text:
The terms and conditions set out below apply to your use of 3i's Websites. Please read them.
"3i" means 3i Group plc and any of its subsidiaries and related companies and references to the "3i Websites" are to any of 3i's websites including www.3i.com (and any replacement URL of any such website) and also include, but are not limited to, the text, images, links, sounds, graphics and video sequences displayed in such websites (the "Materials").
By clicking and entering 3i-USinvestors.com you agree that you have read and accept these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, do not enter. The information in the 3i Websites is only for the attention of the residents of jurisdictions where it can be lawfully disseminated. It is your responsibility to be aware of and to observe all applicable laws and regulations for your country of residence.
No information contained in these pages should be taken as a recommendation to buy, sell or hold the shares of 3i Group plc. Nothing on the 3i Websites or in the Materials constitutes or is intended to constitute financial or other advice and you should not act upon any information contained on the 3i Websites or in the Materials without first consulting a financial or other professional adviser.
3i respects the privacy of every individual who visits the 3i Websites and is always careful to ensure that information disclosed to 3i in confidence is treated confidentially. Please see 3i's full privacy policy.
Nothing in these terms and conditions shall be taken to limit or exclude any liability which may not otherwise be limited or excluded under applicable law. Use of the 3i Websites and the Materials are at your sole risk. 3i will not be liable to any person for any direct, indirect, special or consequential, losses, damages or awards of any kind, howsoever caused, as a result of the use of or inability to use, or reliance on, the 3i Websites or any of the Materials. 3i excludes all warranties, conditions, terms, undertakings and representations (excepting fraudulent misrepresentation) of any kind, express or implied, statutory or otherwise in connection with the 3i Websites and the Materials to the fullest extent permitted by law.
The Materials and the 3i Websites are provided on an "as is" and "as available" basis. 3i gives no warranties (express, implied or statutory) as to satisfactory quality or fitness for purpose of the Materials or that any of the Materials or the 3i Websites will be provided uninterrupted or free from errors or that any identified defect will be corrected. 3i has the right to suspend or withdraw the provision of all or any of the 3i Websites or the Material without prior notice at any time. Further, no warranty of any kind is given that the 3i Websites and the Materials are free from any virus or other malicious, destructive or corrupting code, programme or macro. 3i does not warrant that the 3i Websites or the server(s) that make(s) them available are free of any virus or other harmful elements.
Reference in the 3i Websites and/or the Materials to any hypertext link, product, process or service does not imply 3i's support for, nor endorsement or recommendation of, the provider thereof or the product, process or service to which reference is made. The 3i websites may contain hypertext links to other websites, resources or other third parties. 3i is not responsible for the availability of, and accepts no liability in relation to, these external websites or their contents. 3i is not a sponsor, partner, promoter or publisher of any of such websites.
The Materials are the copyright of 3i and its third party licensors and may not be copied, distributed, uploaded, posted, republished, decompiled, disassembled, reverse-engineered or transmitted in any way without the prior, written consent of 3i. You may, however, download one copy of the Materials for your personal non-commercial use or non-commercial use within the organisation in which you work on condition that you do not delete or change any copyright, trade mark or other proprietary notice contained in the Materials nor alter the way in which they are presented. Modification or use other than as permitted above violates 3i's intellectual property rights in the Materials.
The trade marks, service marks and logo (the "Trade Marks") used and displayed on the 3i Websites are registered and unregistered Trade Marks of 3i and others. Nothing in these terms and conditions or on the 3i Websites should be construed as granting any licence or right to use any Trade Mark displayed on the 3i Websites. 3i enforces infringements of its intellectual property rights to the fullest extent permitted by the law.
The agreement between 3i and you relating to your use and browsing of the 3i Websites is governed by and shall be construed in accordance with English law. These terms and conditions may not be modified unless 3i agrees in writing.
3i Investments plc is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority ('FSA') in respect of its activities carried on in or from the UK. The FSA does not otherwise regulate the investment activities carried on by 3i outside the UK.
Special rules are applicable when US Residents and other US persons access the 3i Websites. For US regulatory reasons, US Residents are not permitted to access certain parts of the 3i Websites (www.3i.com), unless they have express permission from 3i to do so (which may be granted by 3i in circumstances where such US Resident has given 3i certain undertakings). 3i is not offering any securities or services in the United States or to US residents through any 3i website.
A "US Resident" includes any US person, as well as:
(i) any natural person who is only temporarily residing outside the United States,
(ii) any account of a US person over which a non-US fiduciary has investment discretion or any entity, which, in either case, is being used to circumvent the registration requirements of the US Investment Company Act of 1940, and
(iii) any employee benefit or pension plan that does not have as its participants or beneficiaries persons substantially all of whom are not US persons. In addition, for these purposes, if an entity either has been formed or is operated for the purpose of investing in a particular security or obtaining a particular service, or facilitates individual investment decisions, none of the beneficiaries or other interest holders of such entity may be US Residents. Terms used in this paragraph (including the term "US person") have the meanings given to them in Regulation S under the US Securities Act of 1933.
3i maintains a US Investors website where information contained has been provided solely for the purpose of meeting the company's regulatory obligations under rule 12g3-2(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of the United States.


text:
NEW YORK (NBC) — Scientists reported Sunday that they have completed a major analysis of the genetics of breast cancer, finding four major classes of the disease. They hope their work will lead to more effective treatments, perhaps with some drugs already in use.
The new finding offers hints that one type of breast cancer might be vulnerable to drugs that already work against ovarian cancer.
The study, published online Sunday by the journal Nature, is the latest example of research into the biological details of tumors, rather than focusing primarily on where cancer arises in the body.
The hope is that such research can reveal cancer's genetic weaknesses for better drug targeting.
"With this study, we're one giant step closer to understanding the genetic origins of the four major subtypes of breast cancer," Dr. Matthew Ellis of the Washington University School of Medicine said in a statement. He is a co-leader of the research.
"Now we can investigate which drugs work best for patients based on the genetic profiles of their tumors," he said.
The researchers analyzed DNA of breast cancer tumors from 825 patients, looking for abnormalities. Altogether, they reported, breast cancers appear to fall into four main classes when viewed in this way.
One class showed similarities to ovarian cancers, suggesting it may be driven by similar biological developments.
"It's clear they are genetically more similar to ovarian tumors than to other breast cancers," Ellis said. "Whether they can be treated the same way is an intriguing possibility that needs to be explored."
The report is the latest from the Cancer Genome Atlas, a federally funded project that has produced similar analyses for brain, colorectal, lung, and ovarian cancers.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
So Now What?
I'm not sure. There are many arguments to support blogging as a physician: marketing yourself or your practice, advertising and making a buck, education (both for yourself or your patients), working with an online community of like-minded souls, or creating an online presence getting your voice heard on a national and international level. It all sounds so great, doesn't it? I mean, I had it all figured out when I started! (Not.)
But blogging, as I've found, also exposes one to malicious verbal attacks and subpoenas. As such, it is risky. There is no question that placing one's online self in the world for all to see adds vulnerability and potential liability. When I told a colleague Friday about my recent predicament he responded, "Why the hell would anyone want to blog?"
Good question.
I hope my experience makes every physician consider this question carefully.
But perhaps the question is not as simple as that. Perhaps physicians who choose to blog should ask ourselves how best we should maintain our increasingly economically important online presence while minimizing our risk to do so. In that vein, what rules for commenting should physicians impose? Should only anonymous commenters be restricted? What would that do to the quality and content of information discussed? Should all comments be reviewed before publishing them, risking the perception of censorship? Or should a blog be pulled underground, accessible only by registration? Should one blog anonymously or non-anonymously? How important are these blogs, really, to patients? All I know is that patients have found me repeatedly because of my online presence, but I have to question if the vitriol demonstrated by a few makes it worth it.
I'd appreciate the blog-o-sphere's suggestions and commentary. I am certain that what is here will stay in its current form. But as I move forward to my next iteration, whatever that might be, it'd be helpful to hear your thoughts – even from anonymous commenters, although now, unfortunately, comments will be reviewed before posting.
49 comments:
- beadnik said...
Dr. Wes, I think your blog is a wonderful example of quality medical blogging. I always look forward to the EKG's Du Jour, which are mostly above my level of understanding but always a learning experience and I value your tales of patients and your viewpoints on political and social issues. That being said, it's YOUR blog and if you want to censor comments, why not? Also, a registered readership is a not unreasonable tack to take, but what about new readers? Where would they come from? I suppose it all comes down to your particular risk tolerance. Thanks for the fascinating ride so far!
(I'm an LPN of 26 years, IV and ACLS certified, working in small town ER (or ED if you like), and follow many medical blogs. As far as I'm concerned, yours ranks among the best.) - Wed Oct 08, 09:38:00 AM CDT
- Pickle Cookie said...
Love your blog and hope one crackpot won't scare you into quitting. I have no problem providing my real name and real email address when commenting on other blogs. Maybe this could be part of your new blog commenting policy? The Blog Herald has a good article that you may find helpful: http://www.blogherald.com/2008/06/02/nasty-blog-comments-human-nature-on-blogs/. Also, do you have enough info to RDNS the IP address and notify the abuse team of the commentor's ISP?
