actually, I like labels. Especially when people label themselves by putting a W04 sticker on their SUV. That lets me know not to expect anything intelligent from that person and to not even bother. Of course, it'd be even more useful if they'd wear those stickers on their clothes, since I can't remember the last time I talked to someone while sitting in my car. Besides, without labels, what would we do? I'd have to go into a whole spiel about what I think about from a-z and I'd probably be to told to shut my yap already.

Actually, I like labels. Especially when people label themselves by putting a W04 sticker on their SUV. That lets me know not to expect anything intelligent from that person and to not even bother.

 

This is sarcasm, right?

God damn enviro-communists! Everyone should be able to drive whatever kind of car they want and develop land wherever they want! End of story. This is a country founded on freedom!  Arrrrrrrrrggh!