Archive for February, 2008

So I was reading Wil Wheaton’s blog again, and it contained some good advice, that Shane had given me about a year ago, and I haven’t been able to to in a political blog just yet. I just feel some compelling need to back up what I am saying with research, references and links. I need to work on letting that go, well sometimes. Here is the advice:

Back in the days when Tony Pierce wasn’t spending his time trolling his own commenters and generating controversy for the sake of building page views, he wrote a fantastic post about avoiding blogging burn out, which was something we were all talking about in those days when we were all sort of defining what blogging was and wasn’t, making it up as we went along (but not admitting that we were.) I forget exactly what the advice was (and it’s all massively awesome advice that should be required reading for everyone — including Tony, today — who aspires to do more than talk about their cats with their blog) but it can be distilled down to a couple of things: write what you want to, write what’s on your mind, and don’t worry about who is reading it. It’s such simple and logical advice, but clearly isn’t easy to absorb and put into practice, because I need to remind myself about it at least twice a year.

Here goes nothing:

So what has been on my mind lately, is the DNC’s complaint against the McCain campaign. I got an email from the DNC earlier this week, (thanks to an old high school buddy signing me up for their emailing list) asking to to sign on. I didn’t, but I agree with the complaint. It takes me back about a year and a half ago, when I filed my own FEC complaint. The situations have parallels.

You see, back during the Burns and Tester election, I spent quite a bit of time driving around the state and going to their debates. At one in Butte in September of 2006, there was a reserved section of seating offered by the Montana Standard for a cosponsor of the event, the Resodyn Corp. I won’t get into the nitty gritty, but basically the FEC complaint was dismissed, because Resodyn never actually issued a check to the Montana Standard for cosponsoring the event. Money never changed hands, but a promise of the money was out there. The Montana Standard offered a benefit to Resodyn, in turn for offering to cosponsor the debate. In my opinion, Resodyn definitely got a benefit of reserved seating at a debate where the line of citizens waiting to get in went around the block. I think the FEC decision might have followed the letter of the law, but completely abandoned the spirit.

McCain filed with the FEC to become qualified for Federal Matching Campaign funds, and was approved with the FEC. While he has never taken any of the FEC money, it is alleged that he used the fact that he was approved for those funds, to secure a loan for campaign moneys. Now McCain is trying to back out of the whole mess, so that he has some money to spend on campaigning between now and the Republican Convention. So once again, money never changed hands, but if McCain used the Matching Funds as collateral for the loan, then he definitely got a benefit from that promise. Is it really right or fair to allow him to back out of the spending limits?

I am someone who marks that little box on my tax return every year, designating $3 of my taxes to this presidential campaign fund. I do it because I think elections should be publicly funded. Do I think it is right for someone to obtain a benefit from that program I pay into, without having to follow the the spirit of the rules associated with it? Of course not. Especially by someone who has worked for Campaign Finance Reform. I can only hope that the intention of the laws are followed, as we watch the outcome of the DNC’s complaint.

85 MILLION DOLLARS…This is WAY TO MUCH for running for a national office.
35 MILLION for Hillary
50 MILLION for Obama

Keep in mind this is JUST for February 2008. I can’t even imagine the overall totals but this is just crazy.

All of this and that does NOT include all of the others who have or will fall by the wayside. This is MONEY that could well have been a lot better spent on the Americans that REALLY need it!

And don’t forget this is ONLY the Democratic Party numbers…Add in the other side, the Republicans, and I’d imagine that the tally goes even higher!

I guess America is FOR SALE isn’t it?

This is a shame and that is an unfortunate reality in American politics

Disclaimer: The above numbers are subject to change and are from blog-sphere sites. Either way, that is some 1 MILLION DOLLARS a day….Nice payday huh?

I missed this one earlier, but it looks like Steve Daines is Brown’s running mate in the upcoming gubernatorial election. We all know Daines as the exec from Bozeman’s Right Now Tech and the creator of the give it back campaign. It was rumored that was a prelude to his own gubernatorial run. Close enough anyway.

