Sometimes it is hard to come up with a metaphor to describe the week that was. This was not one of those weeks.
Of course, the easy way out would be to get all self-referential and talk about our sesquicentennial column (or, perhaps more accurately, sesquivolumenical, in a literary sense... or even sesquihebdomadal, in the strict calendrical sense... but then I don't speak Latin, so what do I know?). But that would be a cheap shortcut indeed, so we'll get to that sort of thing in a bit, but we have to shy away from actually leading off with such blatant patting-ourselves-on-the-back-ism.
Instead, we must present the dominant metaphor of the past week: Republicans take control of the House of Representatives, and masses of dead birds begin dropping from the sky.
Boy, that just leaves all sorts of openings, doesn't it?
You could go with a "sky is falling" angle, you could go with an "omen of dark days" type of thing, or you could even go with the "Nature out of balance" theme (in the grand tradition of the movie Koyaanisqatsi, of course).
We choose to take none of these too-easy metaphorical paths, however. Instead, we choose to honor the memory of Charles Fort.
For those of you unaware of his name, Charles Fort was the father of taking seriously reports of things falling from the skies. That's really an oversimplification, but it'll do for now. Fort lived a century ago, and (after gaining an inheritance guaranteeing he'd never have to work another day in his life) was possibly the first person to begin taking seriously (on a large scale, at least) strange events which the science of his day simply could not explain. By doing so, he became the forerunner of experiments in Extra-Sensory Perception ("ESP," to us now), investigations of Unidentified Flying Objects ("UFOs" as we know them today), and -- to be absolutely honest -- popular culture from the Bug-Eyed Monsters ("BEMs," believe it or not) of science-fiction movies of the 1950s and 1960s (during the "flying saucer" craze), all the way up to Agents Mulder and Scully of The X-Files television show. Without Charles Fort, the concept of Scully and Mulder never would have occurred to anyone, it is likely.
Fort was a collector of odd data. He spent his life clipping newspaper and magazine articles of unexplained events. He published four books on his collection of anomalies in the early parts of the twentieth century.
And he would have been all over the "dead birds falling from the skies" stories this week. It's what he did, after all.
Fort catalogued all kinds of things falling from the skies -- rains of fish (still alive, in some cases), frogs, birds, and even "red rain" or "blood rain." Much to the consternation of reputable scientists, who dismissed him out of hand. A rain of dead birds from the sky? Pre-pos-terous! Science had no theories to explain such bizarre phenomena, so Science just ignored it and swept it under the stamp-of-approval metaphorical scientific rug.
Which didn't faze Fort in the least. He was criticized for being too credulous, but his motto seems to have been: "It's not my job to verify these reports, it's my job as I see it to collect them -- but it should be the job of scientists to investigate and theorize about these reports; and not dismiss them out of hand because they don't fit into the accepted world view of the times."
Consider, if you will, the history of meteorites. Right up into the "Age of Enlightenment" which produced our Constitution and the French Revolution -- and was so much more intellectually advanced than the Church condemning Galileo for his heliocentric blasphemy -- the leading scientists of the day were unified in discounting stories of "thunderstones" that fell from the sky. After all, simple common sense dictated that rocks could not possibly fall from the sky, and that it was much, much easier to just discount and ignore any reports of such things happening.
The scientists of the day, of course, turned out to be wrong. Rocks do fall from the skies, on a regular basis. Whether 18th-century science had allowed for them or not.
Which means that Charles Fort may ultimately be proven not to be some sort of crackpot, but instead the patron saint (if that's not too twisted a metaphor to use in the scientific realm) of paying attention to odd data which fits no known theory.
Speaking of odd data which fits no known theory (how's that for a segue?), we have the Republican Party agenda on full display. This week, the Republicans declared an all-out War On Math. We'll get to some of these details in a bit, but the most egregious example was what they're calling "cut-go." This is linguistic nonsense (before we get to why it is also mathematical nonsense), because it is meant to replace the Democrats' "pay-go." Now, I think even the Democrats' term is silly myself, but at least it has a basis in reality. It stands for "Pay As You Go"... "PAY Go"... get it? "Cut go" is supposed to stand for "Cut As You Go" but that would be "CAY Go" which I guess was too silly even for Republicans.
