More On The Bermuda Triangle

[Images courtesy of Wikipedia and the NOAA]

Back in 1991, a very good friend of mine undertook the incredibly nerdy activity of recording on a map the tracks of all the tropical storms that year. His project lasted several years, and he had a nice collection of maps by the time he was done. Looking them over, I noticed something peculiar -- several of the storms passed through the Bermuda Triangle without coming in sight of  land. A little bit of research showed me that a confluence of natural conditions may have contributed to the Triangle's nasty reputation.

Hurricanes are incredibly energetic storms. Rising air laden with moisture drives relentless circulation patterns, which are mostly vertical in the form of thunderstorms. Some estimates put the total energy in an average hurricane at around 600 terawatts per day, over two hundred times the electrical generating capacity of current human civilization. With air circulation comes accumulation of static electricity, resulting in lightning. Lightning is, of course, a plasma stream of highly ionized air molecules, releasing energy across a broad band of the electromagnetic spectrum, including light and radio waves. This can cause interference with radio communications, which has been commonly reported in Triangle cases. Also, before the launch of the first weather satellite in 1959, there was really no way to track tropical storms at sea except from shipboard observations. If no ships passed within visual range, hurricanes could -- and very often would -- pass by completely unnoticed. In the early days of maritime radio communications, a ship could pass into the storm's interference cloud so quickly that nobody would know what happened until the ship was late.

A quick check of NOAA records showed me that 91 storms are known to have passed through the heart of the Triangle since 1852. The tracks are shown in the image at right.

The Bermuda Triangle also encompasses the western extent of the Sargasso Sea. The currents of the North Atlantic Ocean circulate in a roughly oval pattern known as a gyre. Warm water flows up the East Coast in the Gulf Stream, across the North Atlantic to the coast of Purtugal, south along the Canary Current, and back across from Africa along the Equatorial Current to the Antilles Islands and the Caribbean. Right in the middle of all this, surrounding the 30th parallel, is a relatively calm area where thrives a species of seaweed known as sargassum, vast mats of which can accumulate on the surface. Christopher Columbus first reported these mats in his log, and to early sailing ships dense mats of sargassum could cause major troubles. If the wind is light, a sailing ship could become stranded in the sargassum for days or even weeks.

The confluence of these two factors no doubt fostered much superstition concerning the Bermuda Triangle. To date, no scientific evidence has been gathered to support the belief that the Triangle is anything other than a typical patch of sea -- to date, mind you. A lack of evidence does not mean that there is nothing unusual occurring there. But hypotheses concerning the location of the lost continent of Atlantis have little credibility in the deep waters and featureless ocean bottom of the Triangle, and space aliens will have to normalize diplomatic relations with the governments of the world before I will lend them any credence.

Of course, the Triangle will continue to inspire strange tales of the supernatural, and I welcome this.

Unions Are Nuclear Option

[Image courtesy of The Sweet Spot]

The image at left is from a blog by a mom named Aimee, who likes to do cool things with her husband and sons like putting firecrakers in Twinkies. It was the first image that came up when I did a Google image search for "exploding Twinkie" to jazz up this post. It's one of those "just because we can" kind of activities which keep life enjoyable.

Kind of ironic that I stumbled across this, because "just because we can" is exactly the kind of attitude that I believe drives a lot of modern unions in America, and one of Hostess' unions did the equivalent of the above. The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union voted in September to reject a new contract which would cut salaries and benefits for all union workers at Hostess plants. The Teamsters approved the contract (barely), blaming executive mismanagement for the company's troubles but also expressing disappointment at the bakers' disapproval of the contract.

For a long, long time I have been extremely vocal about my disdain for unions. At my first job I was forced to join the UFCW, paying dues but receiving very few benefits because I was under eighteen. My father was a member of the UAW for thirty years, and, being the hard-working and ethical guy he is, suffered greatly at their hands, as most such people do in union shops. Unions drain a tremendous amount of resources from companies, force companies to retain some workers who have no business holding jobs at such compensation levels, and remove much-needed flexibility from workplaces due to job rules. I have seen the phrase "it's not in my job description" stymie many efforts by management at the various jobs I've held to keep their businesses profitable. The Teamsters have been doing this union thing for a little while now, so they understand the delicate balance between compensation and profitability, and spend quite a bit of time this month trying to talk the Hostess bakers down from their tree-stand. The fight isn't over yet, but I'm not hopeful. The exact same thing forced my first employer to close many of their locations, and my dad's former company went bankrupt, wiping out his pension.