Already though, Daine’s is providing some curious quotes:

“We have school shortfalls,” Daines said. “We have to make the pie bigger for the revenue for public education. Montana hasn’t accelerated our resource industry like some states have. We want to shift some of the burden from taxpayers to new energy developments.”

Aren’t there enough politicians in Montana pushing for increased energy development? Let’s be serious, the current governor is doing this quiet well. If Daines were for real, and not just pandering to the exploitation crowed, wouldn’t you expect him to push for increasing Montana’s tech industry? Isn’t that really his area of expertise abd he area he should be speaking on? Unless he is just echoing Roy Brown that is. But no. He says he is not:

“I’m too much of a Type A leader to be relegated to a role of ribbon-cutting and ceremonies,” Daines said. “What excites me about having Roy and me is you really get two people who have demonstrated leadership records in the business world of creating jobs.”

Don’t know what I was thinking.

Looks like BP’s coal-bed methane project in the North Flathead in Canada is dead. Some good work by Max Baucus, as well as several citizen’s groups, convinced BP to back off of this mess.

BP plans for methane projects in the Elk River Valley in the Lake Koocanusa drainage are still alive though as are Cline Mining’s plans for coal mining in the Flathead drainage. There is much yet to be done. From an email from Max’s office:

Baucus is working to make sure coal-bed methane is never developed in the North Fork. However, right now BP is still moving forward with a coal-bed methane development in the Elk River Valley, which drains into Montana’s Lake Koocanusa. In addition Cline Mining Corporation is still looking into efforts to develop a coal mine in the region.

“We’re fighting the coal mine just as much as we’re fighting coal-bed methane,” said Baucus. “We’ve won an important battle, but we haven’t won the war yet. I won’t rest until the Flathead is completely protected.”

To protect the Elk River Valley from increased pollution, Baucus is urging the Canadian Federal government to do a full federal level environmental assessment of the project before the first test well is drilled.

You can find out more here.

I sent Max an email of thanks. Will you?

I just wanted to point out a very positive gesture on the part of Republican John McCain, after disparaging remarks about Barrack Obama were made by one of his supporters:

“I apologize for it,” McCain told reporters, addressing the issue before they had a chance to ask the Arizona senator about Cunningham’s comments.

“I did not know about these remarks, but I take responsibility for them. I repudiate them,” he said. “My entire campaign I have treated Senator Obama and Senator (Hillary Rodham) Clinton with respect. I will continue to do that throughout this campaign.”

McCain called both Democrats “honorable Americans” and said, “I want to dissociate myself with any disparaging remarks that may have been said about them.”

Asked whether the use of Obama’s middle name — the same as former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein — is proper, McCain said: “No, it is not. Any comment that is disparaging of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is totally inappropriate.”

Good for McCain.

Well, it seemed time to start looking at the issues that will be on our November ballots, and I thought I should start at the beginning. A ballot issue is a bill from the legislature, that has been referred to the people of Montana to vote on in an election.

Just as a brush up on the formatting of bills, issues and initiatives, when something is underlined it is the new proposed language and when something is struck through, it is the language that is being eliminated from the laws.

Here we go with the language for C-44, which comes from Senate Bill No. 489, and is sponsored by Sen. Vicki Cocchiarella:

*******

AN ACT SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 13, OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW UP TO 25 PERCENT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC FUNDS TO BE INVESTED IN PRIVATE CORPORATE CAPITAL STOCK; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

