Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Methane Hydrate Club] Re: Do we have a Linda in the E. Pac?

Expand Messages
  • David
    ... Everybody has their own ideas of how they d like to see things done, scientists included. ... road ... Road fascism?? Now there s a term I will admit I
    Message 1 of 19 , Nov 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > What is that agenda in reference to climate?
      >
      Everybody has their own ideas of how they'd like to see things done,
      scientists included.

      > She does so at fundraisers sponsered by huge multi billion dollar
      > corporations. She supports bad science and the machinary behind
      road
      > fascism.

      Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never heard
      before. Please explain that to me!
    • Mike Doran
      ... Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. And no one is charged to use them. There is a gas tax, but it covers only about 1/3 of the costs
      Message 2 of 19 , Nov 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        > Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never heard
        > before. Please explain that to me!

        Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US.

        And no one is charged to use them.

        There is a gas tax, but it covers only about 1/3 of the costs of new
        roads and repair. The rest comes out of the general fund. Of
        course, the tax doesn't touch our defense spending for wars for oil
        and so forth.

        The roads are not just land but improvements. Those improvements are
        expensive. And since the gas tax only covers 1/3 of the costs, much
        comes out of the general taxpayers funds. It is socialist/fascist--
        not a free market deal. Now, even though, for instance, the 1998
        Highway Bill was 219 billion, the largest ever by a factor of 4 and
        that is just the Feds, it doesn't really capture the lay out of
        capital over at least a hundred years on our road system. And, most
        importantly, does not figure what are roads are worth as a system.

        It should further be pointed out that cost and value for use are two
        completely different things. Example. You own a home. If you tell
        me I can live in the home for my pro rata share of 1/3 the cost of a
        new room and repairs to the living room--but nothing more AND there
        are to be 100 people living their, my pro rata share is small. And
        your house is full.

        This is the reason for gridlock, and for SUVs and rising gas milage
        despite better technology. It is the simple fact that roads are a
        HIGHLY subsidized part of our lives--far and away the
        largest "government" asset. We think nothing of the fact that our
        culture is dominated by roads now.

        But it is a subsidy with social force. In 1960, like I said, 60
        percent of the US was city or small town. That is 1960 Census data.
        The most recent Census data has it at 60% in the burbs now. Recent
        studies show US citizens drive TWICE as much in just the past 10
        years. Our families are more apt to break up, and interestingly,
        women are less happy then they were in the 1970s when we drove less.
        I think men don't mind the drive as much but women are killed
        socially by their greater inability to be central figures in
        the "household" any more because of the greater and greater amount of
        time American families spred from their homes.

        Low density growth is the result, and it causes rot in the cities and
        small towns. The tax base decreases, social services like education
        are diminished. It is true that there is growth in the new burbs,
        but that growth is not planned nor will it be prepared to deal with
        the longer term issues like Hubbert's peak. And it is a growth
        pattern that cannot be sustained.

        My thing with this subsidy and transfer of wealth is that the roads
        as a monopoly is actaully a much larger subsidy then one would think
        at first blush. That is because the whole system has incredible
        economic meaning, from truckers to commuters who live in a rich area
        and work in a high density, poor area, further causing class
        differences between wealthy and poor, between thos living in low
        density areas and those living in high density areas. I think the
        whole system is worth about 10 trillion dollars, so even to provide
        roads at tolls with simple interest at mind would lead to 1 trillion
        in tolls, which comes done to thousands per American. This kind of
        cost reflection would drive down driving. We wouldn't as a culture
        be as apt to build large homes in the middle of no where and drive
        from them in 4,000 pound SUVs to return a 5 ounce video. This is an
        incredibly wasteful use of energy.

        Fascism is the only way to describe the politics of these roads--why
        we would want to continue a subsidy that is so short sighted from and
        ecological and economic standpoint.
      • David
        ... Of course I m charged to use them! I pay a registration fee for my car, I pay a road maintenance fee when I pay my property taxes, and I pay gasoline tax,
        Message 3 of 19 , Nov 7, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
          >
          > > Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never heard
          > > before. Please explain that to me!
          >
          > Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US.
          >
          > And no one is charged to use them.
          >

          Of course I'm charged to use them! I pay a registration fee for my
          car, I pay a road maintenance fee when I pay my property taxes, and I
          pay gasoline tax, all of which go to road building and maintencance.


