|
I sent a huge Thank You to Barbara Boxer...
if you want to do the same, email her here
Shes got BIG cojones. :thumbsup: |
Just did, thank you. Super liberal guy at work doesn't like Boxer, but i can't remember why? but, hardly anyone is liberal enough for him, i think. I think she voted bad on some issues, or something? :confused: Anyway, i like her.
|
Quote:
|
re: Shirley Tubbs-Jones...
there isnt an email address that I can find but she does have a phone and fax number
|
Quote:
|
Already done. And I used the rest of a FTD.com credit to send flowers to her main office :laugh:. I had a lot of respect for her already, but I especially commend her for what she said and did today.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think it is important to watch it all - but that is just my "I have to know everything" obsessive compulsive way :laugh: Plus, when I read things too extreme on either side, I just never believe it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
See - I disagree (SURPRISE) - I mean the US news agencies aired the Tsunami stuff in total. I mean what else could they have said or shown :shrug: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
But Diss. seemingly was applying it to all the news :shrug: - that is what I commented on :cool: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
They didn't take that story far enough, IMO. |
Quote:
I think it all comes down to the vast majority of Americans could care a less if we singlehandedly shot every Muslim in the head tommorow. That is sad - but it apparently it is true. I mean look at how the American people (most at least) could care a less that we tortured the Iraqi's. They think that these Iraqi's bombed our buildings. The American press has stated a billion times that SH had no connection with OBL and the events of 9/11. Yet, they do not care. So, I think it is not the press' fault per se, it is the majority of the American peoples' fault for refusing to see past their bigotry :shrug: |
Quote:
Washington D.C. 112 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-3553 Sacramento 501 I Street, Suite 7-600 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 448-2787 (916) 448-2563 fax San Francisco 1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 240 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 403-0100 (415) 956-6701 fax Los Angeles 312 N. Spring Street, Suite 1748 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 894-5000 (213) 894-5042 fax Fresno 1130 O Street, Suite 2450 Fresno, CA 93721 (559) 497-5109 (559) 497-5111 fax San Diego 600 B Street, Suite 2240 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 239-3884 (619) 239-5719 fax Inland Empire 201 North E Street, Suite 210 San Bernardino, CA 92401 (909) 888-8525 (909) 888-8613 fax |
Quote:
I wanted to post it to show two things: 1. The media is blasting the Bush Admin. for the AG nomination, and 2. The right is refusing to equate most torturous acts as just that - torture. I mean sleep deprivation and other such mild things are okay with me, but this guy went WAY beyond that and the right refuses to call him for it. Again, most of America could care a less because they view the Muslims as animals and wouild just as soon see them dead IMO. It ought to get you steaming mad - it sure got me mad :mad: - I added comments to show why :mad: The Left-Wing Media Kicking Some Proverbial Butt... Friday, January 07, 2005 By Bill O'Reilly The left-wing media kicking some proverbial butt, that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." Even if you believe the left is misguided, you have to admire the passion and organization they are bringing to their cause. Today across the country, the left-wing media in a seemingly coordinated effort, attacked the nomination of Alberto Gonzales (search) to be the new attorney general. "The New York Times" ran a front-page torture story and two anti- Gonzales op-eds. "The Washington Post" ran a front page torture story and an anti-Gonzales editorial. "The Los Angeles Times" ran a torture story and an anti-Gonzales editorial. "The Boston Globe" ran a torture story, as did "The Chicago Tribune." In addition, the far left Web sites took out ads that blamed Abu Ghraib (search), among other things, on Mr. Gonzales. All of this happened on a single day. Can you say coordinated attacks? [Like that is a bad thing - BRING THE TRUTH TO PEOPLE :mad: ] Of course, today, poor Alberto testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee (search). But no right wing groups took out ads. "The Wall Street Journal" defended him on its editorial page, but that was it. The Bush administration hasn't really helped Gonzales very much either. And if you're a casual news reader or watcher, you would think Alberto Gonzales was Dr. Evil -- Mr. Torture. [WELL HE DID SUGGEST USING IT :shrug: :mad: ] The point is that the left-wing media is getting more aggressive and more organized. Their machine is very effective. And anyone they don't like is going to get it right between the eyes. [POT CALLING KETTLE BLACK] In just a few moments, we'll discuss the other side of the story, why Gonzales