For the record, I am: Sherry Scurlock
Email: email@example.com - Wed Oct 08, 09:42:00 AM CDT
- AutMom said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- Wed Oct 08, 11:28:00 AM CDT
Well you're gonna have to do something you fucking money grubbing cunt aren't you? You sure are motherfucker! Thankyou for DOING AS I COMMANDED and turning comment moderation on. The thing to remember about that is, I don't get thwarted in any way by you turning it on... I am satisfied that you are reading this, so I still got to you, and I got to you in a big fucking way. Next time, instead of being an arrogant ignorant white coat mafia cunt maybe you'll talk to the 'little people' and offer them what they fucking ask for. If I chose to, give up my time, I could infiltrate and annoy the shit out of you no matter what changes you make to your blog.
I have means of proxying my ID details to any nation state in the world.
You've been targeted specifically because of something you did. Believe me. It would have taken a couple of seconds out of your day to avoid crossing me. This isn't an attack, it's a retaliation.
I'm satisfied you read this. And this is the price you fuckin pay. - Wed Oct 08, 12:18:00 PM CDT
- Lisa said...
Dear Dr. Wes:
When I started blogging in 1998 I was in the middle of a nasty divorce and it was a place to vent my emotions where my teenage children wouldn't catch the brunt of them. Since then I have blogged about my son's tours in Iraq, my diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer; my return back to corporate America afterward and my experiences as a patient with many health issues. I blog mainly because it keeps me sane. Blogging has also shown itself useful in my family as a method for us to communicate with each other with a world of distance between us. I started reading medical blogs because I was having trouble communicating with my doctors and understanding the assumptions they seem to base a lot of their oppinions on. Things such as, if I go into the emergency room and hand them the Arizona CERTS list, why they immediately decide I must be seeking drugs. I like your blog because you actually would know why it may be important to give a copy of the Arizona CERTS list to an emergency room doctor. Your blog is interesting and informative. I enjoy reading it and I hope that it would serve some valuable purpose for you. It is extremely unfortunate that there are vicious and opportunistic people out there who seem not to understand the intent of blogging and are making the exercise a dangerous thing for you and others. I would selfishly hope that you would stand firm and exercise the freedom you should have to write here. I certainly understand why that idea is less appealing to you. Whatever you decide, I wish you the best with it. - Wed Oct 08, 12:49:00 PM CDT
- Jared At The Doctor Job said...
in case you missed it, Buckeye Surgeon had a post very similar to yours three days ago and tries to answer some of those questions.
I, for one, hope you keep writing! - Wed Oct 08, 12:52:00 PM CDT
- The Happy Hospitalist said...
Screw you. Just kidding. Great blog. Do what you think is right for you.
Happy - Wed Oct 08, 01:06:00 PM CDT
- DrWes said...
I appologize for offending the sensitivites of those who read this blog when I decided to publish the comments of the anonymous poster at 12:18, but I offer it for all to review and understand the vitriol underway. If for no other reason, it's illustrative.
I may be wrong, but I have no doubts this relates to the issues related to my post of 6 Oct 2008. - Wed Oct 08, 01:10:00 PM CDT
- The Happy Hospitalist said...
Natural selection has failed us, just this once.
- Wed Oct 08, 01:17:00 PM CDT
Sounds like a schoolboy sitting on a public high school library computor who has just learned a bunch of big new words that he overuses for effect. Run along now little boy back to math class grade 9 and let the grownups talk about the real world :).
- Wed Oct 08, 02:09:00 PM CDT
- Unknown said...
Dr. Wes,
As a patient I enjoy reading medical blogs. As a person I enjoy reading personal takes on medical issues from the people on the front lines.
I hope you keep blogging even with the idiots out there.
S. - Wed Oct 08, 02:24:00 PM CDT
Sad that the 2% create issues for the 98% of us.
As you are contemplating, Dr. Wes, this was a site I found that seemed helpful a few months ago. http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/technologylawyer
A few physical therapists had cease and desist letters sent to them due to what was posted as a topic on a blog and the comments generated. A Pennsylvania attorney also posted on a forum and on the same blog the "threat" to these individuals. Unlike you, the physical therapists didn't choose to fight the complaint. I'm sure it came down to legal costs.
It's too bad you are put into the existing predicament. - Wed Oct 08, 03:24:00 PM CDT
Dr. Wes,
I truly appreciate your blog. I have learned a lot from it and would hate to see it gone.
You educate with your EKG postings and case presentations. Your insightful commentary on current events in the cardiology field is greatly appreciated. I've even found many useful links to current guidelines that you've posted. (I still search for the Circ article re: abx prophy on your blog cuz I know I can find it there :-).
If you restricted it to registered guests then that would be okay.
I feel that I need to stay quasi anonymous given my employer as I don't want anything to be misconstrued as being representative of my employer.
IMO yours is one of the best all around blogs for clinical/cardiac info.
Many thanks for what you do and my sympathies for your recent foray into the legal system.
CardioNP - Wed Oct 08, 03:49:00 PM CDT
- Lisa said...
Well, it does seem like anonymous is upset by something. To bad he is too much of a juvenile to communicate with you on an adult level. What did you do, cut him off in traffic or something?
- Wed Oct 08, 04:08:00 PM CDT
Whatever you do, please don't pack and leave. Your blog has been a great source of both entertainment and education (love the EKG Du Jours...they've made me read EKGs better!). Like someone else commented above, it's YOUR blog and you can run it how YOU want. If that means reviewing comments, not allowing anonymous comments, or even needing usernames and passwords to even view the articles it is your decision.
I'm sorry that you've been drug through the mud and had to pause to reflect on where your writing should go. Sure, we don't know the details of the situation, but based on your writing and history, I would expect nothing but honor and responsibility in the way you deal with the public.
Carry on. - Wed Oct 08, 07:02:00 PM CDT
- rlbates said...
Just want to add my support on the side that I hope you remain and continue to write. You would be truely missed. Take care.
- Wed Oct 08, 07:44:00 PM CDT
- Allen said...
Dood, you have to stay! Trolls need target, and as long as you're out there I'm relatively safe.
Seriously, you're one of the best medbloggers, with actual content.
Sorry some moron is mad at you. Don't quit, then the moron wins, and the rest of us morons enjoy your writing!
GruntDoc - Wed Oct 08, 08:48:00 PM CDT
Oh, Dr. Wes. I am so sorry to hear about all of this. I am not alone in treasuring your blog. I truly value your insights and appreciate you sharing your wisdom and perspectives. You help and educate more people than you may realize. But I also completely understand how you feel. Been there many times. I doubt most people realize the enormous costs to one's career and livelihood that blogging can take. The internet, and the healthcare industry, can be surprisingly cut throat, especially to anyone who speaks out and stands up for patients and the profession, just as you do. Having experienced 300+ vile commenters and threats a day, I've had to simply turn off comments and not give the nuts a platform as they feed off of it. Of course, that won't stop whatever interests you cross from resorting to other nasty internet attacks, and they can do some incredible and icky tricks, but it might be one option to consider.
Why blog? Except for those selling stuff, the only reason for medical professionals to blog is because they want to help people. And you do, each and every day.
I personally hope you'll continue to blog, but will understand and support you in whatever decision you need to make.
Sandy - Wed Oct 08, 08:55:00 PM CDT
- Lisa Emrich said...
Dr. Wes,
I will echo Shauna's comments. As a patient (not with any cardiac issues), I benefit from reading your opinions on health, science and policy.
Thank you for sharing a bit of yourself with the medical blogosphere.
Lisa - Wed Oct 08, 09:17:00 PM CDT
- SteveC said...
Hi, Doc!
I'm Steve, 42, born with Tricuspid Atresia, and love reading your blog! I hope you decide to keep it up, but considering that post at 12:18, I would understand if you wanted to retire your typewriter.
Thanks for all you do;
Steve - Wed Oct 08, 10:08:00 PM CDT
- Marco said...
I greatly appreciate your blog for all your stories and wise insights. I'm very sorry to hear that you're being harassed by these cowardly losers. But, such folks will always be with us - I remember a funny story where our swim club worked the phones at one of those televised pledge nights for our local TV stations. As the evening wore on, we'ed get obscene phone calls!
Please, please don't quit blogging! I hope that you will find an incarnation that works for you. Perhaps making it by subscription-only, or at least filtering comments before posting would help.
Thanks for all your good posts,
Marco - Thu Oct 09, 02:00:00 AM CDT
- Dr. Rob said...
I am with you as well. Reading your material, I find it hard to understand why you would be attacked so badly. Yes, you are critical, but not nasty at all.
I suspect this is just a storm to weather until they get bored and find somewhere else to infest. Think of it as a toddler throwing a tantrum. What's the thing they want? Attention. Don't give it to them and they will stop.
You would be sorely missed. - Thu Oct 09, 07:36:00 AM CDT
Just want to add my support Wes. If someone wants to get at you it won't matter if you blog or not. Sorry you're having to go through it though. Ian.
- Thu Oct 09, 08:15:00 AM CDT
I could tell you exactly how to avoid the pesky little interruptions brought on by the less than genuine members of the legal class - you could legally and quite easily continue on with you blogging hobby and render the notion of being subpoenaed or deposed so implausible and counter-productive that most attorneys would simply walk away. But, I believe you will find what you seek in Sun Tzu - Art of War. Hit them where they are most vulnerable and force them to wage war on your terms. Don't pursue them and war on their terms. You will always lose. Rather, commandeer their resources and exploit them. He who has the best intelligence of his opponent and the wisdom of how best to use it will always prevail. Lawyers exploit the convoluted nature of the battle field they themselves created. Why fight in a place where you know nothing? - Thu Oct 09, 08:46:00 AM CDT
I read your blog everyday and love it. Where will I go now?
