A minimalist approach to essential, transparent, accountable, flat, adaptable, responsive, solution-based government, rooted in virtuous individual autonomy, traditional values and free markets, with a bias towards reduction of government functionality, cost and scope
Abusing tobacco, alcohol, or drugs are terrible ways to harm oneself (I avoid these transactions except for an infrequent drink, usually at a social event), but prohibiting victimless crimes is abusive, counterproductive public policy.
On Fear Mongering Climate Change
Facebook Corner
via LFC
I guess this must be in a Reformed Jewish neighborhood.
(Lew Rockwell). Poor Sweden: rampant social leftism, mass migration, and the welfare state lead to “no apartments, no jobs, and no shopping without a gun.” Oh, and a total state-media blackout on migrant rapes, robberies, murders Crackpot fear-mongering. You're a neocon of a different kind, Lew.
(Lew Rockwell). Good for Greg Abbott. The Texan gov is traveling to Havana on a goodwill visit to expand trade. For example, Cuban sugar and rice are cheaper and better than Texan. And Texan technology is far more sophisticated than Cuban. I'll trade them Obama for two left handers and a shortstop. Don't they have enough economically illiterate socialists?
(Pro-Life Libertarians). Abortion is the government sanctioned, legal murder of a human. Do individuals have the right to stop a murderer? What if the murder is legal? If this was slavery would you advocate violence to stop it? Is violence, to stop violence, always wrong? Would you wait for the government to do something? Are those who merely ask the question responsible for advocating violence? As a libertarian, when is violence allowed? Same thoughts have been running through my mind. "Would you abort baby Hitler? Would you fight for Jews, in Germany, or wait until the government gave permission? No, we would not abort Baby Hitler. You could associate freely with others and act in self-defense of the group. I do believe that a government that violates protection of natural rights has lost its legitimacy.
(Drudge Report). 'Christmas in Washington' canceled after 33 years... Maybe they're transitioning to 'Happy Holidays From Washington'
Entertainment Potpourri
Several days back I was griping about the heavy rotation of certain cable Christmas movies on Hallmark's annual holiday season which starts around Halloween. I noticed some of the flicks that I had seen over the past year were no longer in the rotation; I also wondered why Hallmark didn't include some classic holiday flicks in its rotation.
Long story short, and no doubt some readers already know this, Hallmark, like Lifetime, has a sibling movie network (Hallmark lumps mysteries with movies). Now on my cable, the HMM channel is 256; my cable provider does have a way of filtering favorite channels, but you have to logon onto your cable account. I can manually pan down several pages of listings to get to 256, but it's a hassle. Over the weekend, I discovered several of the ones I've been waiting to see are being played on HMM and some classics (like 'A Christmas Carol') are covered. I've only looked at the schedule for a couple of days or so. Another overdone theme: royal/commoner Christmas romances. I think I've tagged lists in the past, but some of my favorite cable movies:
Catch a Christmas Star (H)
The Christmas Hope (L)
Christmas with Holly (HMM)
A Christmas Visitor (HMM)
The Mrs. Miracle movies (H)
The Christmas Card (HMM)
Fallen Angel (HMM)
Finding John Christmas (H)
Farewell, Mr. Kringle (H ?)
The 9 Lives of Christmas (H)
Angels and Ornaments (H ?)
November Christmas (HMM)
Help For the Holidays (H)
Dear Santa (L)
The Christmas Spirit (H)
Christmas Magic (H)
I'm probably missing a few. '?' means I haven't seen them at least listed this season yet (they may have but not to my knowledge).
Political Cartoon
Courtesy of the original artist via IPI
Musical Interlude: Christmas Hits
Trans-Siberian Orchestra, "Dreams of Fireflies (On a Christmas Night)"
Quote of the Day Hope is such a bait, it covers any hook. Oliver Goldsmith
Tweet of the Day
Some days you wonder if it's worth tweeting. I'm trying to explain that in order to invest in the US, foreigners need dollars, which they can get by selling us stuff. I found my relevant tweet being favorited/liked by a pro-Trump group. Okay, if I say your candidate is economically illiterate, that's not a good thing; if I'm comparing him to a socialist, that's not a good thing. I suspect they are responding to the message investment in the US is a good thing, but you can also make investment in the US more attractive with more globally competitive tax and regulatory reform....