may indeed be looking out for us. But it's not my job to defend the man. [YEA RIGHT AND THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU ARE DOING BUTTHEAD] The Bush administration should be aggressively doing that. "Talking Points" realizes most Americans know the Geneva Conventions (search) do not apply to terrorists [THIS IS TRUE] , and that coerced interrogation [HAVE SOME SAND AND CALL IT WHAT IT IS - TORTURE - SO MUCH FOR NO SPIN ZONE] is necessary when killers are attacking civilians. But the left-wing media doesn't believe that. [AND ANYONE WHO IS HUMANE DOES NOT AS WELL YOU FU&*TARD] And their message is much more effective than their opposition. The way the left frames it, if you support coerced interrogation -- as Gonzales does -- you support torture. The headline in "The New York Times" op- ed today: "We Are All Torturers Now." Ridiculous? Of course it is. [WELL THAT IS RIDICULOUS :laugh: ] But that's how the left is framing it. And that message has been effectively delivered. And that's "The Memo." The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day [OFF TOPIC - BUT POSTED TO SAY GOOD BYE BO ] As you know, I write a newspaper column, and hundreds of papers carry it from coast to coast. One of those papers was "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution," but now that paper has dropped the column after I confronted its editorial page editor yesterday for cheap-shotting me in one of her columns. It was awful. Now I wouldn't mention this except that you should know a lot of things that go on in journalism are personal. There's no question the column is successful. Millions read it every week. But the editorial page editor down there, Cynthia Tucker (search ), really dislikes me even though I've never even met her. So you "Journal-Constitution" readers, you might want to let that paper know what you think about that. But keep it pithy and cogent. To not do so would be ridiculous. And, by the way, we really appreciate the papers that do carry my column. Many of them are listed on billoreilly.com , and you might drop them a line as well, give an attaboy, all right. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143635,00.html |
If O'Liely is saying the left is becoming more powerful and organized I consider that an acheivment and a compliment!
|
Quote:
But and sadly, people believe people like him and Hannity (who is an idiot :rolleyes: ) when they say things. Sadly, they relate to the common man more than most liberals ARRGGGHHHHH - I have been in a mood since last night - sorry for rant :cool: |
After the joint session was forced to split yesterday, the Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate chambers debated Ohio voting irregularities.
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: The electoral college vote tally was interrupted by Democratic Congress member Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio, the leader of a small group of Democrats who agreed to force house and Senate debates on voting irregularities in Ohio by mounting a challenge to the state's 20 electoral votes that had secured President Bush's re-election. John Kerry, who conceded to Bush the day after the November 2 election said he would not join the challenge. But let's go to the house now where Congress member Stephanie Tubbs Jones led off the challenge. REP. STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES: Mr. Speaker, and ladies and gentlemen, I, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a representative from the state of Ohio, and Senator Barbara Boxer, a Senator from California, have objected to the counting of the electoral votes of the state of Ohio on the ground that they were not under all of the known circumstances regularly given. I thank god that I have a Senator for joining me in this objection, and I appreciate Senator Boxer's willingness to listen to the plight of hundreds and even thousands of Ohio voters that for a variety of reasons were denied the right to vote. Unfortunately, objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate avenue to bring these issues to light. While some have called our cause foolish, I can assure you that my parents, Mary and Andrew Tubbs, did not raise any fools. They raised a lawyer. They raised a former judge. They raised a prosecutor, and thank god, they lived to see me serve as a member of the House of Representatives. I'm duty-bound to follow the law and apply to the law to the facts as I find them, and it is on behalf of those millions of Americans who believe in and value our Democratic process, and the right to vote, that I put forth this objection today. If they're willing to stand at polls for countless hours in the rain as many did in Ohio, then I should surely stand up for them here in the halls of Congress. This objection does not have at its root the hope or even the hint of overturning the victory of the president, but it is a necessary, timely, and appropriate opportunity to review and remedy the most precious process in our democracy. I raise this objection neither to put the nation in the turmoil of a proposed overturned