          >
          > But it is a subsidy with social force. In 1960, like I said, 60
          > percent of the US was city or small town. That is 1960 Census data.
          > The most recent Census data has it at 60% in the burbs now. Recent
          > studies show US citizens drive TWICE as much in just the past 10
          > years. Our families are more apt to break up, and interestingly,
          > women are less happy then they were in the 1970s when we drove less.
          > I think men don't mind the drive as much but women are killed
          > socially by their greater inability to be central figures in
          > the "household" any more because of the greater and greater amount of
          > time American families spred from their homes.

          So where does that put me? I work out of town during the week, and I
          drive 400 miles to get home on the weekends (although I should be able
          to start flying very soon, thank goodness). I live just outside of
          the city limits of a small town (30,000 people). Am I causing rot in
          the cities? Should I have to pay thousands in road user fees? Would
          you keep me from getting home to my wife?

          >
          > Low density growth is the result, and it causes rot in the cities and
          > small towns. The tax base decreases, social services like education
          > are diminished. It is true that there is growth in the new burbs,
          > but that growth is not planned nor will it be prepared to deal with
          > the longer term issues like Hubbert's peak. And it is a growth
          > pattern that cannot be sustained.

          Shall we play the chicken-and-the egg thing? People went to the
          suburbs because of the fact that the big cities were already in
          serious decline. People wanted lower crime rates, lower taxes, and
          better schools for their children. Why is any of that bad?
        • Mike Doran
          ... heard ... I ... You only pay for about 1/3 of the cost of them through those taxes. But this differs from a use fee. While it is true to some degree that
          Message 4 of 19 , Nov 8, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
            > --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
            > >
            > > > Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never
            heard
            > > > before. Please explain that to me!
            > >
            > > Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US.
            > >
            > > And no one is charged to use them.
            > >
            >
            > Of course I'm charged to use them! I pay a registration fee for my
            > car, I pay a road maintenance fee when I pay my property taxes, and
            I
            > pay gasoline tax, all of which go to road building and maintencance.
            >
            >

            You only pay for about 1/3 of the cost of them through those taxes.
            But this differs from a use fee. While it is true to some degree
            that the more you drive the more gas tax you pay, if you break it
            down the cents you pay for gas is insignificant compared to how large
            the subsidy is for using a government asset for free.


            > >
            > > But it is a subsidy with social force. In 1960, like I said, 60
            > > percent of the US was city or small town. That is 1960 Census
            data.
            > > The most recent Census data has it at 60% in the burbs now.
            Recent
            > > studies show US citizens drive TWICE as much in just the past 10
            > > years. Our families are more apt to break up, and interestingly,
            > > women are less happy then they were in the 1970s when we drove
            less.
            > > I think men don't mind the drive as much but women are killed
            > > socially by their greater inability to be central figures in
            > > the "household" any more because of the greater and greater
            amount of
            > > time American families spred from their homes.
            >
            > So where does that put me? I work out of town during the week, and
            I
            > drive 400 miles to get home on the weekends (although I should be
            able
            > to start flying very soon, thank goodness). I live just outside of
            > the city limits of a small town (30,000 people). Am I causing rot
            in
            > the cities? Should I have to pay thousands in road user fees?

            Without question the subsidy allows you to have the job you have and
            live where you live. You know, I was studying a rare tornado that
            occurred in Salt Lake City in 1999 and looking at first why tornadoes
            were rare there and why one occurred. Turns out that there are
            mountains and the Great Salt Lake, which may have some EMF
            characteristics that inhibits tornadoes. In any event, what I
            learned is that south of the City are 20 small towns--that today have
            sprawed into a seemless web of suburbia. It is like that across the
            US.


            Would
            > you keep me from getting home to my wife?
            >

            That is an unfair question. The better question I will have you
            answer. Do you think free food in the Soviet Union was a good idea?