- Thu Oct 09, 09:24:00 AM CDT
- Margaret Polaneczky, MD (aka TBTAM) said...
Add my vote to the "Keep on blogging" column. Your blog is shining example of the very best that medical blogging can be. Honest, informative, interesting, warm, well-written, always timely. Don't quit blogging - we need your voice.
But I say take back control of the conversation. Minimize your legal exposure by moderating comments. Allow the conversation, but control the tone and tenor of the discourse.
After all, it's your party.
http://theblogthatatemanhattan.blogspot.com/2008/10/every-blog-needs-bouncer.html - Thu Oct 09, 11:00:00 AM CDT
- Jay said...
No good deed goes unpunished.
I just want you to know that you have my support and encouragement. I hope you're able to keep this up. I've enjoyed this thoroughly. I'm sure you do what is right and necessary.
I have to say though, that losing Fake Steve Jobs AND Dr. Wes in the same year might be more than I can handle.
Jay - Thu Oct 09, 11:13:00 AM CDT
An article for you which will help explain some of your rights and responsibilities as a blogger:
That's a nutshell, and more info is needed, but it's a good start. - Thu Oct 09, 01:52:00 PM CDT
Goodness, there is some hate going on there! I am sorry you are going through this. I hope you stay, if only to show that hate cannot spoil what we enjoy.
Knowledge is power and that my friend is what you spread, lots and lots of power to everyone who takes the time to read it. - Thu Oct 09, 06:12:00 PM CDT
- saf said...
"How important are these blogs, really, to patients?"
I'm a patient. Not one of yours, just a layperson who has found herself lost in medworld and went looking for useful insight. And I found it, in a number of blogs.
I appreciate many of the medblogs I have found - they've helped me feel better about my decisions, and about the folks that I have entrusted my life to. (Orthopedic surgeons and endocrinologists, mostly.) I've learned much about those who I find myself relying so heavily upon.
I am grateful to all of you who chose to share in this way. I truly am. - Thu Oct 09, 09:38:00 PM CDT
- Bruce said...
We are all pulling for you and hope that you can continue sharing your stories and insights.
- Thu Oct 09, 10:10:00 PM CDT
- Zoe Brain said...
I run a blog that deals with Space Science, Software, some Politics, and also with Transgender issues.
The latter can get very contentious.
But I've had nothing that compares with the incoherent and psychotic (and I mean that in the literal sense) ranting you gave an example of. In 5 years I've deleted only 2 comments, and they were disguised spam.
You have my sympathies, but I'm at a loss to explain why you're plagued with venomous trolls. - Thu Oct 09, 11:12:00 PM CDT
- Enrico said...
Dr Wes,
From a longtime lurker (I've commented a fingerful of times, I think) all I can say is you gotta stay in the game if you have something to say. And the fact that Mr Numbnutz above is so rankled means that there is a message that makes a difference, even if it's to addle less stable minds while enlightening the vast majority of ours.
As long as you write, you WILL have an appreciative audience, and I really, really think this one individual is not representative of any meaningful statistic (ie, more blogging will not lead to more), just one unhinged person with an axe to grind. He'll find another tree to bark at eventually. - Fri Oct 10, 01:00:00 AM CDT
- Jen said...
Another vote for the "keep on blogging" side.
As a long-time reader of both autism and medical blogs, I think that I would be tempted to disallow anonymous postings unless there is a very good reason for people to post anonymously (mental health issues, children etc). At least in the autism world, it's generally "Anonymous" who comes to a blog, spews hatred, and then leaves. If people are not brave enough to put their name (or online identity) to a comment then I'm not sure that they should be part of a conversation- at least that would be my take if I was posting something controversial.
Good luck to you, and I hope that everything works out so that you are comfortable remaining. I think that medical blogs do a very good job of showing patients not only the "human" side of doctors, but explaining a bit about what it's like to be on the "other side". - Fri Oct 10, 07:17:00 AM CDT
- Kim said...
I vote for you to keep blogging. Just moderate the comments - if someone wants to be "anonymous", that's fine unless the post is full of vile language or threats. You aren't obligated to air those types of comments.
Debates will still go on and people may disagree, but the conversation will be civil. - Fri Oct 10, 05:51:00 PM CDT
I'm a physician and moderate a blog (not medical, focused on the WoT). I can tell you that it's the 1 to 2% of commenters who make life difficult for everyone else. Most everyone respects the rules and plays nicely. But those who don't coarsen and cheapen the commentary, and that over time works to bring down the blog.
My advice: no anonymous commentary. If I had my way (and I don't :-) I wouldn't even allow nyms. I'd make everyone blog under his/her own name. Funny how being known by what you write tends to change what one writes.
As it stands, requiring a nym and tying that to the posting IP goes a fair ways to fixing the problem as demonstrated by your anonymous 12:18 pm poster.
And when that doesn't work at our blog, we ban. That means you have to screen your comments, and if you have a lot of comments it ends up taking up more time than you'd like. That's one reason why I work with a group blog (we have eight moderators and we all stay busy). But banning offensive commenters by banning their IP usually fixes the problem.
More importantly, it makes clear to other commenters that you have standards and that you won't allow others to denigrate your blog and your writing. I think that's a powerful message.
Blogspot has some tools available to you and you might check into it. But for sure I'd ban anonymous commentary. Just a thought, and good luck. - Fri Oct 10, 06:08:00 PM CDT
- Artemis said...
I agree with the majority of comments above - you do a great job, and I find it appalling that one individual feels the need to sully your site with his vitriol. As I've told you in the past, I've always admired your willingness to identify yourself in the blogosphere.
While you'll be sorely missed if you close up shop, I understand the exhaustion and frustration you must face after reading the example you left.
A - Fri Oct 10, 07:51:00 PM CDT
- Carin Diaz said...
Dr. Wes, it's my first time on your blog. It is easy to say but my thought is this: an anonymous commenter attacking you is just trying to manipulate you for whatever reason. For fun comes to my mind but I may be wrong.
I hope peace for anonymous.
Please don't get bothered by this, Dr. Wes.
(Or you can both waste your time-- with anonymous posting angry comments and, you letting him get through you). I hope not because you have a great blog going here.
God bless to everybody who still believe. - Fri Oct 10, 08:34:00 PM CDT
The contagion has spread:
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/10/little-boxes.html - Sat Oct 11, 01:04:00 AM CDT
- Zoe Brain said...
Looks like I spoke too soon... the same guy whose incoherent rants you put on display just migrated to my blog.
The commentariat there are trying - not very hard - to not be entertained by him. You know, how people would visit Bedlam to laugh at the loonies? Same thing.
He needs help, not laughter though. To state the obvious.
Also, I have some practice in dealing with rabid opposition. I don't have 5ARD or 17BHDD, but something comparable. One of the more spectacular and socially embarrassing medical oddities.
Please keep blogging. We need some sanity and medical knowledge out there. - Sat Oct 11, 02:24:00 AM CDT
- Christian Sinclair said...
You have a great blog here. I appreciate you sharing this with the medical blogging community as iot gives us all pause for self-reflection. I post on some pretty contentious issues (life and death, palliative care) and dealing with comments has been nowhere near what you have gone through but still given our team blog some heartburn.
Keep up the good work (and thanks for the link the other day) - Sat Oct 11, 10:33:00 PM CDT
- DrWes said...
Thanks for the tremendous outpouring of support and advice (legal and otherwise) offered both here and by e-mail.
- Sun Oct 12, 07:01:00 AM CDT
- Zoe Brain said...
Hi Doctor W!
"Yosemite Sam" as we've named this anonymous poster is really quite harmless, and doesn't mess the place up too much with scatalogical obscenity.
The more OTT he is, the more rational you appear. He adds to your credibility. Now you may not have a credibility problem, but TS and IS people certainly do. Thank You Jerry Springer. Not.
Lurkers can soon see who's sane, and who isn't. Apart from the fact that he's need of some serious professional anger-management therapy, not a laughing matter, it's best to consider him harmlessly entertaining. - Sun Oct 12, 10:53:00 AM CDT
Dr. Wes, please don't let some psychotic knuckle-dragger stop you from blogging if you want to continue. (Your readers would *like* to see you keep blogging, though!) Jerks like that just prove that the gene pool could use some chlorine, and that some people shouldn't be allowed out in public without a keeper.....
Keep up the good work, Doc! - Sun Oct 12, 08:57:00 PM CDT
I am a patient (again, not one of yours) and a medical student, and I find medical blogs invaluable from both perspectives. I agree with many of the posters here: Don't hang it up. Obviously there are obstacles, and all kinds of ethical, privacy, and other issues to juggle, but I think it's worth it. We can't let freedom of speech and the exchange of ideas be hijacked by some nutjob (that's a medical term we learned in week one of med school :). After all, he clearly values HIS freedom of speech enough to take the time and energy to hack your blog and hide his identity. At least you have the courage to attach your name to what you write.