As I've stated in several posts, I have a pretty good job. The compensation package I receive from The Company (known only as that in these posts -- they don't endorse my blog) makes me technically lower-middle class, and I work hard for it, as do most of my fellow associates. In a typical ten-hour night, I may switch jobs a dozen times or more, depending on where production efforts need to be focused. If I were a union worker, this would be impossible, because I would have a "job description" and work rules would be in place to prevent "disruptive" job-switching.

The simple fact is that business is rough these days. The Company does all of its business online, and the Internet never sleeps, so production demands can change literally in minutes. Without the kind of flexibility that I and many of my coworkers demonstrate, The Company would not be able to function. Thanks to other major retailers, The Company employs an abomination a strategy known as Just-in-Time inventory control (JIT), where just enough product is kept on hand to fulfill customer demand and is replenished dynamically, keeping inventory costs low to raise the marginal profit on sales. The net result is that our warehouses, and the production facilities of our suppliers, operate twenty-four hours a day to meet the ever-changing demand of our customers. The Company couldn't operate without workers like me, who are willing and able to switch from picking to packing to palletizing to loading and back again within minutes.  Imagine if restrictive work rules prevented me from doing that, if the union said, "Well, Annie's job description says 'forklift driver,' so you have to keep her on that forklift, even if you don't need another forklift driver right now." You won't get your Game of Thrones box set in two days like you wanted, because it's sitting on a shelf in the warehouse and we don't have enough pickers and I'm not allowed to go pick it.

Three years ago my job was gathering nuts and firewood, and the "warehouse" was a new-growth forest on the side of a mountain, so I consider myself fortunate to have a job. I'm triply fortunate because it's a job with a Company I like which suits my "Genius and Habits" so well. But there's eighteen thousand or so people who are not going to be so fortunate, losing their jobs right before the holiday season because five thousand of them want to buy their kids the new iCrap and believe they can't without the extra eight percent being cut from their contract. This is the dark side of democracy, where the majority suffer from the tyranny of the minority and vice versa, and unions tend to give validation to folks who want more than their fair share.

Which is why I would vote "no" if there was ever a card-check at the warehouse. Of course, that probably wouldn't be enough for my volatile personality. I would have to do something totally over the top like Sharpy a giant "DENIED" across the authorization card and staple it to the forehead of the union rep. But that's just me. More later.

Lying Liars: The "Pump-and-Dump" Strategy

[Image courtesy of Wikipedia.com]

A year ago, Apple stocks (AAPL) were trading for under $400 per share. Starting in January, however, the stock began a meteoric rise, climbing and climbing on good news and rosy recommendations by fund managers, especially Goldman-Sachs. Late in September, however, AAPL peaked at around $705 per share and began a just as meteoric slide, dropping further and further until today, when it closed at $525.62

I can't say with absolute certainty that Goldman or anyone else has been dishonest in their recommendations, but I'm dead certain that AAPL investors have fallen victim to one of the oldest tricks in the stock market: the pump-and-dump. Many investors trust their stock brokers to make educated recommendations, believe, as I've said before, that these folks who trade stocks for a living are much smarter about such things than Joe Blow, and that there's no way on God's green Earth that they could ever be dishonest in any way. Well.

The pump-and-dump operates on lies. A prominent fund manager will buy a large position in a particular stock, then begin issuing recommendation after saccharin recommendation to their clients that "STFU is an awesome stock, they've got great fundamentals, awesome management team, strong market, blah blah blah" and push and push their clients to buy this stock. As demand rises, so does the price. Prices go up and up, and investors believe that they really did buy into a great thing, and start buying more to improve their own positions. Then, when the price hits a predetermined trigger, the fund manager will sell all or most of his shares, taking a huge profit and sending the stock into a tailspin. One to three months out, and all those investors who bought into their fund managers' lies are left holding nearly worthless pieces of virtual paper, weeping and gnashing their teeth over their ill fortune. The fund manager whistles his way to the BMW dealership and starts planning his next big scam.

