TampaYankee

We voted the same on Bush I, both time I surmise. I was sorry to see him go and sorry the the GOP base undercut him the second time around. I opposed Clinton on ethical grounds, for starters. I have to confess that he is a much better statesman than he is a politician from an ethical perspective, as far as I can tell. I believe the Clinton Global Initiative does him proud.

I understand and respect that you are more of a 'classical' conservative than Bush and his gang. I wish there were more of you on that side of the spectrum. I understand that Bush is not a favorite of yours and you find him wanting. You may not deserve any blame for Bush's actions but your hands aren't clean if you voted to return him to office in 2004. (Please, I am not asking you to state how you voted. That is private and should remain so.) It was clear by then that we had two unfunded wars going and the biggest tax reduction in history up to that time. To conservatives that should have been a clear sign of disaster. To ask for more of that governing philosophy was not conservative. Not to mention that he clearly was mismanaging the wars politically and militarily by that time. I used to flirt with the Libertarians twenty years ago. A lot of it appeals to me on one level or another. But as I said in another context, this isn't the 1880s. A modern nation cannot take a go at it alone locally or individually philosophy. I give Ron Paul a lot of respect though, he make clear arguments for his side and holds to them. He does not go-along-to-get-along and will stand staunchly against his party when he disagrees philosophically. He has paid the price for that by being shunned to the wilderness. It never weakened him.

For those who may have missed it as I did, it can be purchased for 4.99 on the VUDU cloud. Great video production values. Well worth it if you like Broadway and the Tonys

Of course I agree both parties are to blame. Both parties had a taste for pork. However, I must lay the vast majority of the debt to the GOP who funded two wars without paying for them or even putting them in the budget and myriad tax giveaways that did little more than fuel an out of control banking system with bogus trading schemes that ultimately crashed our economy. If you add up: the cost of those wars to 2008 and the interest on that debt through today, plus the loss in tax revenues that Bush put through in his tax cuts and the amount borrowed to replace it and the interest accrued through today on that borrowing that had to be done to replace that missing money up until the Bush Tax cuts were revised in 2012, plus the loss in tax revenues due to our economy melt down in 2008 that we still suffer today, plus the cost of TARP demanded by Bush and passed by a bipartisan Congress and the interest accrued to pay for it through today, plus the cost of the unfunded prescription drug program passed by a GOP government and the interest to pay for it through today. I won't even include the cost of the stimulus since only a few GOP supported it. Against that add up whatever Obama has spent to get the economy moving again and fund his programs, including the Stimulus and saving our Auto Industry. Who created the vast vast majority of this debt. We had a small debt compared to today when Bush II took office. We were deficit free. The cost of several of Bush's programs and that includes ongoing interest for those costs outlived his presidency continue to accrue today. Obama brought many of those cost out of the dark and put in the budget so they can be tracked openly and dealt with. I know you will say that you hold Bush in no high regard for his economic stance. But that begs the question of who dug this 19 trillion dollar deep hole we are in. Neither side's hands are clean but a fair accounting of the sources for the debt - not some simple-minded measure of debt accrued in which calendar year -- are credited to Bush and the GOP Congress that controlled this government for the first several years of this century. That is a fact.

Put the gas tank in the front and it will also light the way. We came very close to a nuclear exchange in the mid 80s when there was a period of extreme tension between the sides. We were carrying on a war games op with NATO and the Soviets repeatedly misread our actions and intentions from the get-go. Their experts could not decide what was real and what wasn't. An East German spy in NATO was feeding information back that the operation was cover for a real attack that was coming. The Soviets were coming down to a 'go' decision when Regan unexpectedly withdrew from his part in the games and was replaced with an underling. The Soviets figured he would not do that if it were a real attack. That is probably all that saved an all-out exchange. That info was declassified a few years ago and I saw a documentary on cable describing the episode. They interviewed military and intelligence primaries from both sides. Bone chilliing.