election, nor to provide cannon fodder or partisan demagoguery for my fellow members of Congress. I raise this objection because I am convinced that we as a body must conduct a formal and legitimate debate about election irregularities. I raise this objection to debate the process, and protect the integrity of the true will of the people. AMY GOODMAN: Democratic Congress member, Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio leading the Democrats who agreed to force the House and Senate debates challenging the electoral vote of Ohio. Among those who challenged her was Republican Congress member Candice Miller of Michigan. REP. CANDICE MILLER: Mr. Speaker, the American people must be watching this debate and literally shaking their heads. With all of the challenges facing our nation, we are spending our time debating the challenge to the validity of the presidential election simply because the Democratic Party cannot accept the fact that their candidate lost this election. They cannot accept the fact that their agenda, their vision for America has been rejected by the majority of Americans. They cannot accept the fact that President George W. Bush simply received more votes than Senator John Kerry. This election was very hard-fought on both sides. The American people have accepted the fact that it's over and they want this Congress to get to work, and to work in a bipartisan way. If this is the minority party's idea of bipartisanship, then let the people of our nation see it for what it is. Because in the spirit of bipartisanship, the Democrats are asking us to overturn the presidential election, which President Bush won by over 3 million votes nationwide, and by over 118,000 votes in the state of Ohio. In the spirit of bipartisanship, they say that somehow Karl Rove was manipulating votes from a secret computer in the White House, and that somehow these secret computers were changing the votes on punch cards and optical scan sheets that record actual votes. This language is in their challenge. JUAN GONZALEZ: That was Republican Congresswoman Candice Miller of Michigan. And now we're going to her from Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., who provided some of the most eloquent and at the same time, I think, substantive arguments in this debate. REP. JESSE JACKSON, JR.: Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear. Today's objection is not about an individual, but our institutions. It's not about Republicans, but our republic. It's not about Democrats, but our democracy. It's about an election result. It's not about an election result, but about an election system that's broken and needs to be fixed. Today you're hearing the facts about voting irregularities in Ohio. In 2000 we saw a similar mess in Florida and other states. As we try to spread democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, it is prudent, appropriate and timely to examine our own democracy. What's wrong with our democracy? What's wrong with our voting system? State after state, year after year, why do we keep having these problems? The fundamental reason is this -- Americans do not -- Mr. Speaker, the house is not in order. Americans do not have the explicit right to vote in their constitution. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore ruled, and I quote, "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for president of the United States." So, at present, voting in the United States is a state right, not a citizenship right. Hence, our voting system is built on the constitutional foundation of states' rights. 50 different states, 3,067 different counties, 13,000 different election jurisdictions, all separate, all unequal. Consider this: If you're an ex-felon in Illinois, you can register and vote. If you are an ex-felon in 11 states, mostly in the south, you're barred from voting for life. There are nearly 5 million ex-felons who paid their debt to society, but are prohibited from ever voting again, including 1.5 million African-American males. But in Maine, and Vermont, you can vote, if you're a felon, while you are in jail. Illinois, Florida, Vermont, different states, different rules, different systems. In contrast, the first amendment to the constitution guarantees us an individual citizenship right, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and we can travel between the states with such a fundamental right. However, when it comes to voting you do not have such a fundamental right. You have a state right, a state right is not a citizenship right but a right defined and protected by each state, and limited to each state. 108 of the 119 nations in the world that elect their public officials in some Democratic manner have a right to vote in their constitution, including the Afghan constitution, and the interim document in Iraq. The United States is one of 11 nations that do not have an affirmative right to vote in the constitution. Shouldn't we be the 108th nation that does just that? CONGRESSWOMAN: The House is not in order. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The House please be in order. The gentleman may proceed. REP. JESSE JACKSON, JR.: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bible says if you build a house on sand, when it rains, the winds blow and the storms come and it will not stand. Our voting system is built on the sand of states' rights. Florida one year, Ohio next year and no telling what's happening in 2008, and 2012. As a result, the American people are gradually losing confidence in the credibility, the fairness, the effectiveness, and the efficiency of our voting system. So, we need to build our democracy, not on H.A.V.A., Democrats, not on H.A.V.A., Republicans, but build our democracy on the fundamental, individual guarantee in the constitution that every citizen can rely upon in their constitution. We need to provide the American people with the citizenship right to vote and provide Congress with the authority to craft a unitary system from Maine to California, so we don't have so many separate and unequal systems. Mr. Speaker, it is the foundation upon which we build a more perfect union amongst the states. I take the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, and I yield it to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, a gentleman whose credentials on the question of voting are unparalleled and unmarked and unmatched in this Congress. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Gentleman from Georgia is recognized. REP. JOHN LEWIS: Thank you Mr. Speaker, and thank you my colleague and my friend. The right to vote and to have every vote counted is precious and sacred. It is the heart and soul of our Democratic process. We cannot be true to ourselves as a Democratic society unless we get it right. I think, Mr. Speaker, it is fitting and appropriate that we pause, that we have this discussion, that we have this debate, and that Congress hold further hearings on the question about the presidential election in Ohio and elsewhere. Our electoral system is broken and it must be fixed for once and for all. What happened in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004 came to dramatize the fight that there's something wrong with our democracy. More and more of our citizens are growing uneasy. I hear people on the other side saying we should forget about it. We should get over it. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Gentleman's time is expired. REP. JOHN LEWIS: People died for the right to vote. People suffer for the right to vote. The right of every vote to be counted. It must be upheld by this body. AMY GOODMAN: Congress member John Lewis, who marched with Dr. King, a member of the student non-violent coordinating committee, following Congress member Jesse Jackson in the House. At the same time that the House debate was going on challenging the electoral votes of Ohio, the Senate was debating the same issue. This is Republican Ohio Senator, George Voinovich. SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH: As a Republican from Cleveland who has been elected to federal, state and county and municipal offices, I'm living proof that Ohioans know how to count ballots and more importantly, we count fairly. It is clear that those who persist in beating a dead horse are attempting to create uncertainty where none exists. That is why I'm so disappointed that this body is squandering its time playing Monday morning quarterback when the result of Ohio's presidential election is clear. President George W. Bush won my home state, and its 20 electoral votes. Frankly, I am proud of how the election went in Ohio. Hundreds of thousands of new voters took part in their democracy this past November, increasing Ohio's voter participation rate to 72%, up from 64% in 2000. Unfortunately, prior to November 2, unsubstantiated allegations were being made about the electoral process in Ohio. But at the end on Election Day, and at the end of the recount, Ohio's Secretary of State's Kenneth Blackwell and the bipartisan election boards across the state did a tremendous job to insure that the election was fair, and the results were without question and I want to publicly applaud the good work of those dedicated public officials. It is time to put this election to rest. Editorial boards from Ohio newspapers, many of which endorsed Senator Kerry agree as well. The so-called recount effort is a circus that needs to pack up and leave town. AMY GOODMAN: Ohio Senator, George Voinovich, Republican. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Democratic Senator, did not agree with his assessment of the Ohio Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell. SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG: Yesterday Congressman John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, issued a report of problems that occurred in Ohio. Some of the problems that he report include: Problems with voting machines in predominantly minority Democratic-leaning wards that caused people to wait ten hours or more in the rain. One precinct was forced to close at 9:25 in the morning because its voter machines weren't working. 