There's no way that this scam can be made illegal. Certainly means exist to do so, but with the financial markets regulated entirely by once and future fund managers for major investment firms with deep pockets and loud lobbyists, no meaningful regulation will ever pass through Congress or the various agencies set up to deal with dishonesties such as the pump-and-dump. And in my opinion, there is little need for such regulation anyway, provided the average investor can become properly educated on exactly what constitutes a good stock buy, how and when to buy stocks, how to hold them, and how and when to sell them. The Motley Fool is an excellent resource for this, and you can teach yourself by reading as much as you can online. Charles Schwab has a comprehensive learning center, as do many investment firms large and small.

What you want to avoid at all costs is any talk of trusting anyone. What is it I always say? Oh, yes: "DON'T BELIEVE A WORD I SAY! Find out for yourself!" If your broker gives you a hot tip, research it. Examine the stock with a microscope, pick apart its price history, its earnings, dividends, capitalization, cash flows, legal issues, everything you can find. Then decide if it fits in with your investment goals.

The point is, stop trusting others blindly. The vast majority of humans out there are just like you, but there are predators hiding among them, just waiting for the naiive sheep to let down their guard. Trust must be earned and constantly validated, and knowledge is the best defense against those who prey on ignorance.

Mysterious Explosions

[Image courtesy of PennLive.com]

IN regards to the now-famous explosion that killed two people, destroyed three homes, and left 81 other homes uninhabitable, there has been much controversy swirling around the ensuing investigation.  It seems some people think that there is something more going on than a simple gas explosion, but I haven't really looked into it in any depth to determine whether the usual "government cover-up" conspiracy theory has wormed its way into the national discussion. Nor do I care to. The photo linked into this article (from PennLive.com) was from an explosion which occurred while I was living in Allentown. It occurred in a development located in a bend in the Little Lehigh across from the downtown, south of Ward Street. The blast completely leveled the house at 1341 St John Street, and the two homes on either side were condemned. Two brothers, Cesar Coto and Miguel Irizarry, were in the house at the time of the explosion. Coto was found under some boards by a neighbor, and Irizarry was found in the basement by rescuers. Both men were taken to Lehigh Valley Hospital and released the next day, having been treated for minor cuts and bruises.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/11/allentown_house_is_destroyed_i.html

So, why am I telling you about this? Actually, I'm not 100% sure. The blast in Indiana recalled it to memory, and I wanted to mention it, but it's too lengthy for a Facebook or Twitter blurb. The case interested me because it was local, because the two brothers were relatively unharmed, and because at the time my best friend was at the height of her Heroes obsession. (I can't remember which of us first drew the parallel between the two brothers and Claire Bennet. For about a week after that I was like Mr. Glass, searching the Internet for more stories about miraculous survivals.)

But more intriguing than any of that was the mysterious circumstances which caused the blast. No gas leaks were discovered, and there was no evidence of methamphetamine manufacturing equipment or bomb-making supplies. In fact, the best explanation that investigators could produce was methane leaking up from an old landfill, which filled the house and caused the explosion. Methane is a colorless, odorless gas, which is supplied to homes by some gas companies for cooking and heating (propane and butane are also used). A mercaptan compound is added to provide the tell-tale "gas" odor, so that leaks can be detected by mere scent (the human nose can detect ethanethiol at concentrations of only 2.8 parts per billion). If there had been a leak from commercial gas supplies, someone in the neighborhood would have likely smelled it -- certainly the two men who were in the house at the time of the explosion. Fire investigators have conceded in numerous cases that people don't always smell gas before a gas explosion occurs. But if it were straight methane, nobody would have smelled anything beforehand.

It's possible there may be an ancient landfill under that land. It's also possible that the developers could have used unqualified fill material when they built the community. It's even possible there could have been a leak from a gas pocket under the city -- Allentown sits on a large limestone deposit overlaying Devonian shale formations, which could hold untapped reserves of  hydrocarbons. However, without detailed historical records or geological surveys, we may never know if there was a natural cause for the explosion. Hypotheses for unnatural causes would be too numerous to list.

I hope this article has made everyone think, and I also hope that you will keep an eye out for any other mysterious explosions in the news and post them in the comments. Remember that life is dangerous, and risk surrounds us at all times. You can take precautions, but like MAD Magazine once said: "You're never really 100% sure that there's not still a chunk of Skylab floating around up there with your name on it." Keep your eyes, ears and nose open, but don't succumb to stress. Life is too short to worry about it's end, which can come suddenly and with no warning whatsoever.