@petarinabug Pro-lifers do support the right of self-defense, oppose unjust wars, and oppose the death penalty. We are #prolife, period.
[in response to sharks // people @petarinabug
pro lifers are almost always
- pro gun
- pro war
- pro death penalty
So they're #prolife untill the baby leaves the womb
#PlannedParenthood]
If and when government fails in its primary objective, to secure the natural rights of citizens, it loses its legitimacy. #prolife
(Drudge Report). SOLD OUT: Lines Form FIVE BLOCKS LONG to See Trump in Sarasota It just goes to show how many morons will line up to see a celebrity clown.
(Drudge Report). WATCH: Ted Cruz Says Constitution Trumps Public Opinion #Guns The right to self-defense supersedes tyranny of any majority.
(Pro-Life Libertarian). All laws use violence to secure their enforcement. The question then is; what justifies the use of force? Protecting life, liberty, and property are the only proper roles of government. Stopping abortion is a proper use of government and force. It's using the government to defend life.
The police did use force to subdue the shooter in Colorado Springs, to stop further violence against life and property. As per my earlier tweet, if and when government fails in its primary objective, to secure the natural rights of citizens, it loses its legitimacy. This includes the rights of the preborn.
Apparently it's not green enough--or looks like it came from your pooper scooper
A Note on the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood Shooting
There was a kerfuffle a few weeks back involving whether if you had the power to kill baby Adolf Hitler, would you do it? Jeb Bush said, "Hell, yeah". (The assumption is that without Hitler, you could have saved the lives of 6 million Jews. Of course, Hitler did not act alone. We could well ask what would have happened without harsh sanctions against Germany at the end of WWI.) Ben Carson more consistently reflected the pro-life view of not killing an innocent baby.
The alleged murder of 3 people and 9 others injured by Robert Dear at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood facility is a tragedy. Now as a pro-lifer, I have major issues with Planned Parenthood being the largest provider of elective abortion, which I consider to be an abomination, a form of generational genocide. For the government to subsidize this organization (money is fungible) goes beyond free market objections: it is the unconscionable aiding and abetting the destruction of innocent human lives. If and when government fails in its primary objective, to secure the natural rights of citizens, it loses its legitimacy.
I do understand there are differences of opinion on this issue. In fact, I earned my bachelor's degree at a Catholic college and found myself rebuked for being overly strident on the issue (I did course papers on the topic, which is why I've known the consistent Catholic teachings condemning the practice of abortion and infanticide, common Roman practices, since the Didache.) But as any familiar reader knows, my moral objections stem from the scientific fact that human life begins at conception, with DNA distinct from his or her parents. I've generally tried not to preach on the topic or be personally judgmental on the issue; I think in the history of the blog I've rarely embedded in-your-face videos or images. I try to persuade, focus on the positive side of choosing life. There are some pro-lifers who have a harder stance; I've had an arrogant nephew-in-law accuse me of being pro-life-in-name-only after I friended him on Facebook and found myself swamped with in-your-face rants from an abortion abolitionist group. I gently warned my niece that he needed to tone it down; he responded by defriending me after posting a personally obnoxious rant. I've occasionally posted images or comments from Feminists for Life and Pro-Life Libertarians.
I am not and have not been affiliated formally with any pro-life groups. I have known many other pro-lifers (one of my little sisters used to work with an abortion alternative center) and I've never heard any discuss the use of violent means to advance pro-life objectives; I've never heard any of them suggest the incarceration of pregnant or formerly pregnant woman. (In fact, we have missions like Rachel's Vineyard to counsel women coping with the death of their aborted child.)
We cherish all life, born or preborn. What happened in Colorado Springs was wrong and in our judgment counterproductive to the cause. In fact, an ironic fact is the first known murder victim was a pro-life cop. The last thing we want is for the evil organization Planned Parenthood to play the victim card, using the attack to fund-raise for killing more children.
Officer Swasey was a pro-life co-pastor of his church. None of the victims were patients or clinic staff.
Facebook Corner
via Pro-Life Libertarians
[Extract of a thread also joined by the moderator.] How are pro-life laws enforced? By persuasion. So why condemn violence against PP? The Non-Aggression Principle. Look it up. So state violence against abortionists is cool. Non-state violence is aggression? If you are a minarchist libertarian, like me, you believe in the use of state force to protect natural rights of life, liberty and property. For those of us pro-lifers, that includes the rights of the preborn. Now short of a police state, we can't stop those who are determined to violate the rights of others. Most of us would focus on the perpetrator of violence against the child for criminal sanction.