By the way, he sounds like an ICD-9 -CM 301.22 - Mon Oct 13, 01:52:00 AM CDT
- SeaSpray said...
Dr Wes - I am sorry those things happened. Shame on them.
You have have a great blog here and no doubt have blessed many readers with what you write.
Don't quit when your down...quit when you're ahead. I say that because if you go out now because of them...then they win.
Goodness will prevail.
In the end...do what's best for you... but don't do it because of the few rotten apples in the bunch.
You have a quality blog. :) - Mon Oct 13, 03:00:00 AM CDT
- SeaSpray said...
Also since you don't have comments open on your post about the elderly couple...I just want to tell you I enjoyed it and was also encouraged and inspired that in our 80s we can still look forward to these things. How sweet! :) It made me laugh too. :)
Ummm... I am one of THOSE patients with the "just one more thing" at the end of the visit. Actually... I am that way with everyone. Someone joked once that my epitaph could say "Just one more thing..."
P.S. I am going to link that post. - Mon Oct 13, 03:06:00 AM CDT
- Hey, You said...
Just proves the free speech is not really free in this country.
I'm sorry for your troubles. I've learned a lot from medical blogs, but at what cost to the bloggers? I'm probably a better patient for having read these blogs, but that helps my own doctors, who don't blog, rather than the bloggers. - Mon Oct 13, 11:00:00 AM CDT
- Jobbing Doctor said...
Dear Wes,
Personally I think that blogging is one of the great liberators of the professional in the 21st Century when faced with increasingly intrusive statist intervention (both in USA and UK).
I am recent to blogging and try to anonymise important but less relevant detail without distorting the essential message.
This debate is also going on in the UK, I remain anonymous although around 30 people know who I am. - Tue Oct 14, 12:20:00 AM CDT


text:
This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. As Mitt Romney prepares to accept his party's nomination, we're going to talk with the authors of the book "The Real Romney," which has just been published in paperback with a new afterword. Michael Kranish is deputy chief of the Boston Globe's Washington bureau and a former White House correspondent. Scott Helman is a staff writer at the Globe and former political editor. He was the lead writer on the 2008 presidential campaign.
Their book covers the role of Romney's ancestors in the history of the Mormon faith, his own leadership within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, his father George Romney's political career as governor of Michigan, Mitt's career as a venture capitalist with Bain Capital, and his political career.
I recorded this interview with Kranish and Helman yesterday. Kranish was in Tampa, where he's covering the Republican convention. Helman was in Boston planning to get on a flight to Tampa after our interview.
Michael Kranish, Scott Helman, welcome back to FRESH AIR and thank you so much for coming. So Michael Kranish, you wrote on Sunday about the 1964 Republican convention, where George Romney, Mitt's father, was a player. He had briefly been a contender in the Republican presidential primary, and you write about how he tried to get the Republican platform committee to adopt an amendment rejecting extremists. Who were the extremists that George Romney was worried about at the 1964 Republican convention?
MICHAEL KRANISH: Well, it's very interesting, and I see these two conventions as bookends in Mitt Romney's life. Mitt was there with his father, George, in 1964 in San Francisco, and at that time his father George represented the moderate wing of the party. Barry Goldwater, of course, became the nominee. And George thought this was a mistake. He thought it would be, quote, political suicide for Barry Goldwater to be the nominee of the Republican Party.
So he tried at the platform committee, with his son watching, to have them adopt a platform plank that would basically support civil rights legislation. Barry Goldwater had voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And that failed. And then George tried to get them to adopt a plank rejecting extremism because there was concern at the time that the John Birch Society was having too much influence in the party. That plank was rejected.
And then Barry Goldwater became the nominee, and as Mitt later recalled it, his father walked out of the Republican convention in 1964, very upset, never endorsed Barry Goldwater. What's so striking is that now Mitt Romney is coming in, calling himself severely conservatively, and he's not, you know, the moderate like his father walking in. He is now representing, if you will, the Barry Goldwater wing of today. So it really is a turnabout, and I really think it gives you a sense of the long, ideological winding path that Mitt Romney has traveled to get to this moment.
GROSS: And Goldwater lost the election really badly to Lyndon Johnson.
KRANISH: That's right, and Governor Romney, you know, no doubt felt that he was right, that he thought this was a big mistake, and Barry Goldwater was rejected. You can look back now in history and say the way that Goldwater was steering the party towards a more Southern strategy is where the party is today.
So now Mitt Romney in essence is coming along all these years later, 48 years later, and he is sort of more in line, I guess, with that Southern strategy, if you will, that the parties are very different than they were in his father's day. So obviously the party has changed, the Republican Party has changed dramatically, and Mitt Romney has changed dramatically in his views as well.
GROSS: After Barry Goldwater lost the presidential election in '64, he wrote an angry letter to George Romney asking why didn't you support me. And you quote what George Romney wrote in response, and I want to read that. George Romney wrote: Dogmatic, ideological parties tend to splinter the political and social fabric of a nation, lead to governmental crises and deadlocks, and stymie the compromises so often necessary to preserve freedom and achieve progress.
How do you think that reverberates today?
KRANISH: I have read that quote to some audiences, and I read it recently, and to my surprise the audience started cheering. They just felt that summarized, at least that's the way I took it, the problems of today, that George Romney way back those years ago has summarized views that are even more relevant today perhaps than they were then, because that seems to be where we are.
And so I do wonder, as Mitt Romney is taking the stage here, what voice he'll hear in his ear. Will he hear the echo of what his father said all those years ago? And you know, will he act on that? Will he - and that is, there is a sense among those who know him that he will try to reach back to that to some degree, to, you know, as traditionally is done, he'll say I want to work with Democrats.
Obviously, you know, we'll have to see what happens if he's president. But it is something that is a strong echo in the Romney family legacy, and we're looking to see how and whether Mitt embraces that same kind of viewpoint and concern.
GROSS: So your book is called "The Real Romney," and Scott, I want to ask you: If you compare how Romney is running now in his presidential campaign to how he ran in his gubernatorial or Senate campaigns, are they all - is he consistent in those campaigns, or are there things that lead you to ask who is the real Romney, comparing those campaigns?
SCOTT HELMAN: I think it's incredibly inconsistent, actually. I mean, certainly there are some consistencies that we see. I mean, in '94, when he first ran for Senate, and now, he's a man who cares very much about his family and his faith and so forth. There's certain bedrock principles, I think, to him that have not changed. But when you think about him politically, they're two completely different Mitt Romneys.
I mean, the Mitt Romney who ran in 1994 started out as a political independent, he's somebody who railed against the Contract with America, which of course was the big Newt Gingrich GOP revolution that year. He was a strong supporter of abortion rights. He was very outspoken in favor of gay rights, even writing this famous letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, a Republican gay rights group, talking about how he could more effective than Ted Kennedy could be, his opponent, on gay rights.
So you go up and down the line, and it's a very, very different political profile. So I think, you know, the one thing ideologically almost that's consistent from then to now is he's a pragmatist, and at the time, I think, you know, he was running against a very liberal senator with an impressive civil rights record, and he was running in very blue Massachusetts. So he had to be a certain type of candidate to be successful.
And to some extent that - to a large extent that continued in his gubernatorial run in 2002. You know, after that, when he starts to run for president, it's a very different environment, and he realizes that he has to be someone completely different to succeed in a Republican primary. And I think we're still seeing the result of that shift.
And all these things that we hear Mitt Romney say, and we sort of compare them to how he said them before, you have this kind of puzzled look on your face because you think, well, how could the same person say this and also say that. And I think the answer is, he, you know, just like he did in business, he looks at each situation that he's in and figures out how to be successful in that situation, and in many cases part of that consideration was who do I have to be politically to win.
GROSS: In your book "The Real Romney," you write a lot about not only Mitt Romney's commitment to the Mormon Church but the history of his family in the church. His great-great-grandfather was a part of the church back in the Joseph Smith era. Joseph Smith founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
So, he's been very private about his faith. However, last week he invited some members of the press to come to his church and observe him at a service. Michael Kranish, were you one of those journalists who was there?
KRANISH: No, this was a pool. So there were a couple of reporters that are allowed to represent the rest of the press, who happened to be on duty that day up by his summer home in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire. I did write about this issue a couple days later, however, and Terry, I think what you're seeing is that Mitt Romney does not want to talk about the tenets of Mormonism.
He's made that clear, that this should not be something that he has to discuss, that you should go to his church and so forth. And yet at the same time, you've had many people, and I think we may have talked about this last time we were on your show, who have said, you know, you can't understand Mitt Romney without understanding what his faith means to him.
He has said that his Mormon faith is, quote, one of the most important treasures of my life, unquote. So you do need to understand that. Plus, he was a leader of the Boston area Mormon churches for a number of years. This was practically a second fulltime job. So he wasn't just a member; he was a very strong leader of that church.
And I think what you've seen very recently is that they've come to the conclusion that they need to find a way to talk about what his faith means to him without talking about the individual tenets. And what they'd like to do, and I know what they are talking about doing - is talking about how as a church leader he helped people who were disadvantaged, that this was the way this very, very wealthy man, heading a private equity company in Boston, was able to meet with people who might have been poor or disadvantaged in various ways - as a church leader.