The difference between "pay-go" and "cut-go" is that under pay-go, whenever you did anything to the federal budget which was going to increase the deficit, you had to pay for it by reducing the budget (or increasing revenue) elsewhere, to balance it all out. Under cut-go, you only have to pay for things that Republicans don't like. Seriously. You can't make this stuff up, folks.
For instance, under cut-go, if you propose spending money on some worthwhile federal program, you have to pay for it with spending cuts elsewhere. But if you propose decreasing the federal government's revenue -- which also causes the deficit to go up, because of... well... math -- then you do not have to pay for any of it, because tax cuts come from a magical land of pixies and friendly gnomes (instead of from borrowing billions from China, as in the "real world"). And when Republicans really hate something -- like Obamacare -- then all of these rules get thrown out the window because Republicans don't care what happens to the budget as long as they get to vote against things they hate.
One is reminded of King Canute ordering back the tides.
I mean, seriously, guys and gals, this is the best you've got? A War On Math? Really? Wow. It's certainly going to be an interesting two years in Washington, folks!
Charles Fort would probably love it. Even if the birds hadn't started dropping from the sky. Because "odd data" is about to become the norm in Washington, to put it mildly.
Both the introduction and the talking points sections are running a bit long this week (insert your own "how can you possibly tell, given their usual length?" joke here, if you must), so we're going to hand out the awards in lickety-split fashion this week. Just to warn everyone.
The Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week was none other than Nancy Pelosi, for the speech she gave while turning over the gavel of the Speaker of the House to Republican John Boehner. It was a good speech, and a fitting end to her impressive speakership. And she didn't cry once.
All signs point to two years of tears and emoting from Speaker Boehner, something which is apparently now OK for male politicians, but not (yet) for female politicians. Or something. But let us not diminish Pelosi's week by bringing up such irrelevancies as Boehner's tears.
We're going to miss Nancy Pelosi wielding the gavel, but there's always hope she will one day lead the House once again. Until then, Pelosi picks up her fifteenth Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.
[Congratulate House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on her House contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]
President Barack Obama earns a (Dis-)Honorable Mention this week, for backing down (once again) on an entirely reasonable proposal on having an end-of-life discussion with your doctor. Even before Sarah Palin could scream "Death panels!" the White House squelched their own proposed regulation. Perhaps it will be reintroduced later (the stated reason for withdrawing it was that it hadn't had enough time for public comment), but politically, the handling of the whole thing was pretty disappointing.
But the real Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week is Democratic lobbyist Lanny Davis, who formerly was a Clinton administration official. Now, to pay the bills, Davis has started a public relations firm. And he's signed up some clients with the ability to pay him a million bucks a year or more. The only problem with this cushy arrangement is that Salon.com noticed. Last week, Davis finally decided to drop his client Laurent Gbagbo, the leader of the Ivory Coast who is still clinging to power and will likely have to be removed militarily so the elected head of government can take over. But he'll apparently continue to be paid a handsome sum by another African strongman, Equatorial Guinea's President Mbasogo.
No other Democrat even came close, this week. The Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week was Lanny Davis, by a country mile.
[Contact Lanny Davis at Davis-Block, to let him know what you think of his actions. His email address is right there, on the front page.]
Volume 150 (1/7/11)
This has been a week for momentous numbers, in a way, and none was more momentous to the Friday Talking Points editorial staff as realizing we have now written 150 of these columns.
Of course, this isn't really good news, since we often promise here to stop writing these things once Democrats wise up and learn how to frame issues in a media-friendly way. Much like the Augean stables of old, however, there always seems to be more work for us to do in this regard. Sigh.
Today also marks the wider distribution of this column, as we have been personally invited to post these Friday suggestions on a new website, Democrats For Progress. If we can figure out the technical challenges of posting there, hopefully DFP readers will soon become FTP readers as well, so wish us luck! Democrats For Progress joins The Huffington Post and Democratic Underground in our ever-widening FTP media empire. Of course, you can always check out this column every Friday evening at ChrisWeigant.com or (if that proves too hard to spell) at FridayTalkingPoints.com.