I agree that money should be spent locally but it cannot be paid for locally because not every locale or state can afford it. The Mississippi tax base just isn't up to keeping all of its bridges, airports and highways including the big interstate lanes up to par. Add also Rhode Island, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho. Some of those don't need a lot of roads but they need long roads. We need an integrated transportation network for this nation not a patchwork quilt of good roads dumping into dirt roads at state lines. American business would hardly thrive without the trucking industry. Add in airports and power backbone infrastructure as more anchors the states have to swim with. Keeping it all local may sound warm and fuzzy but it just is not practical for a modern nation. It is no longer the 1880s where communities lived isolated unless they sprang up along one of the few railroad lines. Any large number of programs are bound to have some failures. That is a facet of there being a large number. Individual local programs fail too, mostly due to corruption and some due to inadequate planning, resources or technology. They do not make as big a splash except in the community they are in. I knew of Florida bridge construction that used sea water to make concrete. A lotta bridge had to come down on that one. It wasn't a mistake. I also watched them take two years to pave a mile of four lane highway in Tampa that cost between 30 and 60 million dollars and that was in the early 70's when a million dollars bought something. The government is in to venture capital funding for certain developments where the commercial environment cannot support the infrastructure development. The government has been wildly successful at it. Just take a moment to consider what fell out of Kennedy's Space Program. The technology list would take a ream of paper to enumerate. The internet is another. That was done by the Defense Adanced Research Projects Agency. Consider all the medical research seeded by government grants that led to conquering Polio and treating certain types of cancer to name two diseases. All of this, well 99.99% gets transitioned over to private industry to make jobs and rich people. Were there some failures? Of course, that is the nature of research development and innovation. Yet some taxpaying individuals and more so the political opposition, whichever the party, demands 100% success, that is unless they are the ones in power. It is a fact that only government can do some things worth doing, at least initially. That government research and development largesse has made us a fabulously wealthy country and the leading world power all in a time when the government engaged in a lot of that type of spending. The overall balance sheet of achievement versus waste is staggering to the positive and people nit pick about an occasional failure here and failure there. They cannot see the forest for the trees. I long for the days where divided government could function. That seems impossible now with the present make up of the GOP. Most just do not want to do much more than dismantle or let what is in place wither on the vine. One need look no further than continued denial of infrastructure renewal and to sequestration to conclude that.

If we really care about the unemployed then public displays of concern with manifestly ineffective measures benefit no jobless. An effective show of concern would be tossing a few of those billions Everett used to talk about at the extensive severe infrastructure deficiencies we have in this country. That would be a show of concern. One program that both parties used to care about and support prior to the paramount goal of one party to obstruct Obama. That doesn't mean that all monies, travel or otherwise should not be scrutinized for reasonable and effective use.

I'm convinced the country is in the mood for a little isolationism. That has been part of his reluctance IMO, and he has had his own reticence to get deeper in with people who may come back to bite you in ten years. As for whether it is too late or not, I'm in no position to know. The rebels were routing Assad a few months back. Things can turn quickly depending on support. as we have seen before, It is impossible to accurately predict what is necessary to win or to contain the commitment unless one is willing to suffer another Somalia. I am not and I'm not up for going all in. I'd prefer to stay involved only at arms length and support European powers to intervene if they wish. I see no great push from them either. What is important is that Israel not get pulled into it because that would commit us as deeply as necessary to protect their back.

Care to give anymore specifics behind that question and inflation adjusted comparisons with other Presidents? I do appreciate that it is very expensive for him or any President to travel to foreign countries. I saw a one hour program on the History Channel or some such that presented what it is like on Air Force One and what is entailed for travel to a foreign country, security to jet fuel to secure food. Quite a heavy personnel and logistics lift. Bush II was the President at the time of filming. Makes me think that Presidents should invite everyone to come to the USA and even pay their way. It would be a lot cheaper.

Cannot agree with you, sorry. I don't think much will change from the last two elections. The right wing will bleed itself with too many candidates while the 'moderate' will cross the line. As many wackos as their are in the GOP, there are a great many GOP wanting a less extreme agenda. They do not have to be a majority if the wingers slice up their support for multiple candidates. See McCain and Romney as the prologues. The question is will the winger egos take backseat to general election success by bowing out early on for one of their brethren. Not exactly the nature of a political animal.

I don't know what they are advertising but I'll take some.