And so one of his aides have said a couple days ago that some of those folks might get up on the - at the convention and talk about how Mitt Romney helped them. Obviously, as Scott wrote in the book, there are also some other cases where there are some controversial things that Mitt Romney as a church leader advised some people to do. So I don't know that those people would talk.
But they are trying to use his church leadership days in a different way to hopefully, in their point of view, seal some of the connection that Mitt Romney seems to have been lacking in some of his prior appearances.
GROSS: How did Mitt Romney handle his faith in previous campaigns?
HELMAN: When Mitt Romney first ran for office in 1994, his faith did become a big campaign issue, in large part because his opponent, Ted Kennedy, and his family, made it an issue. There was a lot of controversy around Ted Kennedy's nephew, Joe Kennedy, who had said that, you know, he thought it was outrageous that the Mormon church prevented women from holding leadership roles and that they excluded blacks from holding the priesthood.
And it was a big moment, I think, for Mitt Romney and a big wakeup call that suddenly this faith that he had known had been seen skeptically, but I think this was the first time he got a taste of just how politically sensitive this was. And in fact Ted Kennedy himself at one point said that he thought that some of these things that Mormons believed, and particularly the point about not letting blacks in the church until 1978 - or hold leadership positions until 1978, that that was something that should be examined in a political context.
Now, he later backed off from that, but of course there was a great irony for the Romneys, that here you had the Kennedys, you know, Ted Kennedy, whose own brother, Jack Kennedy, in 1960 had given this famous speech in running for president saying that, you know, he wasn't going to speak for Catholicism, and Catholicism didn't speak for him, that it was, you know, here they were kind of invoking that legacy in a very perverse way.
And in fact there's a great story of a press conference that Mitt Romney was giving when he was really burned up about how this faith issue had come up. George Romney, his father, was actually there, in his 80s at the time, sort of advising his son's campaigns.
And he was circling the gaggle of reporters and just fuming at this and how the Kennedys had brought this up and made it a part of the campaign. At one point, in true George Romney fashion, he bursts into the press conference, interrupts his son and sort of starts shaking his fist and saying, you know, this is outrageous what the Kennedys are doing and this should have no place there.
And, you know, of course it was a great TV moment, right, so all the TV cameras went right from Mitt Romney right over to dad, because it made for a much better story. But I think that gave you a sense of how much this really bothered them, that it had become an issue.
And in fact, even after the race, after Mitt Romney had lost, he said one of the things that really ate at him was the way that the Kennedys had brought up the faith issue and made it part of the conversation.
So that was, you know, a bad, a sour experience, I think, if you will, for Mitt Romney. Fortunately for him, and I think for a lot of other Mormons, certainly in Massachusetts, it was almost nonexistent as an issue in 2002 when he ran for governor.
And then we see it crop back up again when he first runs for president in 2008, and of course that's when he really starts to court social conservatives. He's trying to talk to all these evangelicals, and of course a lot of them, as we know, have - are very skeptical, or worse, about Mormons and what they believe.
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guests are Scott Helman and Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe. They're the co-authors of the book "The Real Romney," which has just been published in paperback with a new afterword. And Michael Kranish is speaking to us from Tampa, Scott Helman from Boston; he's on his way to Tampa. Let's take a short break here, then we'll talk some more about Mitt Romney. This is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guests are Michael Kranish and Scott Helman of the Boston Globe. They're co-authors of the new book "The Real Romney"; it's just been published in paperback with a new afterword.
Michael Kranish, you've been writing about Mitt Romney and his finances, taxes and Bain. He released his 2010 tax returns, and Gawker just released - Gawker just got their hands on a bunch of financial documents from Bain Capital. What are some of the key things you've learned about Romney and his personal finances from these documents?
KRANISH: Well, let me provide some perspective. There's been a lot of talk about the last 10 years of Mitt Romney's tax returns because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has alleged, without providing evidence, that Mitt Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. So the context for this and the paradigm that really should be set is Mitt Romney's own words.
He said in 1994, in running for the U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy, that Kennedy should release his tax returns to show that he had nothing to hide. Kennedy refused, and Romney as a result did not release his own tax returns. So Romney's the one who set this up, that this should be done.
And then in 2002, when Romney's opponents did release their tax returns and said, OK, now you release yours, at that time he refused to release any tax returns and said it was a privacy issue. So this time around, it shouldn't be surprising that there was a lot of pressure for him to release his tax returns.
And what he has said is he would release - he has released his 2010 tax returns and so far a summary of the 2011 information. Frankly, that doesn't tell us an awful lot about his time at Bain Capital. He was at Bain Capital running that company from 1984. And then through '99 he was directly controlling a lot of the deals, and then he stayed as CEO until 2002.
So the 10 years after that are the years that Harry Reid's talked about, which is when he basically got a severance deal. But, you know, the real issue, if people are looking at, you know, going back to Romney's own words about what's going on about do you have something to hide, would go back to the time when he's at Bain Capital, because seeing those early tax returns are the ones that would show you how much money he made on certain deals and if those deals were the same deals that were good for the companies that were bought or if factories were shut down in those deals and he profited to a certain degree.
Those are the kind of things that you might want to see. So whatever is released in more recent years wouldn't show a lot of that. What the more recent documents have shown, they are not Romney-specific documents, but they're documents about various Bain funds that Romney at this time has some investments in.
And some of those funds are held in the Cayman Islands and other places like that. They're - a lot of the investments are not in a company stock A or B. As Romney has said, they're - it's all managed by a blind trust. The blind trust person running that decided to invest in Bain Capital funds. And in some cases those are hedge funds. They're various things that in fact might bet on whether a company does poorly.
But those are investments, you know, much later, and they're run by a blind trustee. So my overall point is that really by not releasing the earlier tax returns, there's a lot that we don't know and apparently we won't because he doesn't intend to release them.
And the other point is that his tax rate has been very low because as a person in the private equity business, he gets a break from the get-go, and that is that instead of most of his income coming and taxed by salary, it's taxed at what's known as carried interest, which is essentially the capital gains tax rate, which is about half the tax rate of, say, someone, you know, in a middle-class situation.
So it's just like Warren Buffett has said that his tax rate is lower than his secretary. Mitt Romney in the private equity business, it's the same thing. I don't know how much his secretary made, but from the get-go he was paying a very low tax rate. And so one of the things I wonder, President Obama in his budget had proposed that that be eliminated, that he felt that was an unfair break, and I wonder if that kind of issue also will become something we'll hear more about in the campaign.
GROSS: One of the questions that has been raised based on the Bain financial records that were released is that there were investments that, you know, the partners, and I think Romney would be included in these investments, investments in funds that hold complex securities that can profit from downturns in the economy like by shorting stocks, by betting against interest rates in foreign currencies, credit default swaps, which can bet that something's going to lose, and you gain if they lose.
So in terms of his experience, his financial experience showing him how to boost the economy, if he's had investments that have bet against success, bet against the economy, what does that say? Or does it say nothing? Is that just what investors do?
KRANISH: Right. The dilemma in discussing this is that these are funds that his blind trustee person decided to invest in.
GROSS: I see.
KRANISH: So Romney can say, you know, look, I didn't invest in those funds, the trustee invested in those funds. And it's hardly uncommon. I'm not excusing anything or saying this is fine or bad, just making the general point that a lot of funds, you know, have that, that use short stocks and so forth.
I've spent a lot of time talking to Romney's Bain partners over the last year or so, and every single one of them that I've talked to have said their job was not necessarily to create jobs, their job was to make as much money for their investors as possible.
And some of them take a little bit of umbrage at the idea that Bain has now been cast as this job-creating machine. They say they think in the end that more jobs are created than lost, but they say their fiduciary duty was to their investors to make money, and if that meant that jobs were cut in certain deals, then jobs were cut.
If that meant that factories had to be closed because it could be more profitable to do it in some other way, then factories were closed. Those were decisions that Mitt Romney would have been more directly involved with, which is a little different than a fund that a blind trustee person, you know, may have invested in.
So as someone who's spent a lot of time looking at this, the deals that Romney was directly involved in, which have plenty of upsides and downsides that we can talk about, probably are the most relevant to talk about in terms of what he did, what his decisions were and whether those were good for the economy or not.
And there are plenty of deals. There are about 100 deals made over 15 years, a lot of which we write about. Plenty of those, you know, are controversial. But the bottom line is they ran a fund that was basically a fund for very wealthy people to invest in. That was his job, and typically it a million dollars or more to get into those funds.
It's not like a typical mutual fund. So these individuals who invested in that fund, they did very well. Oftentimes their money doubled or almost doubled every year. It's a different matter about how that profit was made. In some cases it was made because businesses were turned around, or maybe there were things that were shut down or changed.
It's a - each deal is different, and there are many different ways in which they made money for their investors.
Michael Kranish and Scott Helman will be back in the second half of the show. Their book "The Real Romney" has just been published in paperback. I'm Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross back with Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, authors of the book "The Real Romney," which has just been published in paperback with a new afterword. Kranish is deputy chief of the Boston Globe's Washington bureau and a former White House correspondent. Scott Helman is a staff writer at the Globe and former political editor. He was a lead writer on the 2008 presidential campaign.
We recorded our interview yesterday. Kranish was in Tampa, Helman was in Boston preparing to leave for Tampa.
