I wonder if he had anything to do with this brainstorm.

https://www.newsweek.com/ridgefield-high-school-baseball-gasoline-field-fire-ciuccoli-park-1388624

Conservatives: FAKE DATA. NASA is just saying this to make money [but the denial stuff is all sponsored by the fossil fuel industry who somehow isn't biased]. Climate change is fake. If you think about it, CO2 is good for plants [most are doing their max exchange, and it makes them have less nutrition... plus most of the globe isn't green, it's blue or desert... would be one thing if there was a way to keep that CO2 where the plants actually were and down where they were], its what they breath. It's a war on coal and oil. Ice levels in the Antarctic are rising [some data suggests it has, and may, but it is offset by Greenland ice loss alone, let alone ice loss from every other place like Alaska, Canada, Russia, the Nordic countries, etc]. It's cold here on January 3, so much for global warming [odd they never mention the problem on August 23 or whatever]? They said there's going to be an ice age back in the 70's [they can't show the science papers, just an article in Newsweek or Time], and just last year or so, they said solar minimums will result in another mini-ice age [again, no, nothing about climate in the actual science paper, just the press running their own version of the paper].

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837

After reading some more on the subject, this has been that way for many decades, possibly longer but the history is spotty further back. The CSIRO thinks it is possibly due to the nearness of a coal seam to the rifts and/or drought.

The recent fracking has drawn attention to it, with many locals claiming it has gotten worse since the fracking. Scientists are still researching it further to see if this is true.

I don't support fracking, but some of these reports usually are about things that were pre-existing due to the natural layout of the region. However, there are some cases where it is definitely a cause of the companies fracking in the area.

For instance, a recent study proved that drinking wells in Texas and Pennsylvania were affected by the fracking company not following the correct procedures. This led to the wells being contaminated with gas. They found that there were clear cases of substandard work that led to cracked steel and concrete in the casing of the drill sites. They said in the study that if the companies had followed the correct procedures, the contamination could have been easily prevented.

More on the wells - http://www.newsweek.com/fracking-wells-tainting-drinking-water-texas-and-pennsylvania-study-finds-270735

They probably should use the same method to check the origin of the noble gases in that river.

@budzos
@lucky760
@Truckchase

It wasn't a clinical study, I think the point was merely to show that it was possible for a overweight, borderline obese man to eat only MCD menu items, be satiated and maintain the calorific deficit needed to gradually lose weight, provided basic exercise was maintained.

I don't think the point was to stress that changing to MCD made his diet better (in that case adding exercise is obviously cheating), just to show that it is possible to lose weight and eat MCD.

Taking this as a reference for calorie burned:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Calories-burned-in-30-minutes-of-leisure-and-routine-activities.htm

45 mins walking is about 300 calories burned. Considering that teaching is primarily a pretty sedentary job (outside of class), that's only freeing up an extra 15% of your roughly daily intake needs of 2000 calories.

Not huge. I think the main takeaway here is, junk food or not, if your goal is losing weight (ignoring long term health complications), then it's all about portion control.

@JiggaJonson

As above, I think this is the main issue. I usually want half the portion that take away food outlets offer. Pricing structure then distorts the cost of the smallest size to make the larger 'value meal' much more attractive. One reason why I tend to prefer sashimi eat outs.

Why stop there? Add these journalistic abortions to your short list of similar schlock-proctors, it's the same bag of shit with a more palatable label for those so programatically-defined:

MSNBC
ABC
CBS
NBC
CNN
Too many newspapers to name as complicit shit-rags, but try these time-honored, not-worth-wiping-with, pulp-poopaganda pages:
Newsweek
TIME
U.S. News & World Report

All designed to do one thing;
Guide peeps with no need-to-know into becoming much more ineffectual and idiocratic citizens.

They're all the fucking same beast, Babylon.

