Reading the news this morning, I came across an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that discussed how Johnson Controls is merging with Tyco and will be moving its corporate headquarters to Ireland, a move that will save the company and estimated $150 million/year in taxes. Who is Johnson Controls and what do they make you ask? Johnson Controls, among other things, is one of the three companies that makes batteries. Pop the hood of your car, and there is a very good chance you'll find a Johnson Controls manufactured car battery. They were "saved" by the GM bailout in 2008, and as the headline of the above linked article says, after receiving tax payer funds, they pull up anchor and leave.
The move itself does not surprise me. The corporate tax rate in this nation is one of the highest in the world at 35%. It makes sense to me, and if I ran a major corporation and had an opportunity to relocate my corporate headquarters to an environment that is more favorable to business, I would. Its a no brainer, and yet many people are running around like the sky is falling. Here's my first hint for you. Corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES! Taxes are nothing more than a line item in a corporations budget. Its an expense. Expenses are reflected in how much a corporation's products and services cost. In other words, they are passed on to the consumer.
The comments both on Facebook and the article itself are an education in the difference in ideological differences. The left is lighting the the torches and are crying about how Johnson Controls has responsibilities to more than their shareholders and that they have a social responsibility as well by waxing poetic about how many people that $150 million in tax dollars would help the less fortunate.
The right, while disappointed in seeing another company leaving this great nation, they understand why. They see that the only way to get companies to want to stay here is by lowering our corporate tax rate. By doing so, companies will move here instead of leaving. They will expand their operations here, creating more jobs. Both of which expand the tax base and bring more money into the economy.
The right wants to make an environment more friendly to business rather than shame the companies and raise the tax rates.
One side supports freedom, the other side, a more limited form of freedom. I know which side I choose.
Justice Antonin Scalia has been excoriated of late because of remarks he made in a recent supreme court case regarding affirmative action in college admissions. Justice Scalia stated that black students might be better off attending schools other than top-tier universities. An example of the commentary unleashed on Justice Scalia can be found here.
As a general observation made in the 21st century, Scalia's comments should be, admittedly, troubling. There is no reason that students of any race, sex, or religion should be expected to perform better or worse than their peers based purely on those identifiers. The problem is, as Scalia alluded to, the admission process, which, driven by the over-riding need for "diversity", may be preferentially admitting minority students...and Scalia is right, that is a problem.
Here is the thing...I grew up a middle class, suburban white boy...went to a state university and did well enough there that I got a scholarship under the National Science Foundation's Manpower Development Program to go to a small Eastern technical school with a reputation for being very good in science and engineering. I went. Some of my classmates were also there on scholarships, some had parents well off enough that they just paid the tuition...didn't matter. Small Eastern Technical School was not the type of place that attracted dilettantes and frat boy partiers. We were all hardcore nerds, geeks, and gearheads. We called ourselves "tools" and the geekiest among us were "power tools". We lived and breathed science. We attended class, filled reams of paper with notes, compared notes after class, and tried to trip up our professor on esoteric points of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, or whatever the subject du jour was. I would wake up thinking about my lab work. I would work in my lab until all hours of the night, which frequently meant until the next day. Fun was drinking - SETS conveniently had two bars on campus - and "hacking", our word for what would now be called "pranks". Graffiti in not-easily-accessible places was popular...I'll take credit for "Free the DC-10" in the steam tunnel between Building 54 and Building 10, thank you very much. Another popular "hack" was pitching a refrigerator off the tallest building on campus onto the courtyard below - I can't say why. For obvious reasons this was not popular with the school administration and they began escalating security to prevent these hi-jinks. I became involved in a number of these refrigerator drops as my talent for picking lock proved useful in some cases.
Life at SETS was intense, probably the most intense four years of my life. There were women and blacks among my classmates. All there for "diversity" I don't doubt, because even back then it was important. Some were in the right place. Others were not. Which were which became obvious after a few minutes in a group discussion about a particular problem set. Those who had something to contribute were included in future study sessions, invited to have beers, and contributing to the next hack. Those who couldn't contribute were ignored. Let me point out here that this same decision process was also applied to white male graduate students. It was an extremely competitive environment, but not in a hostile way. I made many friends during my time there and still keep in touch with them, but we were all focused on graduating and getting a job and anyone who couldn't help with that was kicked to the curb. Survival of the fittest.