HAARPing On Chemspiracy

[Image courtesy of Wikipedia]

For several years now, there have been a number of conspiracy theories circulating which have gained quite a bit of traction, especially concerning the HAARP facility in Gakona, Alaska, and similar facilities in other countries, and the phenomenon known as "chemtrails," which are supposedly composed of a variety of compounds sprayed from commercial aircraft at the behest of the government. The supposed purpose of chemtrails is to poison the soil in certain areas of the US to prevent non-GMO crops from growing, and/or to facilitate HAARP signals to control the weather and/or cause earthquakes. Here's my take on these theories.

I'll start with HAARP, because it deals with topics about which I know quite a bit. The HAARP facility in Alaska is composed of two parts: a variety of radio-frequency receiving equipment; and a HF transmitter array capable of generating a 3.6 megawatt (MW) signal in the 2.8-10 megahertz (MHz) range. These frequencies fall within the 80- to 30-meter bands, which includes quite a lot of commercial line-of-sight communications, satellite data transmissions, RADAR, and "worldwide" bands -- so-called because they may be bounced off certain layers of the ionosphere to reach over the horizon, even as far as the other side of the world (Gordon West, WB6NOA, claims to have reached someone in Russia while load-testing a transmitter with a light bulb). Disruptions in the ionosphere can bend the radio waves in this band in strange and unforeseen ways, interfering with line-of-sight radio applications. The HAARP project exists because more data is needed to be able to predict and hopefully compensate for these disruptions, improving line-of-sight communications.

The conspiracy theorists speculate that HAARP can be used in one of two ways. First (and most plausible), the radio waves can be used to cause localized heating in the atmosphere, influencing weather formations. The other -- which I hesitate to mention because it is so fantastic -- is that the HF waves can be used to heat large areas of the ionosphere, raising the atmosphere. When the signal is removed, the heated area cools rapidly, slamming into the ground and triggering earthquakes. Chemtrails loaded with aluminum and barium compounds can supposedly be used to direct the signals to specific points.

Now, I could hardly be considered an expert, lacking any university degrees or practical experience in the fields of meteorology or seismology, but nobody can deny that I'm smarter than the average bear. Controlling the weather is a feat which is very, very far off. We can barely predict the weather now -- mucking around with Lorentz equations and grainy satellite images, when weather is influenced at both the macro and micro scales by every particle and molecule among quadrillions. If Earth manages to reach level 2 on the Kardashev scale, we might have access to that type of technology -- but not now. Additionally, the 2.8-10 MHz range of the HF array impacts the chemical makeup of the ionosphere, but not the troposphere, where all weather takes place.

Using the atmosphere to generate earthquakes is a neat idea, but basic thermodynamics would prevent it. Even if HAARP could generate the kind of power needed to heat large enough areas of the atmosphere -- I estimate about 10 million times HAARP's present 3.6 MW output -- locally and uniformly enough to impact fault lines, it would onyl be able to do so gradually -- and all that power would leach away just as gradually, not suddenly as stated in the theory. Simple application of critical thinking blows this theory out of the water. (Why, then, is the HAARP HF array so large? All radio applications require an antenna, and that antenna must be of a length equal to the wavelength of the target signal or one of its fundamentals. A 75-meter antenna at one-quarter of the wavelength -- the second fundamental -- would be over 60 feet long.) Additionally, see the above "additionally" note on weather modification. The energy of descending air from the ionosphere would be dissipated by the stratosphere and troposphere before it even reached the ground.

Chemtrails are a bit harder for me to debunk, not possessing the necessary equipment (an aircraft capable of  flying up to 12 miles altitude, atmospheric sampling setup, and a mass spectrometer) to analyze them, but I know a bit about fluid dynamics and combustion science. Commercial aircraft burn a fuel very similar to kerosene or diesel. The burning of hydrocarbon fuels releases, among other things, copious amounts of water vapor, which has a high density relative to the fuel from which it comes and consequently imparts a high degree of impulse (thrust) to the output of the jet engines. In the cooler layers of the upper atmosphere, this water vapor often condenses into a "contrail," which is the signature "jet trail" you will see streaming out of the tiny silver speck streaking across the sky. Water vapor leaves the jet nozzles at a very high pressure, which drops catastrophically upon contact with the cooler and relatively unpressurized air of the upper troposphere, triggering concdensation. Tiny specks of soot will also be among the exhaust products, providing more or fewer seeds for condensation, depending on the exact fuel mix and the condition of the engines. Depending on atmospheric conditions, i.e. barometric pressure, absolute humidity, and wind shear, those trails can persist for a very long time, even hours. In dense urban areas with major airports, the mingling of multiple persistent contrails can often give the appearance of grids or other patterns, especially if the conditions are right for persistent contrails. (For a more thorough debunking, see the Wikipedia article on the chemtrail conspiracy theory.)