So, Michael Kranish, one of the things you've written about regarding Romney's finances is how he and other partners at Bain used their IRAs both to invest but also perhaps to shield money from having to pay taxes on - that is perhaps stretching what an IRA is supposed to be able to do. Could you describe what questions you have about Mitt Romney's IRA?
KRANISH: Right. Well, a lot of people in this country have IRAs; they were set up by Congress to help average working people save a modest amount for retirement. And the average amount that an individual has in IRAs in this country is about $90,000. Mitt Romney in his financial disclosure report said that his IRA was worth between 20 million to $100 million. And as you know, an IRA, when you put money in there, it's shielded from the initial taxation and then you pay taxes when you are in retirement and take it out and presumably at a lower rate than you would have otherwise, and in the meantime a lot of money can accumulate.
I asked an independent research group to analyze where Mitt Romney's IRA stood in relation to the rest of the country and they came back and said that his IRA, even at the lowest estimate of 20 million, would have been in the top one-100ths of one percent of IRAs in this country. So by any measure, his IRA is extraordinary. Very few people have an IRA of 20 million, not to mention the possible topside of 100 million.
So how did he do that? How did you get an IRA so large if there are restrictions on how much you can put into IRAs every year? Depending on how it's done, the restriction might be $5,000 a year or in some kind of corporate plans it could be up to $50,000 a year. But still, how would it grow so large so quickly? So I and another reporter at the Globe, Beth Healy, looked at this and talked to Bain partners, other folks, and part of the reason is is that they use these IRAs that were established with a certain amount of money to make side investments in deals that Bain Capital already thought were pretty good or sure winning deals. So they would use their own personal funds from the IRA to then invest in the same deals that Bain Capital was investing in.
Some of these deals were extraordinarily successful. So there was a deal for, for example, where Bain put in $50 million into an Italian Yellow Pages company and got back a billion dollars. Separately, Bain partners invested in that same deal and deals like it. And so you can imagine they put in a somewhat modest amount of money personally and they got back a big return. Those returns accumulated exponentially. So over time, you have the IRA really exploding in the amount of money that's in there, and it's a - I think a large part of the explanation as to how an IRA all these years later could be worth between 20 million to $100 million. It's not what Congress envisioned obviously, when they set up IRAs, but the Romney campaign and the people that I've talked to, they say this is all legal and that when the money is withdrawn upon retirement, then Romney would pay some kind of a tax rate on that.
GROSS: I don't know a lot about what you can and can't do with an IRA. But is it legal to take the money in your IRA and just choose what investments you want to make with it?
KRANISH: Well, sure. I mean you can have what's called a self-directed IRA and so with your IRA you could say now I want it in, you know, Fidelity's X fund and then later on say, no, change that to the Fidelity Y fund. It can't...
GROSS: Right. But that's different than - I mean isn't that different from saying we're going to invest in this like new company that Bain's investing in? Because I understand having your retirement money in one of the funds in the larger company that your workplace uses as, for its retirement funds. But that's different from just choosing individual places to invest in with your IRA money. That's OK?
KRANISH: Right. Well, I asked the same question. And as it turns out, the Bain Capital IRAs are held by Merrill Lynch and there's a individual who has to be responsible for making sure that the deal is appropriate under the way the plan was set up, so every plan might have different particular rules. You couldn't go out and invest, for example, in tulips, but in this case, the person overseeing the IRA can say, you know, this seems like a reasonable investment and go ahead. So there are various restrictions on that that's set up plan-to-plan but in this case they were allowed under this plan to invest in side personal investments in Bain deals.
GROSS: Now Scott, you recently wrote a piece trying to investigate this question. Mitt Romney says that his experience at Bain has taught him what you need to know to create jobs and to fix the economy. So picking up on what Michael said earlier, how related is his experience at Bain to creating jobs and fixing the economy?
HELMAN: I think it's undeniable, whatever you think of Mitt Romney, whatever you think of his tenure at Bain, whatever you think of Bain Capital or private equity, I think we have to stipulate that Mitt Romney certainly has some economic fluency. He has trafficked in this world for years and I think there is certainly some truth to his statement that he knows how jobs come and he knows how jobs go. So I think he is largely correct to say that he has some significant understanding of how the American economy works, but I think that's a different question - it's a different question entirely, when we're saying, well, do we want this kind of man to be our leader? Do we want somebody who is very successful making money for very wealthy people running the economy that's supposed to be for everybody? And I think that's where his pitch is a little less persuasive.
I mean certainly, there is an argument to be made - and we're hearing it a lot from President Obama and his re-election team - that Mitt Romney has been really good for the one percent and he'd be really good for the one percent if he were president. He knows what these guys want and need. He wants deregulation. He wants lower tax rates for the wealthy. He wants smaller government.
So I think, you know, connecting those policy prescriptions to his Bain tenure, I think that is politically problematic for him. And I think that's one of his big challenges at this convention, is how he is going to cast that experience. Because the fact is the polls that I've seen suggest that Americans still believe that Obama identifies with them more than Mitt Romney does, and that Obama would be better for the middle class. And I think Mitt Romney can't win if that stays like that. So he has to somehow find a way to say, even though pretty much everything I've done in my business career has been to make money for largely wealthy investors, that I can apply that expertise and that experience to everybody else.
KRANISH: Terry, if I could just add, you know, one of the most interesting things that Romney said about this time was something he wrote - if I can just quote it. He said, quote, "I never actually ran one of our investments. That was left to management." And the reason that's important to understand is that he was running an investment fund. It wasn't like his father, George, who went in to run American Motors Corporation and turn it around. Mitt Romney would be the first person to say, and as I quoted, he did, that that's not what he did. He ran an overall investment fund. Deals were proposed and brought to him. He would say yes or no, and then a couple of cases he was on the board. For the most part that was the major part of his decision-making, let's invest or not invest. And so people can look at that and with the 30-second ads it can be hard to understand that because it sounds like he may have gone in, you know, and directly run this company or that company.
Most of what he did, he made most of his money in leveraged buyout deals that were basically investments in existing companies and he got paid management fees, there were loans taken that the company that was being bought had to pay back. So it's a more nuanced story that we really did try to take a lot of time to explain exactly what he did. And I think that quote that I read you gives you a little bit more perspective as to what he did and didn't do.
GROSS: Mitt Romney very recently wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece that was called "What I Learned at Bain." And he wrote, my presidency would make it easier for entrepreneurs and small businesses to get the investment dollars they need to grow, by reducing and simplifying taxes; replacing Obamacare with real health care reform that contains costs and improves care; and by stemming the flood of new regulations that are tying small businesses in knots. And he goes on to say, I'm not sure Bain Capital could have grown or turned around some of the companies we invested in had we faced today's anti-business environment. Andy Puzder, the chief executive of CKE Restaurants Incorporated, which employs about 21,000 people at Carl's Jr. and Hardee's restaurants, has said that quote, "the current unfriendly economic environment perhaps best explains why American companies are sitting on over $2 trillion which they could invest," unquote.
So it seems to me there's maybe two separate thoughts on here. One is making it easier for entrepreneurs and small businesses, and the other is a favorable economic climate for companies that have 21,000 employees and their needs might be very different from the small entrepreneur.
KRANISH: Well, it goes to his overall belief - his overall belief as in the theory of, quote, "creative destruction," and that the private economy will find what works and what doesn't - and this is what led to the famous op-ed he wrote about the auto bailout, where it was headlined "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"- that that is part of what he believes in. And if you are a supporter of Mitt Romney that's something that, you know, you may well believe in yourself - that this idea that there's too much regulation and that business is not investing. There are certainly plenty of business people who would say, you know, that is the case and that they don't like all the regulation and that an overall change in lots of things, you know, would improve conditions. So that is really one of the fundamental questions in the election: Do you believe in Mitt Romney's philosophical view about this or do you believe in President Obama's? That's really, you know, one of the main things that people will be examining.
HELMAN: But I think a lot of this gets lost just in the talking points. I mean, you know, the fact is the capital gains rate is still very low, it has not been raised. President Obama has not raised that. You know, we talk about energy, you know, Obama has angered a lot of liberals by being open to drilling in and around this country. So there are plenty of things - it's easy for Romney and Republicans I think generally to say oh, you know, you know, business hates all the regulation and government is on their back and so forth. But the fact is, you know, there have been several things that have happened recently that have been favorable to business that Obama has either not changed or proposed himself. And but so I think it becomes kind of a crutch or a trope, if you will, to say, you know, Democrats love government, they hate business and it's, you know, that fits in a 30-second ad and that's how you vote.
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guests are Michael Kranish and Scott Helman. They both are with the Boston Globe. They're the authors of the book "The Real Romney," which has just been published in paperback with a new afterword.
Let's take a short break here, then we'll talk some more. This is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: We're talking about Mitt Romney with Michael Kranish and Scott Helman of the Boston Globe. Helman is a staff writer and former political editor at the Globe and was a lead writer on the 2008 presidential campaign. Michael Kranish is deputy chief of the Globe's Washington bureau and a former White House correspondent. Their book, "The Real Romney," has just been published in paperback with a new afterword, and they're covering the Republican Convention.
I want to ask you about Dr. Jack Wilkie. And he's the now 87-year-old doctor that apparently is the person who came up with the idea that Congressman Todd Akin quoted, which is that if a woman is raped that her body has a mechanism to shut down the sperm from fertilizing an egg. Now, Dr. Wilkie from what I've heard, had been a surrogate for Mitt Romney. Do you know much about Wilkie or his relationship to Romney?