Back to Scalia's statements...if you are a minority - define the word as you like - and are admitted to a "top-tier university", I would advise that you think long and hard about accepting that offer. Ask yourself, "Am I that good? Can I do this, or am I just being accepted because I am <INSERT MINORITY STATUS HERE>?". If you truly believe you're that good, go for it. It will be an experience. But keep in mind, that "top tier" university will make a big deal about the number of "minority" students they admit to show how "diverse" they are. They could give a crap whether you graduate or not. If you step back and attend a "slower track" (Scalia's words, not mine) university,I will throw this out there: After you graduate, a few years down the road, out in the real world of private enterprise, you will enter the "What have you done for me lately?" zone. No one will care where your degree came from. If you are doing your job, being productive, and contributing to "shareholder value"..great. If not, your degree from a "top-tier" university won't mean shit.
"Make America Great again!" What a slogan. It inspires visions of better times. Simpler times. Of baseball, hot apple pie, and nights on the front porch with the family. It also conjures up darker thoughts and the realization that as great as this country is, it may not be living up to its potential. Those thoughts play into the anger that the majority of Trump supporters seem to have. Now don't misunderstand me, I am not happy with the direction this country is heading. However, unlike most of Trump's supporters, I am remaining objective and rational. Unlike most Trump supporters, I don't see a rose when I look at Trump and listen to his message. Quite the opposite in fact. I smell a rat.
I can hear it already, "How can you say that!?" I can hear the sound of thousands, no make that millions, of minds slamming shut instead of remaining open-minded enough to listen to my reasons. I can only guess as to the reason why that is, probably because so many people are uncomfortable with having their own beliefs challenged by different opinions.
Now, for those of you who are still with me, allow me to share with you my reasons.
I give you exhibit "A", several of the Don's flip flops:
"So what" you say. He has changed his positions you say. He has evolved. Everyone has the right to change their minds. You're right, everyone of us has the right to change our mind. And someone who is running for the highest office in the land should be expected by those who's vote they are courting to explain their apparent complete 180 degree flip in beliefs. I have been told that Trump does not owe me an explanation for his change of heart. I disagree wholeheartedly. IF he wants my vote, and the vote of others who feel as I do, then he most certainly does owe me, and the entirety of the American people an explanation.
Donald Trump is the attack dog of politicians, he is extremely divisive. Listen to the man sometime with an open-mind and all you will hear is divisive rhetoric. His divisiveness is contagious and very evident when speaking to many of his supporters. Sure, Trump says he is being decisive because he wants to win, but what does it say about the man himself and his ability to inspire and lead if he has to resort to being decisive? A real leader can inspire without that sort of tactic.
Often when I am discussing my concerns with Trump supporters I am attacked in a very aggressive manner for daring to suggest that Trump is not my "man". I've been called everything from a liberal, to a freedom hater. I have been told that if I don't support Trump, that I might as well vote for Hilary, or Bernie. Let's get one thing straight right now, I vote for the person that best represents my beliefs. I vote for the person who will be uphold the Constitution of these United States of America. I will not be bullied into voting for someone who I feel does not meet that very basic qualification. Who I vote for is between me and the ballot box, and I vote for that person, not someone else. I find the entire premise of voting against someone else to be a very large part of the reason this country is in the mess it is in, but that is a topic for another post.
I challenge you to read the positions of Donald Trump himself. For the most part they sound on point, but when you actually start digging into the "meat and potatoes" of those positions, you'll see that there is actually very little substance there. Now I don't expect any candidate to necessarily have all the answers. I expect the correct candidate to be able to surround themselves with people more knowledgeable about topics than they are. I expect that candidate to do their homework and listen to those advisors and spend a lot of time in deep thought. I expect that candidate to be able to clearly articulate the reason why they have taken the position they have taken, without resorting to rhetoric. I do not see any evidence of this with the Don. Instead I see a populist who is sticking his finger into the wind and seeing which way the proverbial wind is blowing before resorting to exhibit B, coming down on the side of the more popular opinion. In other words, the one that is more likely to get him elected. I don't trust someone who's only concern is popularity in real life, nor do I trust that sort of individual with my vote.