Section 1. Article VIII, section 13, of The Constitution of the State of Montana is amended to read:
“Section 13. Investment of public funds and public retirement system and state compensation insurance fund assets. (1) The legislature shall provide for a unified investment program for public funds and public retirement system and state compensation insurance fund assets and provide rules therefor, including supervision of investment of surplus funds of all counties, cities, towns, and other local governmental entities. Each fund forming a part of the unified investment program shall be separately identified. Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4), no public up to 25 percent of public funds shall may be invested in private corporate capital stock in the same manner that a prudent expert acting in a fiduciary capacity and familiar with the circumstances would use. The investment program shall be audited at least annually and a report thereof submitted to the governor and legislature.
(2) The public school fund and the permanent funds of the Montana university system and all other state institutions of learning shall be safely and conservatively invested in:
(a) Public securities of the state, its subdivisions, local government units, and districts within the state, or
(b) Bonds of the United States or other securities fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States, or
(c) Such other safe investments bearing a fixed rate of interest as may be provided by law. that a prudent expert acting in a fiduciary capacity and familiar with the circumstances would use in investing a fund guaranteed against loss or diversion.
(3) Investment of public retirement system assets shall be managed in a fiduciary capacity in the same manner that a prudent expert acting in a fiduciary capacity and familiar with the circumstances would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a similar character with similar aims. Public retirement system assets may be invested in private corporate capital stock, and the restrictions in subsection (1) on the percentage that may be invested in private capital stock do not apply.
(4) Investment of state compensation insurance fund assets shall be managed in a fiduciary capacity in the same manner that a prudent expert acting in a fiduciary capacity and familiar with the circumstances would use in the conduct of a private insurance organization. State compensation insurance fund assets may be invested in private corporate capital stock. However, the stock investments shall not exceed 25 percent of the book value of the state compensation insurance fund’s total invested assets.”

Section 2. Effective date. This amendment is effective upon approval by the electorate.

Section 3. Submission to electorate. This amendment shall be submitted to the qualified electors of Montana at the general election to be held in November 2008 by printing on the ballot the full title of this act and the following:
[] FOR allowing up to 25% of all public funds presently restricted to fixed income investments to be invested in private corporate capital stock.
[] AGAINST allowing up to 25% of all public funds presently restricted to fixed income investments to be invested in private corporate capital stock.
- END -

*******

I looked up the fiscal notes, and there are some pretty important points made.

The DNRC points out that Article X, Section 3 of the Montana Constitution says:
“Public school fund inviolate. The public school fund shall forever remain inviolate, guaranteed by the state against loss or diversion.” Putting money into the stock market could hardly be considered an experience that is immune to loss, if it was, everyone would invest without fear. Instead, any losses to the fund would have to be reimbursed to the fund by the state. So C-44 would come into conflict with the Montana Constitution.

The DNRC also points out that Section 17-6-201(2)(b) of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA) says: “other public funds may not be invested in private capital stock. “Private corporate capital stock” means only the common stock of a corporation.” So as the law stands today, only retirement funds are allowed to invest in capital stock, not any other public funds. C-44 would come into conflict with this part of the MCA.

I also delved a little deeper into the legislative history of C-44. This bill was introduced by Senator Vicki Cocchiarella, it was SB 489, and can be found under bill draft number LC1758. Perhaps the most interesting thing I have found yet regarding C-44, are the audio minutes from the February 21, 2007 hearing from Business, Labor and Economic Affairs.

Anything from Carroll Soth, Chief CEO, Board of Investments is fascinating. He starts at about 60 minutes into the recording, and the committee is discussing 3 different bills, all having to do with investments, and therefore the Board of Investments. (If you are curious, they were SB 467 (passed), SB 468 (died in committee) and SB 489 (onto November ballot for voters)).

At 1:38, Senator Balyeat asks Carroll South about investing the trust funds in equities rather than the current fixed income bonds, and refers to an exhibit passed out at the meeting; showing 80% invested in fixed income (bonds) and 20% in equities, showing that had the funds been invested such as Sen. Cocchiarella was suggesting, that there would be substantially more income to the funds. Sen. Balyeat rattles off quite a few different stock investment strategies, then talks about returns and risks. “Isn’t it the cardinal rule of investing that if you want to maximize the return to risk ratio, that you want to diversify as much as possible?” Carroll South replies at about 1:43 “these charts are probably right, . . . but they are only right if you don’t spend any of the capital gains, because in the equity world, that is where you make your money, you don’t make your money on dividends, you make your money on capital gains. And the idea is to sell those stocks, put the capital gains to work, and continue to build the fund. And you can’t do that if the legislature is going to spend all of the income.”