9:25 in the morning? The Ohio Republican party suppressed the turnout of minority, Democratic-leaning voters by engaging in free election caging tactics, which is declared illegal by a federal court. Now, Ohio Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, a Republican, deviated from election law by severely restricting voters' access to provisional ballots. He went so far as to reject voter registration applications based on paperweight and texture. Those actions and his complete unwillingness to cooperate with Congressman Conyers investigation are deeply troubling. His actions are troubling particularly because he didn't just serve as the chief election official of his state. He also co-chaired the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio. Now, allowing a state official to oversee a federal election and simultaneously serve as a partisan campaign official for one of those candidates in that election is a blatant conflict of interest, and we have got to put a stop to it. That's why later this month I'm going to be introducing the Federal Election Integrity Act, to prohibit state election officials from overseeing federal elections in which they play a partisan role on behalf of one of the candidates. Secretary Blackwell is now running for Governor. He recently sent a fund raising letter to potential Republican donors, and I think his letter underscores the need for my bill. First page of his letter tells a story: "I have no doubt that the strong campaign we helped the president run in Ohio coupled with a similar effort I helped deliver for the state issue one, the marriage protection amendment, can easily be credited with turning out the record numbers of conservatives, and evangelicals on election day." Well, it's not surprising that many other people have no doubt that Secretary Blackwell also ran a strong campaign against other voters, namely minorities and Democrats. Americans need to believe that their election officials are beyond reproach. Allowing such officials to serve simultaneously in a partisan campaign capacity by seriously undermines that confidence. Ultimately, the Electoral College challenge was voted down in the Senate, 74-1. In the House, 267-31. |
Quote:
http://imdb.com/news/sb/2005-01-03 TV Cleans Up Coverage of Disaster Television editors were reluctant to show uncovered bodies of tsunami victims, particularly babies and children, although such pictures appeared in major newspapers, the Associated Press observed Sunday. Chuck Lustig, who coordinated ABC News' coverage of the disaster told the wire service, "What you want to do is show the horrific nature of what happened but do it in a way that you don't cause disgust among the viewers." However, AP commented in its report, "with such a decision, journalists walk a fine line between showing sensitivity and giving short shrift to the enormous human cost and scope of the event." Geneva Overholser, a journalism professor at the University of Missouri and former editor of the Des Moines Register, criticized the networks' sanitized approach, saying: "My own instinct is almost overwhelmingly that we in the news media ought to be showing the truth to people and if we don't, we are in danger of not giving them the information that they need." |
Quote:
Next you'll tell me he's not a registered Republican. :xoxo: |
Quote:
He also is not a registered R - at least he says so. Is there a way to check that? Also, quite frankly - the perp in that case deserved to die :shrug: http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/deathpenalty.htm LOUISIANA - The sentencing to death of a Louisiana man for raping an 8-year-old girl has reopened a debate about whether crimes that do not involve killings may ever be punished by death. There has not been an execution for rape in the United States since 1964, and no one has been executed for any crime that did not involve a killing since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. The Louisiana law under which the man, Patrick O. Kennedy, was convicted allows the death penalty for the rape of a child under 12. It was enacted in 1995. Graham da Ponte, one of Mr. Kennedy's lawyers, said the punishment was disproportionate to the crime. First you must know how O'Reilly feels about the death penalty. For 7 years he has been saying he opposes the death penalty. He says the person should get life in prison, breaking rocks in Alaska, with bread and water to eat. O'Reilly said he opposes capital punishment under any and all circumstances. He insists that America has a "moral question" about "taking a life" through use of the death penalty. Listen to O'Reilly in an interview with American Enterprise: I'm against the death penalty, and I also believe in big government intervention to protect the environment. ---- You either oppose the death penalty, or you support it, there is no in-between. Tonight O'Reilly said this guy should get the death penalty, he also called for the death penalty in the westerfield/van dam case. After Westerfield was convicted the jury had to decide if he should get death or not. Every night for a week O'Reilly covered the case, each night he asked what was taking the jury so long to give him death. O'Reilly