Well, "every Friday" is a wee bit of an overstatement. We haven't posted a column here since mid-December, due to our two-part annual year-end awards columns, and due to us deciding we needed a week off between Christmas and New Year's Day.
But enough shameless self-promotion! Let's get on to the talking points themselves, shall we?
For new readers, these talking points are provided on a weekly basis for all Democrats to use in the coming week. Especially Democratic politicians who are going to be interviewed by the media, say on a Sunday political chatfest show.
But, in the immortal words of Rolf Harris: "That's enough, let's get on with it...."
But it's OK for you, right?
House Republicans are about to kick off the legislative year with a grand political stunt. They're going to hold a vote on total and utter repeal of what they charmingly call "Obamacare." They know this effort is going precisely nowhere, because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is going to laugh in their face when they ask him to pass the repeal bill in the Senate. But that's not going to stop the Republicans from offering yet another sop to the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party. But for almost every single one of them, there is a glaring bit of hypocrisy at play here. So point it out!
"I notice that Republicans are trying to save average Americans from what they describe as the horrors of government-run healthcare (and all the rest of the disparaging things they ascribe to 'Obamacare'). Well, I'd like to ask them why almost every single Republican -- including the newly-elected Tea Party Republicans -- are apparently just fine with government-run healthcare, as long as they are the ones receiving it from the taxpayers. You heard me right -- Republicans are happy as can be with the evil of government-run healthcare if they are the ones getting it. They just want to deny it to everyone else, that's all. If I were a reporter interviewing any Republican in Congress who has not turned down their government-run healthcare, there really is only one question to ask when they demonize the concept: 'But it's OK for you, right?'"
Some bills are more open than others
That sound you're hearing from Washington is the sound of promises being broken by the incoming Republicans. Crash! Another promise shatters on the floor. Smash! Another promise savagely obliterated. Again, Democrats should be pointing these out as they happen, because the Tea Party voters are not going to be happy with Republican excuses on these things (that's my guess, anyway).
"I notice that Republicans have changed their tune remarkably quickly on House rules. For the past four years, they've been bitterly complaining that Nancy Pelosi brought so-called 'closed' bills to the floor, without letting them go through committee and without allowing Republicans to add amendments on the floor. Now that they're in power, it seems John Boehner's promise to change all of this for the better was just empty talk. Boehner plans to bring his bill repealing the new healthcare law to the House floor -- with no hearings, no committee action, and no amendments allowed. His response? I quote: 'I promised a more open process. I didn't promise that every single bill was going to be an open bill.' How Orwellian of him! It seems, to Speaker Boehner, that some bills are going to be more open than other bills. Chalk it up as just another Republican promise broken in Congress' first week, I guess."
Republicans attempt to repeal math
The answer to any contentious problem in Washington is, quite obviously (to listen to the Republicans talk), one simple concept: Repeal! That may be fine and good when it comes to tossing red meat to their Tea Party Republican base, but not so good when it comes to actual, you know, numbers. But that's not going to stop them from trying to repeal the pesky concept of math!
"Republican disparagement of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is part and parcel of their bigger attempt to repeal the laws of mathematics, it seems. They've apparently declared a War On Math. Republicans, at this point, are much more concerned about symbolism over actual substance. Allow me to give you an example. Republicans are patting themselves on the back for cutting congressional staffing budgets as some sort of grand slashing of the deficit. I notice that they didn't cut their own pay five percent, just their paper-and-pencils budget... but we'll ignore that hypocrisy for the moment. Republicans are congratulating themselves on cutting 35 million dollars from the federal budget. Let's put that in perspective, shall we? Let's write it out -- $35,000,000 -- is going to be cut from a budget of 3.6 trillion dollars -- $3,600,000,000,000 -- or just under one one-thousandth of one percent of the budget -- 0.00097%. To be more charitable, let's figure it as a percentage of just the deficit -- where it adds up to a whoppingly large one-quarter of one one-hundredth of one percent of the deficit -- 0.0027%. Say the Republicans keep this frantic pace of deficit-cutting up, into the future. In one week, they managed this one small cut. Which means it will only take them seven hundred and fourteen years to solve our budget deficit -- for this year. I'm sure the American public of the year 2725 will appreciate such fiscal responsibility."