Terrill Moore, from First Interstate Bank and Chairman of the Board of Investments was asked his opinion regarding the bill, and while he hadn’t had a chance to read it, he said it was certainly doable, but he was concerned what would happen when the market turned down, and how those losses would affect the funds as a whole, and how those losses would be reconciled.

Then at 1:48 Senator Brown asked Senator Cocchiarella about the fact that there had been no proponents who got up and spoke in favor of her bills, and he wanted to know what her motivation was for proposing them. She spoke about oversight of the Board of Investments, and that they were not immune from scrutiny. Senator Cocchiarella also talked about the fact that she was going away, and that the other Senators were not (term limits), and she wanted to be sure that these issues were discussed before she left. She said that the rule of investing is diversity the best you can, and that presently public funds don’t have any diversity.
*******

Well, I guess here is where I stand right now. I don’t think diversifying our public funds into corporation stocks is a good idea at all. The stock market hasn’t been doing so hot lately, and even my money market account lost money last month after the account fees were subtracted. The idea that the legislature regularly pulls about 100 million a year out of the public fund profits, compared pulling about 100 million a year out of an equity, that the rate of return simply wouldn’t be worth the switch from bonds to equities when you think about risk and costs. Not to mention the fact that the passing this ballot issue would come into conflict with two other established laws. On the surface it seems simple, but when investing our public funds, I frankly think acting more conservatively is the right way to go.

We all know that McCain has increased in maverickness (maverickocity?) through his push for campaign finance reform. It has made him the devil to many on the right and a name as an independent thinker. McCain opted into matching public funds when it looked like his campaign was crashing and recently called on Obama to do the same. Now that he is the presumptive front runner, he wants to opt out of public funding for the primary season so that he is not limited in the amount he can spend on the primaries.

I would call this merely hypocritical were it not for the fact that he used the prospect of matching funds to secure a loan for his campaign. You see, according to FEC regulations, he is expressly forbidden from opting out of matching funding once he has used the prospect to secure a loan. From Howard Dean:

Dean said he was filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission to block McCain from quitting the public financing system, which imposes a spending cap on candidates.

“The law is very, very clear,” Dean said. “He cannot be let out of the matching fund program if he has already used the promise of matching funds for loan collateral, and it’s already clear from his FEC report that he has used that promise.”

Well, of course you cant trust Howard Dean. Can you? Well, how about this guy?

FEC Chairman David Mason raised similar questions about the loan agreement in a letter to the McCain campaign last week. But the Arizona senator’s campaign has said its existing request with the FEC was never part of the terms of the loan, merely the possibility of future payouts.

[snip]

Mason asked the McCain campaign last week to provide more information about the terms of the loan before his agency rules on whether or not the Arizona senator will be required to remain within the federal financing system.

Should be interesting to watch how that plays out.

Farewell Fidel Castro –

I witnessed a sad, sad commentary by radio talk show host Glen Beck this evening on public television “Headline News” that was the most “slanted” news article on television that I think I’ve ever seen.

His comments confirm that this man should not be on TV much less a valid mainstream media expert. No doubt he has his opinion, but I am not sure that most mainstream folks make much of it – nor should they.

Was Fidel Castro a bad man? To most, yes, but we don’t live in Cuba nor do we as a nation, support much of what he did in his almost 50 years of dictatorship. However, this type of news banter leaves one to wonder. I just did not buy it! Also, I did not think the reference of celebrities from Hollywood as justified either.

What remains is what, and how, Cuba will be served overall. Let’s not be so fast to judge.

My conclusion is that Glen Beck is a prime example of someone not to listen to unless of course you agree with this zealot. I simply do not!

Why?

Tonight’s debate, the 19th for the Democratic, and the second one featuring just Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was on like chicken bone. It was one of the better debates, for a number of reasons.