Political Cartoon
Courtesy of Milk Pie via Alex Nowrasteh on Twitter
Quote of the Day To the world you may be just one person, but to one person you may be the world. Brandi Snyder
Chart of the Day
Image of the Day
Eat 'Em Up, Coogs!
My alma mater Houston whipped their undefeated division rivals Navy 52-31 and will host the conference championship next weekend, I believe. This featured two of the best quarterbacks in the country. Houston came into this game, smarting over their close loss last week at UConn, snapping a 10-game winning streak. Their starting quarterback, Greg Ward, Jr., has been hobbled by an ankle injury and missed almost all of last week's loss; on top of that, their running back corp is depleted, and they've converted Brandon Wilson from defensive back. What was incredible was how many third or fourth downs the Cougars continually converted, with Ward repeatedly scrambling out of trouble and picking up clutch first downs or scores. Keenan Reynolds, the Navy QB, managed to tie the career rushing touchdown record and had a number of other clutch plays, but Houston's defense did a credible job breaking down the option; more importantly, Houston did a good job keeping Navy's defense on the field and out of Reynolds' hands.
In yesterday's post, I ranted against against Smith's piece, which argues that Mankiw's introductory economics text is essentially too simplistic and lacks the data-rich, more advanced context challenging classic cases against minimum wages or welfare policies. I outlined my reaction and quoted Boudreaux's principled reaction to similar gripes. Henderson in the cited FEE post more directly attacks the piece, noting that Smith's essay doesn't make the case of attributed title, that Smith is attacking a straw man and the empirical studies that Smith cites don't really dislodge economic principles; at worst, Mankiw might need to modify, say, the magnitudes of effects he discusses in explanation (e.g., how much teenage employment is affected by a raise in the minimum wage, but not in the adverse direction of the effect.) Again, any summary risks oversimplification, and the reader is encouraged to read the full post
JOTY Nomination
What the hell is in the water in Pennsylvania? The Dem Attorney General Kathleen Kane has created a soap opera unlike any I've discussed in the history of the blog. Here's a synopsis from the Gray Lady:
Ms. Kane, 49, who took office in 2013, is accused of leaking secret grand jury material to damage her critics, lying about it under oath and telling aides to gather information illegally. She faces charges of perjury, obstructing administration of law, false swearing and official oppression. In September, the State Supreme Court suspended her license to practice law.
The suspension of her law license affects her ability to do her job, according to top officials in the state office, although she disputes that. Democrat Gov. Wolf has called for her to step down. There is a legislative process for the Senate to initiative removal of a public official by a super-majority vote by the Senate (the GOP dominates the state senate, just shy of a supermajority; it should be noted that Kane argues that such a move would be unconstitutional) There is some talk of preliminary actions in both chambers of the PA legislature.
But it looks as though if Kane goes down, she's determined to take her political opponents down with her, announcing a politically correct investigation into state emails. (I seriously doubt a politically motivated witch hunt would pass constitutional muster.) Let me note that Kane exploited the Sandusky kerfuffle at Penn State in her rise to power. I don't have direct knowledge that Kane has abused the powers of her office for political reasons, but what has been alleged would undermine the integrity of the position and would damage the Democrat Party in PA. Wolf has not committed to removing Kane (and that itself may be challenged at the PA Supreme Court if it happens), but given the fact he's already asked her to step down, he may have little choice. I'll follow-up the story as it develops.
Bad Elephant of the Year Nomination
This is pathetic, even for a jerk like Trump. This clown has done so many outrageous things, whether we are talking about McCain's status as a POW, publicly released Lindsey Graham's personal cell number, outrageous statements about Mexican immigrants, disparaging statements about Carly Fiorina's personal appearance, etc.: I don't think it's possible for another Republican to beat Trump over the coming month for this year's annual mock award
Hall of Shame: Woman Steals Merchandise From a Child
Facebook Corner
(Drudge Report). Did Trump go too far? Dump the Trump... I wouldn't trust this asshole as a dogcatcher. He's a poorly raised SOB whose people skills matured in an elementary school playground. America doesn't need another asshole President.