            > >
            > > Low density growth is the result, and it causes rot in the cities
            and
            > > small towns. The tax base decreases, social services like
            education
            > > are diminished. It is true that there is growth in the new
            burbs,
            > > but that growth is not planned nor will it be prepared to deal
            with
            > > the longer term issues like Hubbert's peak. And it is a growth
            > > pattern that cannot be sustained.
            >
            > Shall we play the chicken-and-the egg thing? People went to the
            > suburbs because of the fact that the big cities were already in
            > serious decline. People wanted lower crime rates, lower taxes, and
            > better schools for their children. Why is any of that bad?

            Because it comes from the subsidy with the cost of making it worse
            for those who do live in higher density areas. And it isn't
            sustainable--indeed already the economy is feeling it and we haven't
            had the impact of Hubbert's peak or serious climate change from our
            activity . . . yet. And mostly because there IS a social cost to
            road fascism.

            BTW, if roads were tolled you could eliminate other taxes. Sure it
            would discourage driving, but do you honestly think it makes any
            sense to drive a 4,000 pound SUV to return that 5 ounce video?
            Really?
          • David
            ... And its a good thing too, or I would be unemployed. Been there, done that, couldn t afford the t-shirt. ... Uhhh, you lost me. What does that have to do
            Message 5 of 19 , Nov 8, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              > Without question the subsidy allows you to have the job you have and
              > live where you live.

              And its a good thing too, or I would be unemployed. Been there, done
              that, couldn't afford the t-shirt.


              > Would
              > > you keep me from getting home to my wife?
              > >
              >
              > That is an unfair question. The better question I will have you
              > answer. Do you think free food in the Soviet Union was a good idea?
              >

              Uhhh, you lost me. What does that have to do with roads?


              > Because it comes from the subsidy with the cost of making it worse
              > for those who do live in higher density areas. And it isn't
              > sustainable--indeed already the economy is feeling it and we haven't
              > had the impact of Hubbert's peak or serious climate change from our
              > activity . . . yet. And mostly because there IS a social cost to
              > road fascism.

              Well, I live in the largest city in my part of the state! It really
              isn't big enough to have suburbs, so I guess that's not a good
              example. So, let's take where I am working, which is in the
              Washington, DC area. There are definitely a LOT of suburbs here. In
              fact, I stay in one suburb (Chantilly, VA), and work in another
              (Reston, VA). So what would you have us do? Every leave the suburb
              towns and move to DC proper? That would be impossible! There's no
              way there would be enough housing to hold all the people, never mind
              the fact that many of the jobs are in the suburbs as well. You're
              assuming that everybody commutes to the "big city" to work. That
              isn't always the case.
              >
              > BTW, if roads were tolled you could eliminate other taxes.

              Yeah, you would eliminate a lot of driving. You would also eliminate
              people's ability to get to their jobs, schools, etc.

              >but do you honestly think it makes any
              > sense to drive a 4,000 pound SUV to return that 5 ounce video?
              > Really?

              No, of course it doesn't make sense to drive that way. No argument there.
            • Mike Doran
              ... and ... done ... Sadly, as Hubbert s peak digs in to this economy based on cheap fossil fuels and MASSIVE subsidies that encourages driving powered on that
              Message 6 of 19 , Nov 9, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
                >
                > > Without question the subsidy allows you to have the job you have
                and
                > > live where you live.
                >
                > And its a good thing too, or I would be unemployed. Been there,
                done
                > that, couldn't afford the t-shirt.
                >

                Sadly, as Hubbert's peak digs in to this economy based on cheap
                fossil fuels and MASSIVE subsidies that encourages driving powered on
                that cheap fuel, I don't think you or I understand the meaning of
                unemployment.

                >
                > > Would
                > > > you keep me from getting home to my wife?
                > > >
                > >
                > > That is an unfair question. The better question I will have you
                > > answer. Do you think free food in the Soviet Union was a good
                idea?
                > >
                >
                > Uhhh, you lost me. What does that have to do with roads?
                >

                The free food socialism--or subsidy based farming, did not work.
                Lines for food were long (gridlock) and soon the food was gone. A
                black market evolved (pols on the dole from big oil like Bush for
                wars for oil, more roads, etc). A lack of market leads to
                corruption.