It is a nice wish for his detractors, but half those support his intelligence stance. He is under no real pressure from Public Opinion and Congress is a wash. No. I believe he has become concerned with the surge in help from Russia as well as the Hamas and Iran contributions. The Rebels are suffering defeats, the Turks are distracted, and he will get the blame if the Rebels go down.

Maybe we can finally get some sunlight on this stuff. I'm dubious of the too-classifed-to-go-to-court argument. I recognize the difficulties but I also see the need for real checks and balances that are open enough for people to trust.

Constitution Check: Has the ACLU cleared a big hurdle to challenging secret spying? By Lyle Denniston | National Constitution Center Lyle Denniston looks at two new lawsuits about government surveillance that may force federal courts to think more deeply as to just what kind of evidence can be considered in a national security case. THE STATEMENTS AT ISSUE: “In other lawsuits against national security policies, the government has often persuaded courts to dismiss them without ruling on the merits by arguing that litigation would reveal state secrets or that the plaintiffs could not prove they were personally affected and so lacked standing in court. This case may be different. The government has now declassified the existence of the program. And the A.C.L.U. is a customer ofVerizon Business Network Services – the recipient of a leaked secret court order for all its domestic calling records – which it says gives it standing.” – Charlie Savage, New York Times reporter, in a story June 12 about the American Civil Liberties Union’s new lawsuit in federal court challenging the government’s global electronic surveillance programs. “ACLU attorneys working on today’s complaint said they do not expect the issue of standing to be a problem in this case because of the FISA Court order revealed last week.” – Press release issued June 11 by the ACLU, describing one facet of its lawsuit in federal District Court in New York City, filed under the case title, American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper. “It is hereby ordered that the custodian of records [of Verizon Business Services] shall produce to the National Security Agency (NSA) upon service of this order, and continue production on an ongoing daily basis thereafter for the duration of this order, unless otherwise ordered by the court, an electronic copy of the following tangible things: all call detail records or ‘telephony metadata’ created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls….This authorization expires on the 19th day of July, 2013…” – Order signed by Roger Vinson, a judge of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, on April 25, in the text leaked to The Guardian newspaper and published by it on June 5. WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND… It is a constitution truism that nobody can sue the federal government unless there is a genuine legal controversy between an individual or an organization and the government. The controversy must be “live” in the sense that it actually exists, and is not merely hypothetical or imaginary or potential. This is a matter of basic federal court authority: If there is no such controversy, then a court has no power to decide it. That is now enforced by a doctrine known as “standing,” or “standing to sue.” It is derived from the provision in the Constitution’s Article III that the American federal courts are to have power to decide “cases and controversies.” The Supreme Court remarked in 2006 that “no principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.” And it has said that one part of that limitation is that those who seek to sue “must establish that they have standing to sue.” The court long ago translated that to mean that an individual or organization may sue in a federal court only if they could show three things at the outset: that they are or very soon will definitely be injured, in some legal sense, by what they claim the government is doing to them; that their injury can be traced directly to the government’s action; and that, if they ultimately win their case, the court will be able to give them an adequate remedy. (In legal shorthand, those are the requirements of injury, “causation,” and “redressability.”) Now that the American public knows – from newspaper leaks and government officials’ public statements — quite a good deal about the government’s programs of secretly eavesdropping on a vast array of telephone and Internet communications, the American Civil Liberties Union has begun its latest challenge to the government’s authority to gather intelligence by such electronic spying. (Kentucky’s Republican Senator Rand Paul is preparing to file a similar court challenge.) The ACLU is relying heavily upon Judge Vinson’s surveillance order, partially quoted above, to the National Security Agency as a basis for its right to sue, because the ACLU itself gets telephone service from the target of that order, the Verizon communications giant’s Business Services network. As recently as last February (in a decision discussed on Constitution Daily earlier this week), the Supreme Court spelled out clearly what it will take to get into court to sue for spying on the scope that has just been revealed anew about NSA’s operations. The court’s main opinion in the case noted how high the “standing” hurdle could be in such a case. “We have often found a lack of standing,” it said, “in cases in which the Judiciary has been requested to review actions of the political branches in the fields of intelligence gathering and foreign affairs.” On the threshold requirement of claiming injury, the court said, the claimed harm must be “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent….We have repeatedly reiterated that threatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact and that allegations of possible future injury are not sufficient.” In that specific case, the court found a lack of a right to sue by a group of attorneys and organizations representing media, legal, labor and human rights advocates whose daily work required them to engage in international telephone and e-mail communications. They could not show, the court ruled, that they actually were being injured by government eavesdropping and, even if they could, they could not show that it was traced to a specific government activity. In the ACLU’s just-filed lawsuit, its attorneys clearly believe, it has gotten past both of those legal hurdles. It noted that government officials have “confirmed the authenticity” of Judge Vinson’s leaked order to Verizon, and it noted that the ACLU and its affiliated foundation “are current subscribers” of that very Verizon entity, and that other organizations joining in the lawsuit are prior Verizon subscribers. As customers, the lawsuit argued, they “are covered by the now-public order” issued by Judge Vinson because the open-ended scope of that mandate reaches all customer records. That is sufficient, the ACLU insists, to show that their sometimes sensitive legal communications have been monitored, that they thus have been harmed, and that their harm is due directly to what Verizon has done under the judge’s order. When a federal judge starts moving forward with this lawsuit, and the one to be filed shortly by Senator Paul, the judge will be testing whether the claims are based on mere supposition, or whether there is hard, factual evidence to support a claim of actual monitoring. That gets into the issue of whether the ACLU will be able to demand information from the government or from Verizon as to whose calls or e-mails have been monitored. And that will get into the government’s claim of secrecy for its monitoring operation. At a minimum, these two new lawsuits may well challenge the federal courts to think more deeply as to just what kind of evidence is “concrete” enough and specific enough to show eavesdropping, and whether that kind of evidence can be probed without threatening national security secrecy. Lyle Denniston is the National Constitution Center’s adviser on constitutional literacy. He has reported on the Supreme Court for 55 years, currently covering it for SCOTUSblog, an online clearinghouse of information about the Supreme Court’s work. See Original Article at: "http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-aclu-cleared-big-hurdle-challenging-secret-102222967.html;_ylt=Ah1kX65MI0LEmwHKG17sk6NtzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTVmbDlxMzF0BGNjb2RlA3JkdG9wMTAwMHBvb2wEbWl0A0FydGljbGUgTWl4ZWQgTGlzdCBOZXdzIGZvciBZb3Ugd2l0aCBNb3JlIExpbmsEcGtnAzI3ZTcwNzg4LWIwZTQtMzNlZC04MDY5LWVhNTI2OTBmYTE1NQRwb3MDMwRzZWMDbmV3c19mb3JfeW91BHZlcgM0MDZiZTM1Mi1kNGYzLTExZTItYWZmNy0wMWJiYTJmOWY2YzE-;_ylg=X3oDMTJtdmpsYTc2BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDYWYyM2Q0MDMtMzRiYy0zODYxLTgzMGEtYjFkOTQ1MWQ3MzJjBHBzdGNhdAN1LXMEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdl;_ylv=3">