I love turkey with a passion; as a single person, it's not very economical, although I've been known to occasionally purchase one and eat turkey for the next 2 weeks: more typically, I'll buy an occasional turkey breast or packages of turkey legs/wings and throw them in a crockpot. Not this year (I'm in the middle of one of my strictest diets in years), although I've got some turkeyburgers in the freezer and will grill one for a meal today. I was especially fond of Dad's gas-grill smoked turkey and two of his typical side dishes, mashed rutabagas and turkey stuffing. Thanksgiving is, of course, more than food, although with siblings in 4 other states, reunions are difficult to coordinate. I'll usually tune into one of the holiday parades; football is another tradition.
UT/Texas A&M was a holiday tradition. [This ended when A&M left the Big 12 to join the SEC.] I, my brother and a nephew all earned degrees from UT, while now the third of 3 nephews is working on his degree at A&M (their dad started at A&M but followed my sister to Texas State, where another nephew has earned a degree). Usually we watched on TV, but I recall one of my brothers-in-law in the early 90's scored some tickets at Thanksgiving in Austin. UT did not field a good team at the time, the seats were in the middle of an Aggie section, and we got killed in the game. So we were cold and hungry when we left Austin; the folks weren't waiting for our return--we would have to eat leftovers. My brother-in-law Joe, for God knows what reason, wanted to stop for hot dogs on the hour-plus drive back to San Antonio. But worse was watching him douse ketchup on top of a steaming slice of turkey breast, instead of Dad's giblet gravy. To me, putting ketchup on turkey is a bigger faux pas than putting ketchup on a hot dog in Chicagoland. Worse yet, my 3 nieces take after their dad's obsession with ketchup. Me, I rarely buy ketchup and on the rare occasion I buy McDonald's shoestring fries, I like them as is, hot and lightly salted; I have never understood why people wanted to drown them in ketchup.
Quote of the Day Say not, when I have leisure I will study; you may not have leisure. The Mishnah
Tweet of the Day
It may be that ObamaCare co-ops are surviving at less than .500, but the spin is that .400 wins MLB batting crown. https://t.co/ezyhSQZd2k
(FEE). "One of the dangers of talking with someone who disagrees with you, or sometimes even with someone who seems to agree with you, is that you talk past each other." I don't doubt that there are unscrupulous vendors out there which exploit the ignorance of consumers, that some people who put things at yard sales may not realize the true market price of those items, that some new car buyers may not be skilled at haggling, etc. Among other things, the markets have a vested interest to serve their customers; it's not a sustainable business model to harm one's customers or to see one's market manipulated by fraud. It provides incentive for customer reassurance, e.g., warranties, independent audits, increased transparency, and/or arbitrage. For instance, instead of investigating new car costs, dealer overhead, markups, automaker incentives, etc., or have a dealer push a costly financing plan on me, I can use a car buying service and prearrange a loan from my credit union. A company has an incentive to protect its business reputation. And, of course, the libertarian insists on voluntary agreements and constraints against fraud. I don't think any libertarian is naive about theft of property, violated contracts, etc. We allow for arbitration of contractual disputes. We just think of regulation as an inefficient, ineffective, incompetent, typically counterproductive, morally hazardous, unaccountable government monopoly. So I have no problem with libertarians simplifying discussion. I think the author would better be served in addressing the economic illiteracy behind the Statist bureaucracy.
Noah Smith and Econ 101
Let me start off by saying that I am not an economist in training. I did well in my graduate macro and micro service courses for the MBA, but to be honest, there was no political context. I personally became more conservative/libertarian, not because of school or Reagan, but I started to become more skeptical of government intervention. I have not studied econometrics, read much economic research, I don't spend a lot of time reading Krugman and other popularizers; I'll occasionally go to Mankiw's blog, read Scott Sumner, Tyler Cowen, etc. But I do some independent reading on topics like externalities, price stickiness, etc. Donald Boudreaux often discusses more esoteric concepts like monopsony power. I've occasionally found myself blasted in free market blogs (by leftist trolls) for ignoring realities like imperfect information. (I tackled a similar question in today's FB segment.)