To those of you who have made it this far with me, these are the major reasons why I don't support Donald Trump for President. I do not feel he is the right man for the job. That is not to say that I wouldn't support him having an appointed position within the next President's administration, perhaps something suited to his business experience.
Over on Facebook a few days back, a link to this story in Forbes about sexual harassment in the astronomy community was posted in a private group. Alison Paige made the following, fairly astute, observation:
Astronomy, physics, computer science, engineering. Is anyone surprised that white males who love science so much that they participated in science fairs willingly and gym class only because it was required and played chess or D&D instead of attending the prom are really bad at communicating with women? These are the men who were bullied by teacher-coaches and fellow classmates repeatedly all through their grade school and HS years. They have no social interaction skills.
As a white male who voluntarily participated in science fairs, hated gym class, and played on my high school chess team - this was pre-Dungeons & Dragons - and then went on to get an advanced degree in materials science, I can affirm that there is a lot of truth to this. People who go into the hard sciences, in general, don't come equipped with a full set of social graces. Put these socially inept men on today's college campuses where even complimenting a woman's appearance is construed as an act of overt male aggression tantamount to rape and, well...yeah, sexual harassment charges will fly, regardless of whether the alleged act of harassment was real or committed with the most innocent of intentions.
I'll throw something else into this mix: Hard science academicians past a certain age, i.e., those that were hired before political correctness and diversity became the driving principles for higher education, are more likely to be conservative politically than their soft science and liberal arts colleagues. As a consequence, all of their actions are going to be viewed through a liberal political lens that places them under far more scrutiny than, say, the politically correct English literature professor who may be staging Lolita reenactments in his classroom to bring Nabakov's writing "alive".
Having said all this, the reality of higher education in America is that heterosexual white male professors are indeed dinosaurs and are being replaced by a more "diverse" faculty. Whether or not these professors are forced out by charges of sexual harassment, real or imagined, or simply retire, the end result is the same: A faculty selected to be culturally diverse and politically homogeneous. This is not to say that these new faculty are not talented and, in some cases, extremely talented, but when a significant basis for their hiring is their sexual identification and/or race and political views, they are not required to be.
I could go on and on about all the reasons I believe that higher education is dying in America, but I'll save that commentary for another day and end this bit of Saturday morning amusement by making a prediction: At present, American universities are net importers of foreign graduate students, mostly from China and India. With ten year - fifteen, at the outside, this trend will reverse and serious American hard science students will be learning Mandarin and heading to China to learn their trade.
Did my nails the other day. Now, I don't do that often, but when I do, I lean towards blues, teals and other non traditional colors. I even have a lovely shade of olive drab I picked up a few months ago. I certainly don't need all these colors, ( honestly don't need any..). But isn't it nice that I have all of them to choose from
That right there, is the beauty of a capitalist system, choice. I stroll along through a store, something shiny and bright catches my eye. I may see one, two or three different colors I need ( don't), and plop they go in the buggy. To the counter I go with my money, and the deal is done.
Someone somewhere in the nail polish factory decided to add new and different colors, and people bought them. They sold so well, they kept adding more and more colors. And now we have the wonder that is the cosmetics aisle. The more we buy the more they make. The more they make, the more we buy. The market dries up, and production stops.
Socialism is anti-choice. Socialism says you can have too many choices, that other things are more important than choosing nail color, the planet is boiling for Pete's sake. If you don't believe me, ask Bernie Sanders
"You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on."
Choice is bad, gosh darn it. Everyone should just use the approved scent, flavor, colors. Everyone should drink the prescribed amount of the approved beverage and be happy. Do it for the planet.