Go ask Alice
In attempting to describe the Republicans inventive "new math," the phrase "faith-based accounting" crossed my mind. But then I read two much better attempts at framing Republican math-phobia, both of which were much better than my humble attempt. Here's the first, from Representative Peter Welch of Vermont:
"It's incredibly ominous that [Republicans] are waving away the CBO opinion. That's catastrophic for any opportunity to maintain budget discipline. If anybody can make up their own numbers, you literally institutionalize an 'Alice In Wonderland' budget process. It is beyond reckless and irresponsible."
Enron accounting
The second example is from the ranking Democratic House Budget Committee member, Chris Van Hollen:
"This is a huge loophole for Enron-type accounting ... In the rule [House Republicans] pass tomorrow they are going to reiterate that the chair of the budget committee has the authority to come up with his own estimate of the budget impact of various pieces of legislation. And a week from now, when they get around to repealing health care reform I think you will see they will go down and say this has zero cost impact. It is a wholesale disregard of CBO estimates. After all, CBO is the one referee we have around here when it comes to the budget. So again, we are watching this unfold. But it does seem that they are putting in place the pieces to allow the chairman of the budget committee to literally make up the numbers as they go."
Tea Party Republican
I've said this before, but it bears repeating now that the 112th Congress has been sworn in. It's time to stop referring to politicians as members of the "Tea Party" -- since there is no such political party in American politics. Instead, it's time to start calling them what they really are -- "Tea Party Republicans."
"I'm sorry, did you just refer to Congressman Jones as being from the 'Tea Party'? I could have sworn he was a Republican. There is no third American political party called the 'Tea Party' -- there are only Tea Party Republicans. Just like Blue Dog Democrats, the Tea Party Republicans are a faction within the Republican Party's base. But please, let's start calling them by their rightful title -- Tea Party Republicans."
Constitution? What Constitution?
This one can be filed under "you just can't make this stuff up."
"While Republicans held a reading of the United States Constitution in the House of Representatives, it appears that some of them didn't get the memo. Two incoming Republican members missed being sworn in, and then they illegally cast votes in the House -- with blatant disregard and disdain for the Constitution itself. One Republican missed being sworn in because he was holding a fundraiser on the Capitol's grounds -- also a blatantly illegal act. Seems he was too busy grubbing for money to attend his own swearing-in ceremony. Illegally grubbing for money, I might add. Maybe it'd be a better thing if these Republicans read the Constitution every morning before beginning work, so they don't blatantly fall afoul of it later in the day."
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on Huffington Post
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
I don't see anything at the link for "illegally cast votes" to support the contention that it was illegal for them to cast the votes. It's about a resolution saying that the votes don't count, and it's mostly about the question of whether the vote on that resolution falls under the new rule requiring three days' notice. It seems pretty clear that it doesn't. Here's the actual text of the rule:
‘‘11. It shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint
resolution which has not been reported by a committee
until the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sun-
days, or legal holidays except when the House is in session
on such a day) on which such measure has been available
to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.’’.
http://rules.house.gov/RulesRepMedia/file/PDF_112_1/112th-Rules_xml.pdf
In short, I don't see anything improper here except the fundraising on Capitol grounds. Representative Weiner is just playing to the camera.
Thanks! Number 3 took some time with the calculator... but it was worth it. I couldn't believe it when I heard the figure -- 35 million? That's like pocket change found in the couch cushions to the budget...
-CW
Put it in perspective. Imagine In your own life you find yer self 100,000 in debt. You know you need to do some things drastic and large to start reducing that debt and you know you cant go further in debt. So you start by doing something simple like turning off lights and computer when not in use and cutting back on use to save 10 bucks on electricity. That $10 wont solve yer debt butit is $10 saving and it is a start.