Noah Smith is another popularizer (Mankiw jokingly refers to him as his grandstudent). In a brutal job market for academic economists, he's landed a position as a professor of finance in some business school. I first read an essay of his that EconLib blurbed on Facebook, arguing that much of what is in an introductory economics course is actually wrong or grossly oversimplified and/or reflects a partisan perspective (Mankiw is a former economic advisor to Bush, has written the most popular intro textbook in the discipline). Smith argues that economics is more data-driven today, e.g., discussion of the minimum wage from a conceptual basis is wrong, i.e., the world is more complex, that, e.g., (unstated) Card and Krueger's dismissal of adversarial effects to increases in the minimum wage has to be taken into account. Smith argues effectively that students would be better served by understanding data analytical techniques such as those employed by Card and Krueger instead of sterile principles that don't apply to the complexities of modern economies. Smith may object to this summary of his piece, but I invite the reader and decide for himself if my statement is fair.
This post really bothered me, It did not shake my belief in the law of supply and demand, the law of comparative advantage, etc. But I know enough to be skeptical of the economic models and the limitations of empirical research and the very notion that your typical college student is capable or should be taught the intricacies of research design and evaluation is dubious. I have no doubt that leftist economists could use this backdoor opportunity to promote a political agenda. For example, a wage floor (minimum wage) necessarily filters available workers. Nearly 98% of jobs pay above minimum wage--the minimum wage does not impact them directly. There are all sorts of reasons employers may not lay off workers due to a raise in minimum wage; for example, there are training costs, other forms of compensation or work schedules can be adjusted, performance/hiring criteria are raised, or the company absorbs the hit in the short term for competitive reasons. But the fact remains that in a competitive market there is an arbitrage opportunity to an employer if other employers offer below-market opportunities. Of course, it's difficult to judge a counterfactual--what happens when inexperienced/unskilled workers are legally prohibited from working at a lower wage. I have mentioned before I used to clear about a buck a day from daily delivery of 90 papers as a high school student. I would have gladly taken an hourly wage, below minimum wage, of $1.50 an hour for, say, 15-20 hours a week. But the bottom line is that costs matter; the fact is that only a certain number of minimum wage jobs are funded and you need to explain in your model why more workers don't work for minimum wage.
I have to admit I was one of the ones who sent Donald Boudreaux an email, asking him to weigh in on the Smith post. He never acknowledged my email, but he did mention a few people have similarly requested such in a post entitled, contrary to Smith, 'Most of What You Learn in Econ 101 is Right". He references a couple of earlier posts (see below) but, acknowledging uneven quality of Econ 101 classes across universities, he makes these points worth pondering:
But a well-taught principles course ... is one that teaches, and teaches well, at least ten vital foundational lessons: (1) the world is full of both desirable and undesirable unintended consequences – consequences that are largely invisible but that even a course in ‘mere’ principles of economics gives us great vision that enables us to “see,” (2) intentions are not results; (3) our world is unavoidably one of trade-offs and not “solutions,” (4) market-determined prices (4a) are not arbitrary, (4b) connect millions of strangers to each other in productive ways that almost none of these strangers are aware of, and (4c) cannot, save under the rarest of unrealistic circumstances, be controlled by government without causing consequences quite the opposite of those that are ostensibly desired, (5) productive and sustainable complex economic order emerges without design or intention, (6) individuals respond to incentives, (7) individuals, and not collectives, choose and act, (8) wealth is not fixed in amount (and it is not money), (9) government officials are no smarter or better-motivated than are people operating in the private sector, and (10) the economy is inconceivably more complex than someone with a poor understanding of economics realizes – so complex that the promises of social engineers are revealed to be fantastic delusions.
In his first cited principles post, and I don't intend to oversimplify here, Don explains his post was motivated by a soundbite to the effect heaven save us from Econ 101 students who don't realize their limited knowledge of economics and lack the necessary insights from more advanced courses to understand reality is more complex. For example, progressives argue that large-scale employers of low-income workers can abuse their market (i.e.,monopsony) power at the expense of workers to drive down wages, thus justifying intervention by the State. Basically Don argues here that principles of economics serve a useful purpose not unlike how Newton's laws are useful, even if twentieth-century physics have superceded them a nuanced manner. Political whores generally have no clue what is meant by (e.g.,) monopsony power and simply believe that policy can give lower-income workers an overdue raise--completely detached from any understanding of economics. We need clear economic principles, not flawed populist fallacies behind State policies.