Many of you know me as a highly credulous person. I am prepared to believe anything in the face of a robust, logical argument. I rule out nothing as impossible, having experienced many, many strange things in my lifetime. However, among my many experiences has been contact with people who suffer delusions, and the phenomenon known as folie à deux. Delusions happen when one part of the mind invents a fiction, and another part of the mind believes it as fact. These delusions arise from a wide variety of environmental stimuli and memories, and can appear quite real -- in some cases, more real than actual reality. (As a point of interest, I am a mad scientist responsible for implanting computer chips in the heads of dozens of people, according to one schizophrenic.) It may be a delusion itself, but I think I've become quite adept at distinguishing delusional statements from those repeated out of honest ignorance -- a phenomenon of pandemic proportions in today's society. Most folks are honest, and as such assume that everyone else is just as honest and would not lie to them. Also, most people seem to believe anything told to them by someone they perceive as more knowledgeable and/or intelligent than they are. (This is why I always say "DON'T BELIEVE A WORD I SAY! Verify it for yourself!") Therefore, a delusion can be passed from person to person in a geometric progression until we have a folie à plusieurs, and various government agencies are bombarded by calls from irate citizens demanding that they stop their nefarious activities at once.

Whatever the origin may be of any delusion, it remains exactly that -- a delusion, a fiction. A folie à deux, no matter how many people assert that it is fact, remains a shared fiction with little or no basis in actual fact. Do your own research, learn what you need to learn, and think critically about everything you see and hear. And at the end of the day, always remember that when God created this world, She filled it with many strange wonders and as yet unexplainable phenomena. Keep your mind open, but well-guarded.

Going John Galt

[Image courtesy of Wikipedia.com]

So, Obama has as good as pledged to veto any budget which does not raise taxes on people making over $250,000 per year. Sounds like all the more reason to not improve my situation.

I often mention that I drive a forklift for a living. Not a glamorous job, and actually much harder and more risky than most people think. (I spent ten hours each on Friday and Saturday on a center-rider, and I'm still sore.) And the fact is that my job entails much more than operating machinery. The supervisors at The Company (referenced as such to avoid any confusion about whether my employer endorses my comments -- which they don't) learned long ago that I am an intelligent and motivated worker, so they keep heaping more and more training on me. As a result, I know just about every job in the building -- and most of them require lifting and moving an average of approximately 32,000 pounds of product every night with my gloved hands. That takes a major toll on a body, especially one which has suffered as much physical punishment as mine has. It's a testament to the hardiness of my ancestors that I'm able to move at all when I come home.

In short, it's not a job which many people would prefer. It's physical, dirty, and it pays well below the $250,000 threshold set by Obama. With my intelligence and intuition, I could have been making way more than that by now. But I made the conscious decision a long time ago that I would not feed any more into the corrupt governmental system than I can possibly avoid. I live a reasonably comfortable life at my current income level, and while it would be nice to have more, it's not a necessity.

I foresee lots of people making this same decision if Obama's tax increase takes effect. Many people currently making $250,000 or more per year will find ways to reduce that, and many more will forego promotions, training and education which will push them above that threshold.  Indeed, several of my coworkers have indicated to me that they forego overtime to avoid being pushed into the next higher tax bracket. This is a phenomenon known as "going John Galt," and it has been underway for a while now.

For those of you who haven't read Atlas Shrugged, John Galt was a character in that book. He was a brilliant young man with an engineering degree from a major (fictional) university. He got a job at a manufacturing plant, where he began work on a revolutionary new type of motor which would draw electricity from the very air. But he abandoned the work after witnessing the devolution of society -- to an approximation of what we have today -- quit his job, and got a new job working as an unskilled laborer for a railroad. Does this sound familiar?