RA1, I apologize if my post came off as an attack on your posted comment. It was not intended to be. I take no exception to anything you said. My only intent was to comment on social hypocrisy in general and my experience with escorts who adopted that stance.

If this surprises you, his LGBT views or the dominant GOP view on gays, then you need to read the home-town paper more. Before he can run for president, he has to run for the GOP Nomination. That his why he is trying to have it both ways on the Immigration bill, supporting it in the foyer and badmouthing it in the cloak room as "not strong enough" so that it gets overheard. He wants a bill to pass that doesn't lose him the base. Gays? Forget it, no matter what he really thinks. And I doubt that is good. As for 2016, I was downgrading Christie's stock as the base has been downgrading it. But with Rubio, Cruz and Paul splitting the right wing vote, he may cross the line ahead of the others to be the one Hillary faces. He would be her strongest opponent IMO.

Incongruity? Well, it depends on the plane one adopts in setting life standards, expectations and goals. Most of the South resides on one plane as does much of the country -- or they would have you think so anyway. However, bringing a dose of reality to the discussion, need I mention the present-day stats on extramarital affairs: Recent studies reveal that 45 or 55 percent of married women and 50 to 60 percent of married men engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their relationship. (http://www.divinecaroline.com/love-sex/cheating-and-infidelity-statistics-are-men-cheating-more-women) It is estimated that roughly 30 to 60% of all married individuals (in the United States) will engage in infidelity at some point during their marriage (see, Buss and Shackelford for review of this research). And these numbers are probably on the conservative side, when you consider that close to half of all marriages end in divorce (people are more likely to stray as relationships fall apart; also see, who is likely to cheat) (http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/cheating-and-infidelity/stats-about-infidelity.html) The citations could go on and on. So much for those that would cling to that claim of that plane. Let's grant that 50% walk the walk. The other fifty percent talk the talk of hypocracy -- a not insignificant number of our most pious preachers included. Leaving the issue of incongruity and returning to escort fidelity, escorts must necessarily see this as a distinction between commitment and business. Hence the willingness to escort but not be available off the clock for 'affairs' or one night flings. I have encountered numerous escorts over the years with this attitude. I can understand it. I do find it disappointing when I encounter one that draws the line with the clients at kissing. I have known a few to claim that exclusively for their companion. I have known others who have escorted between boyfriends, preferring not to 'muddy' the picture. That may have as much to do with the BF demands, who knows. I respect that choice too. Whatever works for people in their lives.

I would be all over this like white on rice. Count me in. I hate my cable company. That industry is corrupt with it's monopolies. I hope the DOJ lets loose its antitrust dogs to reign hell down upon the cable and satellite for anticompetitive practices.

Gatekeepers of Cable TV Try to Stop Intel By BRIAN STELTER Published: June 12, 2013 WASHINGTON — As Intel tries something audacious — the creation of a virtual cable service that would sell a bundle of television channels to subscribers over the Internet — it is running up against a multibillion-dollar barricade. That barricade is guarded by Time Warner Cable and other cable and satellite distributors, which are trying to make it difficult — if not impossible — for Intel to go through with its plan. The distributors are using a variety of methods to pressure the owners of cable channels, with whom they have lucrative long-term contracts, not to sign contracts with upstarts like Intel, that way preserving the status quo. Intel, however, is undeterred, and its executives intend to begin its TV service by the end of the year. They are ready and willing to pay more than existing distributors do for channels. But to date the company has not announced any deals with channel owners. To Intel, and to some analysts, the behavior by the existing distributors — in some cases giving financial incentives to friendly channel owners, in other cases including punitive measures in contracts — has an anticompetitive whiff. The antitrust division of the Justice Department is looking into the issue as part of a broad investigation into cable and satellite company practices, according to people contacted by the department, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. A department spokeswoman declined to comment. Public attention about the issue, which gained new life this week during the cable industry’s annual conference here, might also spur the Federal