In his follow-up post, Don points out the hubris of these advanced economists who arbitrarily decide which factors, known or unknown, seen or unseen, to factor into their models (say, trying to explain impacts of the increase in minimum wage). He basically argues that somehow an econometric/mathematical model lends an undue sense of confidence in subsequent results. The truly insightful economist is one who is humble enough to realize the limitations of his knowledge and relies on coherent, intuitive principles to guide his research.
Choose Life: The Beauty and Wonder of Family
Political Cartoon
RE. IL Dem politicians; courtesy of the original artist via IPI
Hall of Shame: The Unprovoked Chicago Police Murder of Laquan McDonald The shooting appears just after 5 minutes into the video. The 17-year-old victim is clearly veering away from the policeman in question before Van Dyke shoots him 16 times, less than 30 seconds on the scene and 6 seconds after emerging from his car. At no moment did the unarmed McDonald approach Van Dyke.
Facebook Corner
(follow-up to yesterday's IPI discussion of the KY governor-elect's proposal to switch new employees to a defined contribution plan vs. pensions--and how KY, like IL, had shortchanged the pension system over the past decade, exacerbating the funding base)
No, I finally figured out what [discussant] was objecting to, and all the rest of you are wrong. In my response, I assumed that he was objecting to the claim that the pension haven't been fully-funded since FY2002, which is the core point. He was really objecting to the blurb statement "Officials shortchanged the plan for more than a decade. ", although his first comment about 2001 and 2002 is entirely irrelevant to the blurb, and he seems to be assuming an employer match constituted the necessary employer contribution. If you read the entire article, you would know the main point was around the recessions--which is especially key because of a double whammy of a shrinking pension fund and poor contributions. I'm not sure how Kentucky did this--it could be they deferred funding to later years like Illinois did. However, a major point is that stock market yields, despite recent gains, have been anemic since 2000; on an inflation-adjusted basis, the S&P and Nasdaq are actually down. When your model calls for 7.5% investment gains, you're in a world of hurt. I believe that private pension plans use a more conservative 4% return. What basically this means in practice is the employer needs to kick in more to compensate for inadequate gains. Think that states, in recessionary times with shrunken tax revenues, are actually going to kick in more? Not likely given the nature of political whores. I do think the quoted authority is wrong when he tacitly assumes that the issue is simply employer contributions are the reason KY's pension plans are in trouble--I think it has more to do with a bloated retiree base and anemic economic growth since 2000. Certainly missing contributions hurt, but [discussant's] point that KY kicked in certain years vs. others is not material to the major point..
(responding to a pensioner troll arguing this is how politicians "stole" their retirement) No, it's not "stolen"; it was deferred. The obligation doesn't go away. It was never successfully financed in the first place. The political whores never financed a retirement that potentially meant half-pay or more for up to 3 decades or more, even longer than their active work career. The private sector generally phased out of pensions starting in the 1980's based on the financing. The problem here is that public sector governments have started seeing contributions multiply, in some places tripling or quadrupling in just over a dozen years; it's to the point of crowding out essential services.
(Drudge Report). Retired Marine Kicked Off Flight For Being Overweight. It's incredible how many flight attendants, like in this case, don't know how to resolve the most basic problems. It reminds me of the time I had been assigned one of those immovable seats in front of a plane bulwark. The asshole in front of me reclined his seat right into my personal space. I was all but immobilized; I couldn't even stretch out my arms. So I pushed back, and it went back and forth until he flagged the no-nonsense Nazi stewardess who was insistent that the asshole had an absolute right to invade my personal space--and explicitly threatened to have me deplaned. Luckily one of her saner colleagues found a tiny person willing to trade seats with me. I was not happy that they didn't make the SOB switch seats--after all, the fact that my row's seats couldn't recline made the problem worse, but it's insane that he had a right I didn't have and lacked common courtesy.
Political Cartoon
Courtesy of Eric Allie via IPI
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists
Aretha Franklin, "Something He Can Feel". This concludes my retrospective of the Queen of Soul through the 1970's and is a logical stopping point for my annual holiday music hiatus. There are a few hits in the 1980's I want to cover when we resume the series after New Year's.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4301317/Fan_book_2.0.jpg)