HELMAN: I - this is Scott - I don't know much about Wilkie or his relationship. I'm trying to think if I ever saw them together in the last campaign and nothing comes to mind. I mean, what I will say...
GROSS: While you're thinking, I'm going to quote something...
HELMAN: Yeah. Sure.
GROSS: ...that Jack Wilkie wrote: Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant, a woman's body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain which is easily influenced by emotions. There's no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. And he goes on to write that women who report rape often do that - they often falsely claim rape. Anyway it's just...
HELMAN: I mean it sounds like...
GROSS: Yeah.
HELMAN: It sounds to me, you know, all those things sound like you're reading something from some, you know, 17th-century encyclopedia. I mean it's just amazing...
GROSS: It was 1971. Yeah.
HELMAN: Right. Exactly. I mean it's incredible, I think, some of the things people are saying about rape in 2012. One thing I will say that Romney, in the last campaign, you know, he really set out in that 2008 race to establish himself as the top candidate for social conservatives. I mean that was where the space was. When he looked at the race he saw Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, and John McCain, the senator from Arizona, they were the big boys in the center, if you will, in the Republican Party. There was no room for Mitt Romney there. Where there was room was on the right and that's why we see this real recalibration of Mitt Romney as a political figure because he had to fill that space. And in part of the effort that he went to to do that was to court people like this doctor and people like Joe Arpaio, the very rabidly anti-immigration sheriff in Phoenix.
HELMAN: I remember flying out with Romney when he did an event with Joe Arpaio. These were the people he was courting in that campaign. And, you know, we've seen him moderate that to some extent this time around, but I mean that just gives you a sense of the lengths that he went to to appeal to the hard right of the Republican Party.
KRANISH: And in this campaign, he has tried to back out, not change his position on that. He's already changed that position once. But he hasn't focused on it as much as he did in 2008. So for example when he wrote his book "No Apology," at the end he has a list of 64 action items, as he calls them, and abortion is not on the list.
He does talk about his anti-abortion views in the text of the book, but the fact that it's not on that list of 64 action items gives you a sense that they made a political calculation that there are certain social conservatives who would simply not support Mitt Romney and that they needed to focus more this time around on the economy.
So certainly, you know, he maintains his same position, but he hasn't focused on it in quite the same way that he did in 2008.
GROSS: Mitt Romney recently said in Michigan: No one ever asked me for my birth certificate. Were you surprised that he said that?
KRANISH: I was surprised, and the reason that I was surprised is that Mitt Romney has stayed away from this issue entirely. He well knows that there are plenty of other people in the party who are happy to take it on and that he can maintain his distance, although obviously he's appeared onstage with Donald Trump, who has endorsed him.
And the reason I was particularly surprised is that it was Mitt's father, George, who ran for president despite being born in Mexico and did not come to this country until he was five years old. At the time, his father's campaign took some questions about that, and it never really came to a complete conclusion because George dropped out before the first primary.
But I look back at newspaper stories from the time, and there were serious questions being raised about whether George was qualified, since he was born in Mexico and didn't come here until he was five, whether he could fit the definition of being a native-born citizen and so forth.
And their explanation was that George's parents had lived in the U.S. at a certain time and that he qualified under that. But I think he's been particularly sensitive because his father went through some of these same questions when his father ran for president.
GROSS: So doesn't Romney run the risk of having people, having journalists use that statement as an opportunity to go back to the George Romney question about whether he legitimately ran for president because he spent his first five years in Mexico where he was born, and in a community that was founded as a polygamist community so that they could have freedom of polygamy outside of the government of the United States?
KRANISH: Well, it's interesting. If you look back, Mitt Romney for many years didn't focus very much on the fact that his father was born in Mexico. In this campaign he's mentioned it a number of times, particularly before Hispanic audiences, mentioning that his father was born in Mexico, although his father obviously was not an Hispanic. But he's pointed that out, that there is some heritage in the family.
He certainly has not focused on the fact that his great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, established that colony to evade the laws against polygamy in this country. Mitt's father and Mitt's grandfather were not polygamists, but the colony was initially founded on that. And to this day there are Romneys, I've been to that colony in Mexico, there are quite a number of Romneys who still live in this colony, in a very beautiful part of Mexico about four hours from the U.S. border.
HELMAN: And I think there's a bigger risk, Terry, here, and that is that every time Mitt Romney does something like this, it just puts him more into this, you know, extremist camp within the Republican Party. I mean, this - Mitt Romney now should be focusing on the middle of the country, on independents. This is a group that he's done well with in the past. And yet we see him pushing himself further and further, I think, to the right.
And it's going to be really interesting to see how he tries to swing this back at the convention because to the extent that he's associated with the birther movement, and, you know, now he's picked in Paul Ryan someone who is very, very conservative not just on fiscal issues but also on women's issues, on abortion rights, somebody who has favored bills that allow no exceptions for rape or things like that, you know, this puts Mitt Romney exactly where President Obama and his team want him, which is in this far right of the Republican Party, out of the mainstream, somebody who cannot win a general election in the fall.
GROSS: The abortion question is actually kind of confusing now about where everybody stands. The party platform, the Republican Party platform, says that there should be no exceptions made for incest or rape. And Paul Ryan, who supports that and has sponsored legislation like that, defers to Romney. You know, Romney supports an exception in cases of rape or incest, but Paul Ryan, who doesn't, says, you know, Romney's the person who'd be president, it's about him, it's not about me. But the Republican Party is Ryan's position. So can you figure out what the position of a Romney administration would actually be?
HELMAN: Romney would, you know, be the one to - there is no tie-breaking. You're the president or the vice president. So Romney's position certainly would prevail. His position has been, and they've restated it this week despite the platform, that he has exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother and so forth.
So, you know, taking him at his word, that would be the policy of the Romney administration. Obviously that's a - you know, that is a limited position, certainly. So that seems to be where they would be headed with that.
KRANISH: But politically it's a disaster for them because Todd Akin's comments about what is rape and legitimate rape versus illegitimate rape, now you have the party platform, which takes a very hard line on abortion, and he's picked Paul Ryan, who in the past has voiced a very hard line on abortion.
This is exactly what Mitt Romney does not want to be talking about, because it's a risk on the right, because it reminds people of how firmly in support of abortion rights he once was in his - not very long ago. And it's a disaster on the left and certainly in the center because Mitt Romney wants to talk about the economy and how President Obama has failed and how it's time to fire him and get this country working again, all those slogans, and yet here we are trying to parse, you know, the party's views and his views on abortion.
And every moment that he has to spend talking about that is a losing moment for Mitt Romney.
GROSS: My guests are Boston Globe reporters Scott Helman and Michael Kranish, authors of "The Real Romney," which has just been published in paperback with a new afterword. We'll talk more after a break. This is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guests are Michael Kranish and Scott Helman. They both are with the Boston Globe, and they're authors of the new book "The Real Romney," it just came out in paperback with a new afterword.
So you're both covering the Republican convention. I'm just wondering, like, how do you like covering conventions?
HELMAN: I always wonder - Michael's more of a political junkie than I am, so I think he enjoys it a bit more, maybe, than I do. But I mean, it is theater, and I think it can be hard, but it's important to try to suss out the substance and try to figure out what the message is and what the policies are going to be and how it, you know, might differ from what President Obama would bring were he re-elected.
You know, as you know, logistically as a reporter, it's very, very difficult. The security is crazy. Now it looks like we're in for a few days of rain, which of course is going to be fantastic as we're all, you know, waiting in these long security lines. So, you know, it's fun on one hand, but I will also be happy when it's over.
KRANISH: Well, if I can add one thing, Terry, and that is going back to where we started, in 1964, Mitt was there when his father was at the epicenter of a war within the Republican Party that was exposed to all. And there was booing of Nelson Rockefeller when he gave a convention speech, and Barry Goldwater said extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
At this convention, certainly there are people who are - you know, disagree with Mitt Romney, but they're trying to do everything they possibly can to have one central, smooth message. They want to, you know, stifle any idea that there's great disagreement within the party after the brutal primaries. So that's what they're trying to do.
You know, clearly, you know, there are disagreements within the party, but they want to present a certain message. It's up to us to, you know, to make clear what's really going on beneath that surface.
GROSS: And what do you think are the major disagreements in the party that we won't see on stage?
KRANISH: Well, Ron Paul has a lot of supporters here. So a lot of those people are still active. They had a big event during the week. You know, there are people who are not terribly enthusiastic about Mitt Romney who are supporting him because he's the nominee, that some of them are more enthusiastic about Paul Ryan.
That's always the case. You know, you often have, you know, nominees that, you know, the party, some of the people are not enthusiastic about. They want to present it now that they're all unified coming out. They obviously want to rally their base. I mean, they have basically made the decision that this is in the large part a base election, and by that I mean that if they get out, you know, their strong supporters that they believe they can win.
There was some thought before Ryan was picked that they might have a strategy that looks a lot more to the middle, and they might have picked someone who's more moderate, and they hope that Paul Ryan can fill some of that. But the overall belief is that they basically have made the strategic decision that it's a base election that they can win by turning out their base, especially in key swing states.