It is just a start but it is easy one. The tougher decisions will come and be debated and fought. The trade offs and compromises. The deep painful choices. In the meantime they took the necessary start.
A wiser man then me said "A penny saved is a penny earned' (then my son said "what the heck are you going to to with a penny")
The real relevance of congressional staff budgets is how Congress works. Are bills vetted by public servants, or only by lobbyists?
Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, speaking about Arizona:
"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And, unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.
"It's not unusual for all public officials to get threats constantly, myself included. And that's the sad thing of what's going on in America. Pretty soon, we're not going to be able to find reasonable, decent people who are willing to subject themselves to serve in public office."
That was a very profound statement that Sheriff Dupnik made and we can only hope that it is not prophetic, too.
This "toxic and dysfunctional media and political culture" has been developing for some years and it has long been time for responsible citizens and members of the media/blogosphere/punditocracy to expose, if not entirely eliminate, the nonsense political rhetoric that so easily leads to inflammatory political rhetoric and its tragic consequences.
We need more officials like Sheriff Dupnik who are willing to publically recognize and expose the dangers of allowing nonsense political rhetoric - from all political directions - to stand and to degenerate into the kind of vitriolic public discourse we are so inundated with today.
The right coined the dispicible term not only as a derogatory catch-phrase easily used and laughed at by conservatives, but also in hopes the term and its derogatory attachment will be picked up and used liberally by journos and bloggers to continue to place Healthcare Reform, or the Affordable Care Act under a dirty light.
Journalists and bloggers oblige.
As far from perfect as ACA is, its passing was an historical and significant achievement for the Obama-Biden Administration...and almost didn't happen. It's a hard-fought accomplishment helped along by many who don't give up. Affordable Care Act is being protected and will be continually improved by a lot of good people who give a hoot about access to affordable healthcare for ALL Americans far and above their pet issues.
(If people understood the scope of Obamacare, instead of misinformation and scare tactics, its popularity would increase 20 points.)
Oh, I agree. I only use the term when talking about what Republicans are talking about, or at least I try to limit it to that. I used it liberally (pun intended) in the talking points, to get in the Republican talking points' face, as it were. Obviously, I went a bit overboard, though.
Once again, I haven't done one of these columns in three weeks, so I'm still a bit rusty...
-CW
liz wrote: "Who decides what rights are natural to all the people by mere fact of birth and what needs to be earned"
Study people like John Locke, and Thomas Paine. From Thomas Paine "Rights of Man":
"Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges"
Locke : "If God's purpose for me on earth is my survival and that of my species, and the means to that survival are my life, health, liberty and property — then clearly I don't want anyone to violate my rights to these things. Equally, considering other people, who are my natural equals, I should conclude that I should not violate their rights to life, liberty, health and property. "
The things that are mine, that I am born with, such as my body, my intellect, my reason, are mine by right and can not be taken from. Likewise the fruits of my labors are mine by Right and you have no Right to them and I Have a right to defend them.
Free speech isn't a right because it is in the Constitution, but because my speech is a result of my thought and effort. Using it, it does not deprive you of your rights.
That is the only rational way to analyze rights, what is yours and doesn't cost others. .
"So... do you have a "right to privacy"? Whether the gummint or the Constitution grants it to you explicitly or not?
It's a very sticky wicket, constitutionally,".
First, neither the "Gummint" nor the Constitution can grant me any right, just privileges.
You do have a right to privacy in your person and in your property. It is natural right because it does not effect others and another does not have a right to search you without proper reason,
. But much like the right to free speech does not give a right to post on a website that doesn't belong to you, and much like the right to swing your arms stops where your neighbors nose begins, there are limits to right to privacy.
When you go out and do certain acts you lose a lot of your right to privacy. Further, when entering a public airplane you do not own and when your right to privacy could be a direct danger to another's life a conflict arises in which the right to life of others and property rights of the airport owner will necessitate an infringement on your privacy rights.