                >
                > > Because it comes from the subsidy with the cost of making it
                worse
                > > for those who do live in higher density areas. And it isn't
                > > sustainable--indeed already the economy is feeling it and we
                haven't
                > > had the impact of Hubbert's peak or serious climate change from
                our
                > > activity . . . yet. And mostly because there IS a social cost to
                > > road fascism.
                >
                > Well, I live in the largest city in my part of the state! It really
                > isn't big enough to have suburbs, so I guess that's not a good
                > example. So, let's take where I am working, which is in the
                > Washington, DC area. There are definitely a LOT of suburbs here.
                In
                > fact, I stay in one suburb (Chantilly, VA), and work in another
                > (Reston, VA). So what would you have us do? Every leave the suburb
                > towns and move to DC proper? That would be impossible! There's no
                > way there would be enough housing to hold all the people, never mind
                > the fact that many of the jobs are in the suburbs as well. You're
                > assuming that everybody commutes to the "big city" to work. That
                > isn't always the case.

                Certainly you have captured the reason the economy is now slowing.
                We have reached the end of the subsidy in terms of wealth transfers
                from high density areas to low. Look at it this way. In the Soviet
                Union, there were probably some people who could not afford food. To
                them, free food was good. And to the farmer who was paid to grow the
                food for the government, that was work for them as well. But with
                the whole market false, soon supply and demand was all messed up and
                you had bread lines, shortages, cheaters on the supply side, and a
                black market for farming, and inefficiecies growing the food for a
                false market. With road fascism, we are starting to see that suburbs
                are growing so fast that they lack infrastructure that towns have,
                like sidewalks, water, fire, and even nearby healthcare. The suburbs
                are starting to lack infrastucture AND, here is the most critical
                point, what infrastructure they do have is based soley on the
                assumption of cheap fossil fuels. The economic consequences are
                frightening, because we now largely have a false market that faces
                shortages on the assumptions upon which it is based. If any kind of
                political or economy monopoly occurs with the supplying nations of
                oil, it could get even worse.


                > >
                > > BTW, if roads were tolled you could eliminate other taxes.
                >
                > Yeah, you would eliminate a lot of driving. You would also
                eliminate
                > people's ability to get to their jobs, schools, etc.
                >

                See above. The question isn't whether this is a hard choice, but
                whether to make the choice with planning and with time so that its
                impace isn't devistating. Sometimes false market problems are solved
                with more false markets. EG subsidizing the heck out of renewables.
                But for the suburban power in governemnt to take the position that
                they are the power that is against false markets, against the
                government involved in their lives is a LIE--just like his daddy,
                read my lips. Big lie. Effective lie, really. The roads ARE
                government, its largest part. To not regulate them, incorporate them
                in a regulated market economy is short sighted and wrong.

                > >but do you honestly think it makes any
                > > sense to drive a 4,000 pound SUV to return that 5 ounce video?
                > > Really?
                >
                > No, of course it doesn't make sense to drive that way. No argument
                there.

                Tolls and other solutions to address the false market won't eliminate
                all driving or cause job losses everywhere, but rather will prevent
                this kind of madness and help us face the future shortages and market
                as we near Hubbert's peak. To go the other way, as the Bush
                administration is doing, to sell out to these special interests of
                big oil, is to put the fire out with gasoline. Very scary.

                BTW, Dave, don't take this personal. I think you are really cool.
              • David
                ... Well, I think it depends on how well planned the suburbs are. Many of them do have the infrastructure you mention. Speaking of subsidies, how about the
                Message 7 of 19 , Nov 11, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Certainly you have captured the reason the economy is now slowing.
                  > We have reached the end of the subsidy in terms of wealth transfers
                  > from high density areas to low. Look at it this way. In the Soviet
                  > Union, there were probably some people who could not afford food. To
                  > them, free food was good. And to the farmer who was paid to grow the
                  > food for the government, that was work for them as well. But with
                  > the whole market false, soon supply and demand was all messed up and
                  > you had bread lines, shortages, cheaters on the supply side, and a
                  > black market for farming, and inefficiecies growing the food for a
                  > false market. With road fascism, we are starting to see that suburbs
                  > are growing so fast that they lack infrastructure that towns have,
                  > like sidewalks, water, fire, and even nearby healthcare.