got madder and madder each night when the jury did not decide to give him death, he would actually yell at the guest and ask why they had not given him death yet. He was furious that it was taking so long for them to decide on death, does that sound like a guy who opposes the death penalty, not in my world. It sounds like a guy who only says he opposes the death penalty, when in reality he supports it, and supports it all the time. That makes at least 3 cases that I can remember where O'Reilly has called for the death penalty. This is conclusive proof that O'Reilly was lying about opposing the death penalty. O'Reilly said Kennedy should get the death penalty, and the woman attorney for Patrick Kennedey said he should get life in prison, O'Reilly asked her why, she said because he did not kill anyone. Then O'Reilly said life in prison is not enough, he told her the guy should be put to death. That was a quote, he said life in prison is not enough. The he spent the whole 3 or 4 minute segment arguing for the death penalty. When was the last time you heard someone who claims to oppose the death penalty say life in prison is not enough. I am guessing never, I always had a good idea O'Reilly was lying about opposing the death penalty. Now I know for sure, he does not actually oppose the death penalty, he just says he opposes it. People who oppose the death penalty, oppose it all the time. This is just another example of the spin and lies put out by Bill O'Reilly. And more proof he is a republican pretending to be an independent. Update: O'Reilly recently said that he hopes that alleged sniper suspect John Muhammad "is taken care of in three days and gets the death penalty". He then added, "Even though I am opposed to the death penalty, he deserves it". You dont say you hope someone gets the death penalty when you oppose the death penalty, Unless you are a liar, which is exactly what O'Reilly is. A liar. This is the 3rd time he has called for the death penalty, that proves he only "claimed" to oppose the death penalty. This also proves he only claimed to oppose the death penalty so he could use it to claim he is not a conservative. Yet more evidence that O'Reilly is lying about opposing the death penalty. Bill you have just been busted again, you are the king of lies and spin. __________________________________________________________ |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
And it's your opinion that he deserved to die. Those of us who don't support capital punishment obviously don't feel that way. Which is why O'Reilly is for capital punishment. He even had a program once where he went on a tirade against Mumia and perpetrated the myths that he's a murderer. |
Quote:
Quote:
He did that in 94. I am a registered R as well, but have not voted that way, except for a few local candidates, since 1988. Am I still a R :shrug: I think I am an Independant, though I usually vote D because the R candidate is an uncivilized hapry. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
"Their accusation on my voting record is a lie. And I'm not surprised, since we've done a number of stories on NPR's left-leaning ways. When I registered in Nassau to vote in 1994, there was no box for an independent. I left all the boxes empty. Somehow, I was assigned Republican status." Well, you've seen his voter registration form, who's the liar here? :woohoo: His "independent" status is as real as the two Peabody awards he touts. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I guess my point is to hear people talk it is like the US Press NEVER says anything relevant - they NEVER report on anything sustantial. I think that is just not true and the above to examples are dispositive. I mean what more could they have done in those two instances? Short of showing blood and guts, I cannot think of anything :shrug: Again, I think the problem instead is with the American public who could care a less about torturing or warring with people they would rather see dead :shrug: Now - if you ask if the American press in general softens things - then yes, I see that. But the main point is still expressed. I think the far left and the far right what editorials for news instead of the facts. I mean when you go to the sites of each that is what you get. There is no or at least rarely is seen a neutral article stating "this is what happened." But, we are not going to solve the problems of the world here :laugh: It is fun to talk about though. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But, I do think that if al Americans were polled and asked do you support the DP - maybe 50 to 60 percent might support it (it really depends as the numbers have been inconsistent) - then if you asked the 50 to 40 percent if they would like to see OBL get the DP, I suggest the majority of those would say, although I am against it, I would. We need to have that poll be a reputable pollster, of course finding a reputable pollster would be impossible because you pretty much hate them all :laugh: :wavey: |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1995-2003 Martin and Lisa Adelson, All Rights Reserved