>> ^L0cky:
I'm not sure who's disagreeing with who here.
The fact that you can teach a child in order to make their access to guns safer doesn't mean that every child that has access to guns will be taught this in a sufficient way. Besides, how many children had lots of training and still ended up shooting themselves or someone else.
You can get very detailed statistics from the CDC, unfortunately I can't link to them because they are generated by a search and the URLs generated are session specific. The statistics, as detailed as they are, don't state weather the child was educated in the use of firearms, but accidental firearms death in children is quite low. According to the CDC, between 1999 and 2010 the leading cause of accidental deaths to children ages 1-4 is motor vehicle accidents (28.9%), poisoning is 8th (2.4%) and firearms is 12th (1.0%). Going up to the 5-9 age range MVA is still the leading cause of accidental death (46.7%), with poisoning still 8th (1.8%) and firearms still 12th (1.5%). You can look them up yourself at the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention & Control.

>> ^L0cky:
If you don't think having a gun in your home would automatically make it the most dangerous thing in that home then you're either being disingenuous or you have some freaky shit going on in your house.
Having a gun in your home does not make it the most dangerous thing in the house, and the statistics I posted above back me up. There are plenty of things even in a gunless household that are lethal if a child gets its hands on it. I would argue that a gun is far safer because it can be unloaded and therefore be rendered harmless if a kid gets a hold of it. A bottle of drain cleaner, bug spray, bottle of medicine, etc. is always going to be dangerous if a child gets a hold of it. With those items, all you can do is lock them away in a safe place where a child can't get them until they are old enough to understand that they are dangerous. Any responsible gun owner would treat a gun the same as any other dangerous object in the home, by unloading it and/or locking it up until the child is old enough to be taught that it's dangerous and not something to play with.

I don't understand your objection to teaching a kid how to properly operate a firearm when the're old enough. I was taught by my father as his father taught him, and I've never killed anyone on purpose or accident.

>> ^L0cky:
So my question is: despite the fact that some kids can be taught to be careful with a firearm, what is the justification of owning one...
I can't speak for every gun owner, but I have several reasons. I personally own four guns, two rifles and two pistols. It's a hobby, I like to shoot them, but I also own them for self defense. I also like archery and own a bow. A bow is also an instrument of war and designed for the taking of human life as well as hunting, just as a rifle, but how come no one pitches a fit about bows like they do guns? I don't hunt, but I have friends that do, so there's another reason for you.

I also have gone through the steps to acquire a license to carry a concealed firearm in my state. I think of it as insurance. I have car insurance, but I don't intend to get in a wreck, and I also have home owners insurance though I don't intend for my home to get damaged or destroyed. I don't carry a gun intending to kill someone, but just like car and home insurance I have it just in case.

>> ^L0cky:
I'll play devil's advocate and say 5: to defend your property and family against an armed burgler. Yet if you take a look at the rest of the world, at countries where guns are not prolific, gun assisted burglaries are so rare that it doesn't even bear thinking about.

The fact that you need a gun to defend yourself against someone with a gun is because you both have guns. - Captain "Circular" Obvious

From everything you've posted, you seem to be thinking that someone needs a gun to defend oneself from an attacker with a gun. The majority violent of crimes do NOT involve the use of a gun, and up to 2.5 million reported crimes (many are unreported) are prevented by lawful gun owners each year, most of which do not involve discharging the weapon.

Ninety percent of violent crimes are committed by persons not carrying handguns. This is one reason why the mere brandishing of a gun by a potential victim of violence often is a sufficient response to a would-be attacker. In most cases where a gun is used in self-defense, it is not fired." [source]

>> ^L0cky:
I can't really budge on this unless you can somehow convince me that it's not preferable to live in a western society where almost all people have never even seen a real gun, therefore removing all their associated problems.
That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.