The "John Galt Effect" has been accelerating since 2007, and will continue to do so. As of February, Atlas Shrugged has sold 1.5 million copies since Obama was elected.

Steel Cage Death Match 2012: Toohil v. Young

Well, what goes around comes around, I guess. Two years ago, the young and fresh Tarah Toohil defeated incumbent Speaker of the House Todd Eachus to claim the 116th district seat. Toohil is a lawyer from the Hazleton area who has the backing of the Tea Party. Eachus was an establisment career politician who, while doing a bit of good in response to the kids-for-cash scandal, funneled millions in federal pork to his hometown area of Scranton. I was very glad to see Toohil triumph.

This year, it's Toohil as the incumbent, facing tough opposition from Democratic candidate Ransom Young. And by tough, I mean muddy. Now, I do have to give Young credit. Back in April, he and Toohil made an agreement that they would keep their competing campaigns clean, and Young almost made it to the end. A couple weeks ago, photos came out depicting Toohil in potentially embarrassing positions (possibly smoking pot but definitely riding a camel). At first, Young and Pennsylvania Democrats denounced the obvious attacks as "dirty, nasty politics at its worst." But in their debate this past Wednesday, Young capitalized on the controversy, calling Toohil's integrity into question even though she was totally up front and honest about everything.

I'll be completely honest -- Ransom Young pisses me off. He's yet another career politician who's big on image and rather short on the issues. His only legitimate claim to fitness for government is his blue-collar cred, being a farm owner and former small-business owner. He has quite a few good ideas -- closing the Delaware loophole for corporations, promoting tech jobs in the Hazleton area, and increasing severance taxes for natural gas drillers. However, like most good ideas, these all have their caveats. For one, closing tax loopholes will do more to discourage corporations from doing business in Pennsylvania, rather than increasing tax revenues.

For another, raising the bar on skill levels for area employment will have a detrimental effect on Hazleton. This city was built on coal and coal mining, and our blue collars are pretty much dyed in the wool. If CAN DO and other development companies try to attract more technology and other white-collar jobs to the area, the net result will be yuppies driving in from New York and the Poconos to take those jobs -- and space which could have been used for semi-skilled and skilled labor, such as manufacturing and warehousing, which suits the skill-set of the average resident perfectly, will be taken. As a data-analyst-turned-forklift-driver, I have very strong feelings about this. Let's be honest -- Hazleton is poor, economically speaking. Most folks here can't afford to send their kids through six years of college to get jobs they'll hate anyway. If you're going to hate your job, at least let it be one where you're making fifteen dollars an hour WITHOUT being tens of thousands in debt on student loans. (From one who knows.) The best strategy here is to offer incentives to companies who have manufacturing and logistics divisions and promote training programs for workers to make them more attractive for such positions. The job skills I've learned since moving to Hazleton will probably carry me through for the rest of my life.

Now, what about Toohil? The only thing she's done to piss me off was voting in favor of a law allowing the Commonwealth to override local zoning rulings unfavorable to natural gas drilling. Bad idea. Fortunately, the law was overturned. But on the other hand, she's done wonders on the MinSec issue. I've blogged before about this, so I'll not repeat myself. Toohil's ideas on employment fall more-or-less in line with what I detailed above. She helped to eliminate an unaccountable cash-assistance program (detailed elsewhere) which was costing Pennsylvanians millions every year. She has also embarked on a number of personal missions to educate Commonwealth residents on various legal issues.

One more thing I like about Toohil is something which has caused far more and more vociferous controversy, not only for her but for many, many people over several centuries: she is a lawyer. Many scholars have noted the deleterious effect lawyers have had both on legislation and on judiciary procedure, producing "legalese," statutory construction, and rigid behavioral forms nearly incomprehensible to the average person. However, lawyers have the unenviable task of interpreting the law and explaining it to others, just as historians analyze the past and teach the various levels of significance to people. Having a lawyer representing me in the assembly is of immense comfort, having spent man-months of my time examining and interpreting law for my own purposes. It is dull and tedious work, just like data analysis or warehousing, but necessary. Make of that what you will, but I prefer to have specialists handling specialized tasks.

So, my closing statements to the candidates: Young, reclaim your integrity and keep your 2014 campaign clean to the end. Toohil, good on ya, but respect individual and municipal rights in your next term.