Communications Commission to afford would-be Internet distributors like Intel the same legal protections as those that already exist. The commission has been considering such a change for more than a year. “The government has to step up and protect these companies, or the incumbents are going to kill them in their cradles,” said Gigi B. Sohn, the president of the public interest group Public Knowledge. Prospective products like Intel TV, delivered through the broadband Internet infrastructure of Comcast, Time Warner Cable or another provider and sometimes called “over the top TV,” have the potential to radically alter the media marketplace in the United States. Unlike Netflix, which sells a library of TV episodes and mainly supplements cable, a service like Intel’s — with dozens of channels, big and small, streaming through a modern interface — could cause more consumers to cancel their cable subscriptions. (They would have to keep a broadband subscription, however, unless or until wireless capacity improves.) It could also stir further innovation within the industry. If Intel’s service ever goes on sale, industry executives predict that others will quickly follow — either because they want to, or they feel they have no choice. Apple, Microsoft and Sony are often mentioned as possibilities, but the more immediate competition might come from Comcast, Time Warner Cable and other major distributors, which could suddenly compete directly in markets all across the country. Comcast has quietly been working on an “over the top” service for well over a year. “Suddenly there’d be a whole new world of competition,” said one of the executives, who declined to express support for the “over the top” option for fear of angering the existing distributors. Most of those companies declined to comment on the record, but some representatives said privately that they are taking common-sense steps to protect their businesses. Each confidential contract between a distributor and a channel owner is different, they said. Some contracts include clauses that expressly prohibit the channels to be sold to an Internet distributor like Intel, while other contracts merely discourage such competition by including financial incentives or penalties. So-called most favored nation clauses, which are common, exist to ensure that if another distributor receives a cheaper rate for a channel later, that rate applies across the board. Some of these provisions have been in place for years. But critics said that the contractual language makes it much harder for new companies to enter the marketplace. A Justice Department official said in a presentation last year that “contracts that reference rivals” have the potential to harm competition. Within the cable industry, the practice of discouraging new Internet distributors has been suspected but not widely documented. The issue attracted new attention on Tuesday during the cable industry’s conference when Richard Greenfield, an analyst at BTIG Research, wrote in a blog post that at least one unnamed distributor had prevented a channel owner from selling to a service like Intel. Whether illegal or not, “it most certainly is bad for consumers, as it limits competition and prevents the emergence of distributors who can provide revolutionary new ways of experiencing” TV, he wrote. Mr. Greenfield did not name any names, but several channel owners and smaller distributors said Time Warner Cable, the nation’s second-largest cable company after Comcast, had been by far the most aggressive in its dealings with channels. When Comcast acquired NBCUniversal in 2011, it signed a consent decree with the government that prohibited it from trying to block budding Internet distributors. Time Warner Cable declined to elaborate on its practices on Wednesday, but said in a statement that “it is absurd to suggest that, in today’s highly competitive video marketplace, obtaining some level of exclusivity is anticompetitive. Exclusivities and windows are extremely common in the entertainment industry; that’s exactly how entertainment companies compete.” It cited the N.F.L. deal with DirecTV and the Netflix distribution of the former cable show “Arrested Development,” among other examples. Mr. Greenfield rejected that explanation. “They are not paying for exclusivity,” he said. “They are saying you can sell to X, to Y and Z, but you are forbidden from selling to this new class, called A.” A spokesman for Intel declined to comment. But this week the company had a suite at a hotel, one block from the cable conference site, and held demonstrations of its service for potential partners. What Intel needs, according to people briefed on their plans, is the support of a critical mass of channels — not the entire universe that Comcast or DirecTV has, but enough to have a viable service. Intel will not introduce the service without that. See original article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/business/media/gatekeepers-of-cable-tv-try-to-stop-intel.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&partner=yahoofinance