Personally I would rather live in a society where people are educated and non violent so that we can own guns for sport, collecting, hunting, etc. and not have to deal with people's irrational fear of them. You seem to have some delusional idea that removing guns from society is going stop crime and violence. Removing guns isn't going to magically stop people from being violent and committing crimes. The UK and Australia did ban personal ownership of guns and their crime rates went up because the only ones left with guns were the criminals. [1][2][3][4]

>> ^shinyblurry:
I've read that children around the age of 12-14 are getting counseling on how to interact face to face with people because they've lived in a world of texting their whole lives. Our wired world is creating profound dysfunction in the minds and hearts of the people:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/08/is-the-internet-making-us-crazy-what-the-new-research-says.html


People have an inherent desire to feel needed or worthwhile. That desire can be managed through social interaction, being part of a group helps act as a conduit allowing the interaction to have a basis to proceed. Most group interactions have obvious positive benefits for the individuals involved, with the negative impacts being dismissed because the good supposedly outweighs the bad.

You raise a good point that face to face interaction has declined due to the impact of the internet, and it definitely helps the individuals affected if they can learn multiple ways to interact with others. Take letter writing for example, everyone loves to receive a personal letter but very few people actually take the time to put pen to paper anymore. Maybe we should also be encouraging people to write more instead of cramming what they're trying to say into a small bite-size chunk of communication.

If these modern forms of interaction are providing benefits to the individuals who utilise them then all that is required is ensuring that people are aware and well-informed of the negative consequences so they can make adjustments to their lifestyle if they see fit.

I've read that children around the age of 12-14 are getting counseling on how to interact face to face with people because they've lived in a world of texting their whole lives. Our wired world is creating profound dysfunction in the minds and hearts of the people:


http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/08/is-the-internet-making-us-crazy-what-the-new-research-says.html

>> ^kymbos:

@jimnms - link for your last para?
Meanwhile, I think you're missing the point: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/america-is-a-violent-coun
try/
Over to you and your next move: the 'data must be wrong' argument.


Here's your source, and it didn't come out of my ass like Bill's shit.

What point I'm missing? Your linked article doesn't mention guns anywhere, it shows that America is more violent than other advanced countries, which is even more of reason to carry a gun for self defense. I think you're the one missing the point.

Ninety percent of violent crimes are committed by persons not carrying handguns. This is one reason why the mere brandishing of a gun by a potential victim of violence often is a sufficient response to a would-be attacker. In most cases where a gun is used in self-defense, it is not fired. Can the average citizen be trusted to judge accurately when he or she is in jeopardy?...

A nationwide study by Don Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high." [source]

As for the U.S. vs other countries in gun homicides, the U.S. isn't #1:

Of course, it is not surprising that where there are more guns, there tends to be more gun-related deaths, but northern Latin America (Brazil in particular) breaks from this trend in a major way. The area has a massive homicide by firearm rate, with some of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the world and the highest homicides by firearm count...

Brazil, Columbia, Venezuela and Ecuador combine for more homicides by firearm than Mexico, the United States, South Africa, the Philippines, Honduras, Guatemala, India, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Bangladesh, Argentina and Jamaica put together. That is every other country with over 1,000 homicides by firearm. You would imagine that gun control would be very lax in the area, but as the top chart here illustrates, that is not the case. Brazil, for example, has roughly 255 million fewer guns (and about 115 million fewer people) than the United States and a much more strict and effective set of firearm regulations. So, while it is true that where there are guns, there is gun violence, that is clearly not the only determining factor. [source]

Several other sources [1] [2] show pretty much the same data.

I read this awesome article in Newsweek (I know, I know) that made me surprised to think there's actually a way for divided Americans to agree on something that could be a major, positive step forward for America.

This makes me happy.

"In 2011 alone, 1.9 million private-sector jobs were created, while a net 280,000 government jobs were lost. Overall government employment has declined 2.6 percent over the past 3 years. (That compares with a drop of 2.2 percent during the early years of the Reagan administration.) To listen to current Republican rhetoric about Obama’s big-government socialist ways, you would imagine that the reverse was true. It isn’t."