A Real Debate

The most impressive part came when the two candidates broke into into a nuanced debate of the particulars of their health care plans. If you missed it, they completely dismissed the moderators and exchanged time talking about the differences in their healtcare plans. Gene Robertson talking with Keith Obermann pointed out that it was almost as if they were trying to convince one another to come over to their side. The discussion clearly detailed the basic differences, where Obama’s plan will be affordable but optional, while Hillary’s will be affordable but mandatory.

It was pleasing to see the candidates break the ’snappy’ debate format to speak clearly on one of the most important topics of the race. You just dont get that too often on a media run election that is fueled on 10 second sound bites.

A Silly Conversation

The Clinton campaign has had more than one strokes of genius but too many follies. Overall, her performance in the debate was fairly impressive, but the ‘plagiarism’ portion was a major goof on her part. I think that most democrats ‘get’ that Obama’s actions were nothing like plagiarism, rather the use of a line that was given to him by a good friend and campaign chair. This exchange came off really lame:

CLINTON: Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That’s, I think, a very simple proposition. And, you know, lifting whole passages from someone else’s speeches is not change you can believe in, it’s change you can Xerox. And I just don’t think…

The boos in the audience visibly shook her. ‘Change you can Xerox’? She then ended the debate using virtually the same words used by John Edwards to end a debate earlier in the season. This is going to turn on her, and points out the failure of her negative campaigning. It isn’t going well for her.

In general, both were strong in the debate. Each had their shining moments and nifty sound bites. My thoughts are just like any pundit out there will tell you, even if you gave Hillary the edge in the debate, it will have made no signigant change in the race. That along give Obama the edge in the debate. Howard Fineman pointed out on Chris Mathews that her closing words almost seemed as though they were made to prepare her supporters that she might be considering the end of her campaign.

In case you are confused by the plethora of rules surrounding the Democratic delegate procedures, there is a new website in town to help sort fact from fiction, or so the Hillary Clinton camp would have the public believe.

Delegate Hub presents itself as a place to understand the truth about Democratic delegates; it even has a handy click-here-to-forward-to-friends button to disperse the knowledge.  If it weren’t for the tiny, nondescript disclaimer at the very bottom (Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President), one might actually believe this to be an unbiased site.  The slant of the site (which most people, not being political junkies, might miss) is clearly visible once you take a closer look at the site’s ‘facts‘, especially this one:

FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats’ 50-state strategy.

An important part of the debate over delegates is the role of Florida and Michigan. Hillary Clinton believes that the voices of 600,000 Michigan primary voters and 1.75 million Florida primary voters should be heard at the Democratic convention.

You have to love how the first thing this ‘fact’ says is “should”, as if facts are normally comprised of opinionated expectations.  Clearly, this is in no way a fact, but a self-serving belief of the Clinton campaign, one that should speak volumes about what kind of character she truly has.

Another good one:

FACT: Automatic delegates are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party.

The Obama campaign is claiming that automatic delegates must follow the lead of pledged delegates and switch their vote to Sen. Obama.

I don’t remember Obama saying that Super delegates “must” do anything.  Both candidates simply have different opinions of what they ’should’ do; opinions that mostly reinforce whichever position benefits them the most.

Hillary Clinton’s new slogan: Vote for Hillary; the FACT is you SHOULD

Something kept me awake last night – it was the sound of jackals mixed with the clinking of champagne glasses. I knew something big had happened. Sure enough when I got up this morning, I read that Castro had stepped down.

I suspect I know how this post will be perceived. In the United States certain thoughts are impermissable. Americans have short memories. Iraqi history goes back only to 1990. Iranian history goes back only to 1979. And Cuban history goes back only to 1959. Nothing existed in those countries before that time.

I’ve noticed this phenomenon before, as when I talk of US support for Saddam Hussein throughout his brutal reign and up until 1990, or of the US overthrow of Mossadegh and democracy in Iran in 1953. People acknowledge that such things could have happened, and then Poof! The subject disappears. We are right back where we started – 1990, 1979, and 1959. That far back, and no further.