                  Well, I think it depends on how well planned the suburbs are. Many of
                  them do have the infrastructure you mention. Speaking of subsidies,
                  how about the ones that pay the farmers NOT to grow certain crops in
                  order to keep the prices artificially high?! ARGH!!

                  > The suburbs
                  > are starting to lack infrastucture AND, here is the most critical
                  > point, what infrastructure they do have is based soley on the
                  > assumption of cheap fossil fuels. The economic consequences are
                  > frightening, because we now largely have a false market that faces
                  > shortages on the assumptions upon which it is based. If any kind of
                  > political or economy monopoly occurs with the supplying nations of
                  > oil, it could get even worse.

                  I do agree with you here to a large extent. Part of the US interest
                  in the Middle East centers around oil. No doubt about that. We've
                  gotten ourselves into a position where we don't have a choice. Its
                  either keep that cheap oil coming in or risk economic collapse. The
                  sad thing is that the US has enough oil reserves to be self-sufficient
                  on oil if all oil-bearing regions were opened to exploration. We've
                  got a large number of capped-off oil wells, too. Its cheaper to
                  import oil than it is to pump our own out of the ground.

                  > Tolls and other solutions to address the false market won't eliminate
                  > all driving or cause job losses everywhere, but rather will prevent
                  > this kind of madness and help us face the future shortages and market
                  > as we near Hubbert's peak. To go the other way, as the Bush
                  > administration is doing, to sell out to these special interests of
                  > big oil, is to put the fire out with gasoline. Very scary.

                  I disagree. If you start putting tolls in the amount of thousands of
                  dollars per person per year on roads, it will have a devastating
                  effect. How can the average person even afford to get to work, let
                  alone anything else??

                  >
                  > BTW, Dave, don't take this personal. I think you are really cool.

                  Thanks! Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally!
                • Mike Doran
                  The wealth transfers from rich to poor come directly BUSH-CHENEY: THE FIRST 20 MONTHS Inauguration Day Now Change Dow Jones 10.587 7.986 Down 32.5%
                  Message 8 of 19 , Nov 11, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The wealth transfers from rich to poor come directly

                    BUSH-CHENEY: THE FIRST 20 MONTHS
                    Inauguration Day Now Change
                    Dow Jones 10.587 7.986 Down 32.5%
                    Unemployment Rate 4.2 5.7 Up 36%
                    Budget $281b Surplus $157b Deficit Squandered
                    Jobs 111.7 million 109.6 million Loss of 2.1 Million

                    or indirectly through population density and the investment in roads.
                    The problem is we are reaching the point where even on cheap fuel the
                    economy can have sustained growth.

                    I am one who thinks our addiction to cheap oil with tolls over time
                    would NOT hurt the economy as much as you think but concentrate it
                    and change its character to infact make us LESS dependant on a
                    foriegn resource. A false market leads to a number of problems, the
                    least of which, as we discuss here, is changes to biological
                    feedbacks.

                    Speaking of which--check out this link:


                    http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/yesterday_prt.html

                    The severe weather matched the strike activity and really kicked in
                    as the front went above the Gaia active GOM. Now the strike activity
                    is along the Atlantic coast and I'll bet you are getting strikes.