Jefferson wrote about a wall of separation, not a one way door. "Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God" means just that. Note that the government is not mentioned in that relationship. Further, the idea that homosexuals can't serve in the military has nothing at all to do with the Bible. Even if we accept that the Bible says that homosexual feelings or activity is a sin, there's no mention in the Bible that I'm aware of that says that sinners can't be in the military. If the military wishes to exclude all sinners, then according to many Christians no one could serve at all. But regardless of all that, the Bible is indistinguishable from fiction, and deserves to be treated as such.

As for whether or not the founding fathers were mostly deist, I do need to do more research. Some of your claims point to you being correct. Others aren't relevant.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Since we started turning our back on the Christian god? You mean like when the writer of the Constitution plainly stated that the first amendment was intended to provide a wall of separation between church and state? Or how so many of the founding fathers were deist, not Christian? The foundation surely has nothing to do with marriage, homosexual or otherwise. Just which Christian principles are you claiming America was founded on? And which denomination?
This is what Jefferson wrote, which was not an official government document:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"
What that obviously means is that it is protecting the church from the government, not the government from the church. The original intention of the establishment clause was to prevent any denomination from becoming the state religion. Since then it has been selectively interpreted to exclude Christianity from public affairs, mostly due to the inclusion of the case law standard.
Where do you get this idea that "so many of the founding fathers" were Deist? You could make a strong case for perhaps 2 or 3 of them. The rest were practicing Christians for which there is ample evidence. 24 of the signers have seminary degrees and one of them was a practicing minister. They opened the first session of congress with a 3 hour prayer and then a bible study. Franklin proposed that they open every congress with prayer at the first constitutional convention and since that time, every session has opened with prayer (until the last few years)
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
Do you think Jefferson is a Deist? Why did he write this?:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
Why did he hold church services in the house of representitives?
These were the three main reference materials cited by the framers:
king james bible
spirit of the laws
commentaries laws of england - blackstone, based on ten commandments
The rule of law is based on Gods natural, unchanging law. James madison had the idea for our three branches of government based on Isaiah 33:22. The reason we have checks and balances is because man has a sinful nature and they didn't believe any man could be trusted with power.
The liberty bell is inscribed with leviticus 25:10. In the battle hymm of the republic: "as christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free"
our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other
John Adams
the bible is the rock on which our republic rests
andrew jackson
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
Newsweek 12/27/82
>> ^DrewNumberTwo>> ^DrewNumberTwo

Since we started turning our back on the Christian god? You mean like when the writer of the Constitution plainly stated that the first amendment was intended to provide a wall of separation between church and state? Or how so many of the founding fathers were deist, not Christian? The foundation surely has nothing to do with marriage, homosexual or otherwise. Just which Christian principles are you claiming America was founded on? And which denomination?

This is what Jefferson wrote, which was not an official government document:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"

What that obviously means is that it is protecting the church from the government, not the government from the church. The original intention of the establishment clause was to prevent any denomination from becoming the state religion. Since then it has been selectively interpreted to exclude Christianity from public affairs, mostly due to the inclusion of the case law standard.

Where do you get this idea that "so many of the founding fathers" were Deist? You could make a strong case for perhaps 2 or 3 of them. The rest were practicing Christians for which there is ample evidence. 24 of the signers have seminary degrees and one of them was a practicing minister. They opened the first session of congress with a 3 hour prayer and then a bible study. Franklin proposed that they open every congress with prayer at the first constitutional convention and since that time, every session has opened with prayer (until the last few years)

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Do you think Jefferson is a Deist? Why did he write this?:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson

Why did he hold church services in the house of representitives?

These were the three main reference materials cited by the framers:

king james bible
spirit of the laws
commentaries laws of england - blackstone, based on ten commandments

The rule of law is based on Gods natural, unchanging law. James madison had the idea for our three branches of government based on Isaiah 33:22. The reason we have checks and balances is because man has a sinful nature and they didn't believe any man could be trusted with power.

The liberty bell is inscribed with leviticus 25:10. In the battle hymm of the republic: "as christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free"

our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other

John Adams

the bible is the rock on which our republic rests

andrew jackson

Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document

Newsweek 12/27/82

>> ^DrewNumberTwo>> ^DrewNumberTwo