A police does not have the authority to search you without probable cause, but just where the line between probable cause ends and improper infringement of a right begins is a "Very sticky wicket" and may be one of the most challenging we face today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
What gives you the authority to state that healthcare is not a right but must be earned?
Because it takes the labor of one person and gives it to another. You have no RIGHT to another persons labor. That is theirs.
"Likewise the fruits of my labors are mine by Right and you have no Right to them"
What could possibly give you the RIGHT to another person's labor?
There are things we do, like pay taxes and provide safety nets to the poor, because they are the CORRECT thing to do. But the people who need and get those Safety nets do so as a privilege and not a RIGHT.
What gives me the authority to state that healthcare is not a right but must be earned?? God and NATURE give me the authority.
What gives you the authority to state that healthcare IS a RIGHT and does not need to be earned?
Honoring Rep. Pelosi was a wonderful gesture. Her no-excuses approach to House leadership set a high standard for how to do legislative politics effectively that is not likely to be duplicated anywhere in Washington D.C. any time soon.
I think it best not to refer to Speaker Boehner as being orange but, instead, to the particular shade of orange he is as "boehner". One day, boehner may even become a school color--perhaps for an acting school somewhere in his west central Ohio district.
Your timely post this week concerning the Constitution--and your participation in the ensuing, lively discussion--was outstanding! It was valuable fun. (Following how those self-proclaimed originalists managed to invoke the intent of the Framers yet disown actual statements made by Framers as to their intent was, for example, like watching drunks play Twister.)
And congratulations on your 150th!
Kudos to Chris and all those who joined in the fray!
When you work for someone, they pay you a salary but the salary is not the total Compensation you can earn. They can give you a company car, free doughnuts, or health care. The Corporation for which I am a low level supervisor offers multiple benefits as part of our COMPENSATION . I supervise 9 and am hiring three more but the Corp employees about 91K, so no company car for me and I only get doughnuts when one of the bosses or workers bring them in. But there is legal assistance plans, dental plans, retirement plans and all kinds of stuff that are part of Compensation for work. Those things I earned.
The point is that if you work for something you EARN that thing. If a representative works for the Gov they get compensated from the Gov including healthcare. But I bet they get free doughnuts also.
Article 1 Section 6 - Compensation
(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment.)
Amendment 27 - Limiting Changes to Congressional Pay. Ratified 5/7/1992.
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Quote from my dad: There is no such thing as a Free Lunch
But, I'm still trying to figure out what your overall point is here. Surely you can't be saying that people need to literally earn their healthcare.
The ONLY things that are "rights" are things that don't cost another person ANYTHING.
You do not have a RIGHT to healthcare.
We have safety nets for the very poor, those unable to work and the elderly because we are a good and moral people.
Government workers, to include military, earn healthcare by working for it. It is part of their compensation.
I am 47. There was about a 6 month period of my life, when I was young and single that I did not have Health care. Other then that I earned it for me and my family , or for a brief period while I was in college my wife earned it for both of us.
Mr Weigant wrote a good thought provoking column, like usual. But he wrote:
"I'd like to ask them why almost every single Republican -- including the newly-elected Tea Party Republicans -- are apparently just fine with government-run healthcare, as long as they are the ones receiving it from the taxpayers. You heard me right -- Republicans are happy as can be with the evil of government-run healthcare if they are the ones getting it. They just want to deny it to everyone else, that's all. "
Not at all true. They get Gov Run healthcare because they earn it. They have no problem with Soldiers getting it, CIA, other gov workers earning it, (although we need to shrink the number of workers )
As if he were an automaton, the new Speaker, John Boehner, will push through with their policies. Would that make him a, "Clockwork Orange"?
I have to admit, both "the principles and the principals" and your "Clockwork Orange" got a big laugh out of me.
Well done!
Heh.
:-)
-CW
A hearty congratulations on reaching the milestone of 150 FTP columns. And, nice Augean stables reference, too. :)
Somehow I knew you'd like that part. I resisted the urge to insert a "shoveling manure" metaphor in the article, but it was tough to resist, I have to admit.
Heh.
-CW
That is a segue to end all segues ... a gold standard for segues, in fact!