GROSS: Well, I want to thank you both very much for joining us. Scott Helman, Michael Kranish, thank you. I hope you have a good convention in terms of finding very interesting things to write about and analyze. Be safe, be well, thank you so much.
KRANISH: Thank you, Terry.
HELMAN: Thanks for having us.
GROSS: Michael Kranish and Scott Helman are the authors of "The Real Romney." It's just been published in paperback with a new afterword. You can read an excerpt of the book on our website, freshair.npr.org. Or you can also download podcasts of our show. And you can follow us on Twitter @nprfreshair and on Tumblr at nprfreshair.tumblr.com.
Copyright © 2012 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio record.


text:
Be the first property to be listed on this page - instant online activation.
Click here to register >Ken Smith, Property 12069
You may want to consider these holiday rentals in other areas of Malaysia.
Stylish Fairlane Bukit Bintang In The Heart Of KL City - amazingly situated city apartment with first class facilities and amenities, fully equipped with everything you ever need for a comfortable and great stay.
If you are looking to visit or live in Kuala Lumpur for an extended period of time, the most convenient way to have a comfortable stay is to rent our studio that we called MyStudioMykingdom.
Welcome and stay at Amisha Vacation Homes. Nestled in a prestigious residential enclave, this boutique apartment is ideal for both business and leisure, and rated as the best township in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
5 * miami green A luxurious modern 3-bedroom apartment, with gorgeous uninterrupted views of beach and hills and extensive views over the large swimming pool . Facilities include; ADSL Wireless Internet services, Flat screen cable television includin
This 5 Star Sea Villa is built on stilts and is part of the luxurious Golden Palm Tree Resort and Spa. This is a 2 bed, 2 bath Canary Unit with full access to the award winning 5 star hotel facilities.
If you like to stay in Times Square Hotel but prefer something more personal at the fraction of the hotel's rates, come try out our fully furnished service suites instead! Same great views, room layout & facilities! Shopping & monorail are just below
Easily accessible with 24 hour security . KLIA-KLSentral-Gombak LRT Station. 5 minute walk to public transport systems (train, bus and taxi stations) . A famous eating place is located near the apartment
Beautifully located luxuriously fitted apartment with everything you could wish for a perfect holiday.
Diamond Residences Apartment is located about 3km from central of Kuala Lumpur City. The apartment is large, stylish and well furnished.
Value-for-money stay located within the prestigious neighbourhood and KL's Golden Triangle. It is within walking distance to KL Twin Towers and easily accessible to shopping malls, fine dining, local foodstalls, entertainment haven, banks, embassies
Refine your search results by specifying extra criteria below.


text:
November 14, 2016
Our goal at WhatsApp has always been to help as many people as possible stay in touch with friends, family, and others they care about. That means making a product that's simple, easy to use, and accessible no matter where you are. We started with messaging and Group Chat. Then we added voice calling. And we did it in a way that works across thousands of device and platform combinations all over the world.
Today we're excited to announce the next step in our efforts to connect people – WhatsApp video calling. In the coming days, WhatsApp's more than one billion users can make video calls across Android, iPhone, and Windows Phone devices.
We're introducing this feature because we know that sometimes voice and text just aren't enough. There's no substitute for watching your grandchild take her first steps, or seeing your daughter's face while she's studying abroad. And we want to make these features available to everyone, not just those who can afford the most expensive new phones or live in countries with the best cellular networks.
Over the years we've received many requests from our users for video calling, and we're excited to finally offer this feature to the world. Thank you for using WhatsApp and we promise to keep working hard every day to improve the service.


text:
I am a huge fan of dips ! I like dips of all sorts and among my favorites are bean based dips and cheese based dips. Not too long ago I came across a baked bean dip or a santa fe bean dip on Eating Well Living Thin that had both beans and cheese in it and I just had to try it! The beans in this dip come in the form of refried beans and I made my own using black beans. Refried beans are typically cooked in lard or bacon fat which I did not have on hand so I just cooked up some bacon and left the bacon in the beans which added a ton of bacony goodness to the dip. The cheese in this dip comes from both cream cheese and grated cheese and I used a combination of cheddar and monterrey jack. In addition to the cheese the dip is made extra creamy by adding some sour cream. This bean dip is flavoured with taco seasoning and once again I made my own blend. Of course you couldn't have a texmex dip like this without some heat so there are some chopped green chilies and salsa in there for good measure. Finally, this bean dip is taken over the edge by baking it to melt all of the cheese into a gooey mess and meld all of the flavours together. This hot cheesy bean dip was so addictively good! I tried some too soon after it came out of the oven and I was immediately hooked and continued eating despite the fact that I was huffing and puffing to cool my mouth down. Needless to say, the dip disappeared really quickly and I will have to make some more soon.
Hot Cheesy Bean Dip
- 2 cups refried beans
- 4 ounces cream cheese (room temperature)
- 1 cup sour cream
- 1/2 cup green onions (sliced)
- 2 tablespoons taco seasoning
- 2/3 cup salsa (extra liquid drained)
- 1 4 ounce can diced green chilies (drained)
- 1 cup cheese (grated)
- Mix everything, place in a baking dish and bake in a preheated 350F/180C oven until it is bubbling on the sides and golden brown on top, about 45-60 minutes.
Black Bean Guacamole
Jalapeno Popper Dip
7 Layer Dip
Hot Cheesy Corn Dip
Jalapeno Spiced Black Beans
Cilantro and Lime Refried Beans
Cheesy Margherita Pizza Hummus with Pesto Pita Chips
Cheesy Bacon Black Bean Dip
Roasted Garlic and Parmesan White Bean Dip
Chili Cheese Dip
Taco Egg Casserole


text:
WASHINGTON – Commission Co-Chairman Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) today called upon the authorities of the Russian city of St. Petersburg to act immediately to prevent the murder of Inga Ivanova, director of the Prins Maurits school of Open Christianity.
"Local officials must intervene immediately to prevent another murder similar to that of human rights activist and Duma member Galina Starovoitova," said Smith. "Great issues are at stake here for the Russian people. Are they to be at the mercy of thugs and brigands, or live in a nation of law and justice? It is up to the current officials to insure that it is the latter."
Smith was referring to recent alarming reports that on the night of February 17 Inga Ivanova was seized by three men, pulled into a car and threatened with death if she continued to fight for the legal right to keep the building where the school is located. Fearing for her life, Ivanova fled to the Netherlands. Earlier, on the evening of February 17, St. Petersburg television had aired a program depicting the school with its 150 children and the 40 students of the pedagogical academy as being run by "sects" and representing a threat to Russian society.
"Who runs St. Petersburg, the law or the criminals?" asked Smith. "The armed threats on the life of Inga Ivanova over a piece of property are another indication that the civil authorities have abdicated their responsibilities to protect life and have turned the streets over to criminal elements. One would think that with the still unsolved murder of Galina Starovoitova last year, and with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly scheduled to meet this July in St. Petersburg, city authorities would struggle to prevent letting thugs run rampant in the city. I urge Governor Yakovlev to stop these threats against Inga Ivanova, find the purveyors of this assault and bring the parties guilty of this latest outrage to justice."
The Open Christianity school was established in the early 1990s as an ecumenical private school. According to records provided by Ivanova, the building that houses the school was given "in perpetuity" to the Open Christianity organization by city officials under the condition that the building be restored. Volunteers from the Netherlands, United States and Russia have assisted in the restoration. Nevertheless, city officials are now trying to seize the building for alleged breach of contract, sending police to forcibly seize the premises.


text:
Taylor Swift Frog SVG, Taylor Swift Frog You Belong With Me Outfit SVG, Funny Taylor Swift SVG PNG EPS DXF
♥Welcome to SVGDUCKIE studio♥
Are you looking for original and cute high quality clip art images to use in your projects? You've come to the right place!!
You can use them for tshirts, scrapbooks, wall vinyls, stickers, invitations cards, web and more! Perfect for T-shirts, iron-ons, mugs, printables, card making, scrapbooking, etc.
This listing is for an INSTANT DOWNLOAD of SVaG files. Please note that no physical product will be shipped to you.
Includes 4 files: SVG, PNG, EPS, DXF:
– SVG: Cricut Design Space, Silhouette Studio DESIGNER Edition and other compatible cutting software
– PNG: high resolution and transparent background, used for clipart, Direct To Garment products (digital printing), Sublimation, Cards, framed prints, shirts, coffee mugs, pillows, wall art, stationary, Waterslide products, etc.
– DXF: high resolution, perfect for print and many more
– EPS: high resolution, perfect for print, Design and many more
Your files will be ready to download immediately after your purchase. You will receive the download link (no watermark on purchased files) via your email or Svgduckie account. More information about Svgduckie downloads can be found here: Instructions for Downloading
NOTE about Taylor Swift Frog SVG:
– Due to the digital nature of the file, there will be no refund.
– Please make sure you have the right software required and knowledge to use this graphic before making your purchase.
– We have done our best to realize the true color of this file but resolution may vary from screen to screen and printer to printer.
Customer service and satisfaction is our top priority. If you have any questions before placing orders, please contact our first through (firstname.lastname@example.com) email. We will reply to you as soon as possible to resolve any issue and answer questions.
If you have a Specific Awareness Design you would like made, Just message me! I will be more then glad to create a Custom Order for you.
All rights reserved.
All designs are ©svgduckie.com