Our government is good at demonization. Take a bad guy, one who does not support us, and Hiss! Evil! Evil!. Put Saddam or Castro in opposition to their enemies, and they come off as simple, sometimes brutal, and certainly anti-democratic backwoods bosses. But that is of no consequence. After all,the U.S. itself does not believe in democracy, and supports thugs all over the globe. The key to understanding the U.S. attitude about Saddam and Fidel is this: They were strong enough to defy the U.S. and survive. That is why they became the epitome of evil.

Castro, for example, lived in a world in which the US was guilty of crimes often more brutal and bloodthirsty as anything he ever attempted. He imprisoned his enemies. He had real and dangerous enemies. But today there is a prison on the island of Cuba where people are tortured, where they disappear, where they are held without charges, without benefit of habeas corpus. It’s located on Guantanamo Bay. It’s run by the U.S. It’s the only gulag I know of on the island of Cuba.

And then there is the matter of Fulgencia Battista. He was the fascist dictator who preceded Castro. I say “fascist” knowing the meaning of the word, using it here to mean the marriage of private power and the state – Battista enjoyed U.S. support as he allowed the Mafia, United Fruit, sugar interests and other U.S. corporations free reign on the island. Everyday citizens were kept in poverty. Battista’s secret police were feared. Those who conspired or rebelled disappeared. Cuba had its ruling class, most of whom fled to Florida in the early ’60’s. Cuba before Castro was a typical third world country – extremes of wealth and poverty, massive discontent, and little that could be done about it.

Castro came to power with popular support, and has remained popular on the island oh these many years, surviving attacks, invasion, assassination attempts. He was surely a cat with nine lives. Cuba is no shining democracy. Religion has suffered, as have civil liberties (which did not exist before 1959 anyway). But odd things have happened – health care and education for ordinary people. Everyone has a place to sleep and unemployment is very low. They are poor, to be sure, but due in no small part to the illegal US embargo.

Here in the U.S. we ignore the existence of the embargo, and point at the island and say “Look! Look! See how their system fails!” (If we acknowledge the embargo, it is only in the context of “Yeah, but it is not working”.)

If the U.S. suffered from ordinary morals, it would simply have left Castro alone and allowed him to run his course. Castro, like Bush, used fear as a governing tool. The U.S. cooperated, supplying him with things that people were afraid of. Without the fear of invasion and subversion and terror, things might have gotten better there – who knows – U.S. corporations might have been invited back. Fascism might be healthy and alive again! (Or, as we like to call it, democracy).

It seems as though the Cuban people are screwed no matter which way they turn. Castro and the U.S. were both anti-democratic. One of the two offered education and health care to ordinary people. Who was better for them?

There’s an air of moral superiority in this country from people who don’t even know our own activities. A short history course would be in order, say, for example, a reading of the Church Committee hearings of the 1970’s. Or LBJ’s famous words about the CIA - that they were running a “damned murder incorporated in the Caribbean”.

The island is no paradise. Cubans flee to the U.S. I would too - I too would want to be in a place that was not embargoed, where I could make some money and speak out against my government. Cubans could do better, but they could also do worse. They could once again be run by U.S. corporations. They could resume their role of living in poverty while supplying cheap labor and resources to the U.S. It could be 1959 again. May soon be.

Today the U.S. exports troops and military hardware all over Latin America, saying we do it for the sake of democracy. Castro exports doctors and medicine, and we say it is because he is a tyrant. It’s crazy, but that’s the way Americans think.

Thanks to Matt for pointing this out. This guy has got to go. Seriously, I am done with him. Finished. Next!.

This has been covered elsewhere, I just wanted to make sure and point it out that Rehberg has a solid challenger for the upcoming congressional race.

Hunt, the son of former state Supreme Court Justice William Hunt, owns a law firm and works primarily in civil law. This is his first run for public office.

Hunt grew up in Chester, graduated from high school in Helena and earned undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Montana. He also spent 23 years in the Montana Army National Guard.

Considering that Rehberg has yet to file, or officially announce, this should be a cake walk for Hunt. More on that later.

With respect to Obama’s resounding victories in the last week, I thought that I would share his inspirational piece of work with you. Even if you don’t like Obama, you have to admit that this is cool.

666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666