It still means they are committed, doesn't it?

This laundry has needed airing since the Patriot Act was re-upped. It should have taken place then much more robustly. Fortunately, it has finally gotten the attention of more than just the few. Half the Congress wants to bury the topic, the other half open it up. I hope interest doesn't wane before we really find out what is going on. I suspect it will take a court case challenging the Constitutionality before much if any of this gets rolled back. Nobody wants to be blamed for the next attack due to killing any these programs whether it could be proven or not. Easy to make charges. Difficult to prove a negative. That Court challenge will take some miracle getting the Court to hear it above the Executive's objection that no one has standing since anyone can't argue damage done to them, because the programs are secret. That has already killed some suits.

Nice looking hunk!! Name brought back memories of 60s actor Nick Adams, young blond with a TV western show, the name I no longer remember. He wore buckskins with a grey Rebel cap and carried a sawed-off shot gun. Committed suicide when he was on top. Wikipedia: Nick Adams (July 10, 1931 – February 7, 1968) was an Academy Award nominated American film and television actor. He was noted for his roles in several successful Hollywood films during the 1950s and 1960s along with his starring role in theABC television series The Rebel (1959). Decades after Adams' death from a prescription drug overdose at the age of 36, his widely publicized friendships with James Dean and Elvis Presley would stir speculation about both his private life and the circumstances of his death. In an Allmovie synopsis for Adams' last film, reviewer Dan Pavlides wrote, "Plagued by personal excesses, he will be remembered just as much for what he could have done in cinema as what he left behind."[1]

I think this is a nonstarter, not only the mandatory homo-sex but going the way of the Shakers. That solution achieves the same outcome as the problem it is trying to solve. Jonathan Swift had a much more practical, if modest, proposal. .

Sure you can, Russian democracy at work.

Wait 'til Fleet hears about this. What's better than minty fresh?