                    Indeed, the solar activity matched well with that trough and the Gaia
                    conditions and the positive SOI . . .
                    --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
                    >
                    > > Certainly you have captured the reason the economy is now
                    slowing.
                    > > We have reached the end of the subsidy in terms of wealth
                    transfers
                    > > from high density areas to low. Look at it this way. In the
                    Soviet
                    > > Union, there were probably some people who could not afford
                    food. To
                    > > them, free food was good. And to the farmer who was paid to grow
                    the
                    > > food for the government, that was work for them as well. But
                    with
                    > > the whole market false, soon supply and demand was all messed up
                    and
                    > > you had bread lines, shortages, cheaters on the supply side, and
                    a
                    > > black market for farming, and inefficiecies growing the food for
                    a
                    > > false market. With road fascism, we are starting to see that
                    suburbs
                    > > are growing so fast that they lack infrastructure that towns
                    have,
                    > > like sidewalks, water, fire, and even nearby healthcare.
                    >
                    > Well, I think it depends on how well planned the suburbs are. Many
                    of
                    > them do have the infrastructure you mention. Speaking of subsidies,
                    > how about the ones that pay the farmers NOT to grow certain crops in
                    > order to keep the prices artificially high?! ARGH!!
                    >
                    > > The suburbs
                    > > are starting to lack infrastucture AND, here is the most critical
                    > > point, what infrastructure they do have is based soley on the
                    > > assumption of cheap fossil fuels. The economic consequences are
                    > > frightening, because we now largely have a false market that
                    faces
                    > > shortages on the assumptions upon which it is based. If any kind
                    of
                    > > political or economy monopoly occurs with the supplying nations
                    of
                    > > oil, it could get even worse.
                    >
                    > I do agree with you here to a large extent. Part of the US interest
                    > in the Middle East centers around oil. No doubt about that. We've
                    > gotten ourselves into a position where we don't have a choice. Its
                    > either keep that cheap oil coming in or risk economic collapse. The
                    > sad thing is that the US has enough oil reserves to be self-
                    sufficient
                    > on oil if all oil-bearing regions were opened to exploration. We've
                    > got a large number of capped-off oil wells, too. Its cheaper to
                    > import oil than it is to pump our own out of the ground.
                    >
                    > > Tolls and other solutions to address the false market won't
                    eliminate
                    > > all driving or cause job losses everywhere, but rather will
                    prevent
                    > > this kind of madness and help us face the future shortages and
                    market
                    > > as we near Hubbert's peak. To go the other way, as the Bush
                    > > administration is doing, to sell out to these special interests
                    of
                    > > big oil, is to put the fire out with gasoline. Very scary.
                    >
                    > I disagree. If you start putting tolls in the amount of thousands
                    of
                    > dollars per person per year on roads, it will have a devastating
                    > effect. How can the average person even afford to get to work, let
                    > alone anything else??
                    >
                    > >
                    > > BTW, Dave, don't take this personal. I think you are really cool.
                    >
                    > Thanks! Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally!
                  • David
                    ... And for this, please send your thank-you letter to Clinton/Gore. The recession (or whatever you want to call it) was already in full stride when Bush took
                    Message 9 of 19 , Nov 11, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
                      > The wealth transfers from rich to poor come directly
                      >
                      > BUSH-CHENEY: THE FIRST 20 MONTHS
                      > Inauguration Day Now Change
                      > Dow Jones 10.587 7.986 Down 32.5%
                      > Unemployment Rate 4.2 5.7 Up 36%
                      > Budget $281b Surplus $157b Deficit Squandered
                      > Jobs 111.7 million 109.6 million Loss of 2.1 Million

                      And for this, please send your thank-you letter to Clinton/Gore. The
                      recession (or whatever you want to call it) was already in full
                      stride when Bush took office. The "surplus" never existed anywhere
                      except on paper, and it was based on sustaining a certain economic
                      growth rate. Again, another wonderful Clinton/Gore trick.

                      > http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/yesterday_prt.html
                      >
                      > The severe weather matched the strike activity and really kicked in
                      > as the front went above the Gaia active GOM. Now the strike
                      activity
                      > is along the Atlantic coast and I'll bet you are getting strikes.
                      >
                      > Indeed, the solar activity matched well with that trough and the
                      Gaia
                      > conditions and the positive SOI . . .

                      If you mean by "strikes" severe weather, we sure got it. According
                      to CNN, more than 50 tornados touched down throughout the east. 35
                      killed, and a bunch more unaccounted for. Nasty.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.