It fascinates me, the people that would vote for Bernie and his anti choice rhetoric are typically those with rainbow locks, who stand in line at a specialty coffee store for diverse beverages chosen from a varied menu, and ponder seriously over the wide range of free range tofu at the local organic market. People who proudly proclaim their individuality, clamor for forced conformity, in the name of social justice and income equality, never equating equality with sameness.
Diversity happens when there are choices to be made. The permutations available in our capitalistic American society are limited only by our imaginations. What grand imaginations they are, too! Why anyone would want to limit us to centrally planned choices is beyond my comprehension. Why anyone would willingly vote for someone that proudly proclaims he would limit your choices, even more so.
So...some privileged white girl, named Tricia Bishop, wrote this for the Baltimore Sun, where she argues that there should be a national database where one could go and find out which of your friends or parents of your children's friends owned guns...so you could stay away from or keep your kids away from these dangerous sociopaths.
She states in her column, "I know how to stay out of the line of Baltimore's illegal gunfire; I have the luxury of being white and middle class in a largely segregated city..."
Ignoring the racism that is implicit in this statement, I will just say, No, Tricia. You don't know shit. All you know is the privileged sheltered life you have lived in since your yuppie parents spawned you. You live in a white section of Baltimore where the police actually patrol and enforce the law...and you turn a blind eye - if you are even that aware - when they profile "undesirables" and make sure they stay clear of your little enclave of civilized life. Profiling isn't wrong when it keeps your little piece of sophisticated, urbane life safe, is it?
Not everyone enjoys your luxury. I live in a city where violence, while infrequent, is random and, for the most part, class-insensitive and the ineffective police force does little more than chronicle crime as it happens. Prior to moving here, I never felt the need to own a gun for personal protection. I do now as do the majority of my neighbors...and by the way, in the 15 years I have lived here, in a development where several thousand people live, the number of accidental shootings, fatal or otherwise? Zero.
As a parent, I understand your concern for the safety of your kids. Guns really are dangerous. So is your car. Your kitchen knives, your collection of cleaning supplies, power tools, if you have any, anything you have that plugs into an electrical outlet are all potentially dangerous things that could kill you or your kids if misused....and this is just inside your house. Once your child walks out the front door, the number of potential pathways to their demise multiply.
To your point, your kids' friends also live in houses where they are surrounded by all manner of dangerous devices and materials. Are you advocating for a national database that would identify owners of tables saws, kitchen knives, spray cans of insecticide, and anything else that could potentially injure your children? No. You don't because you see the utility of having these things in your house and, as a responsible parent, take some precautions to keep them away from your kids, as well as teaching them that these things are dangerous and could hurt or even kill them. You also assume that your children's friends' parents are being similarly responsible, which is why you willingly place your kids in their charge whenever they go over to play.
The thought that a gun in the house is going to turn responsible parents that you trust with your kids' lives into crazy, knuckle-dragging rednecks is absurd. A little research will demonstrate that your child is far, far more likely to die from drowning in your neighbor's pool than being shot by a gun they left lying around.
I keep reading about how racism is systemic and only can be directed by
those in power. In other words, White people have held power over Black people
(and other people of color) since the U.S. was founded, so no matter what has
happened since then — no matter how prosperous Blacks have become, or the fact
that a Black man is the leader of the free world — Whites still hold the power,
so Black people are still oppressed and cannot be racist.
As a result of this thinking, White people are being convinced that asking
questions about someone's difference (in the name of diversity and getting to
know a culture other than their own) is racist.
In the 1990s, corporations were told that they weren't diverse enough
because too many White men held positions of power. Departments of
Diversity were created, often headed by a woman and/or person of color and/or
gay or lesbian (the bi-sexuals and transgendered hadn’t been offended yet — and
weren’t even recognized in their own “circle” of “different” sexual behavior),
in the name of creating equality. So-called “affinity” groups were formed:
Black Employee Networks, Asian Employee Networks, Left-handed Green-eyed
Lesbians with Plus Seven Wizard Points Employee Network. Every “specialized”
group wanted to be recognized for being different. In the name of “equality and
diversity”, these groups essentially bullied their way into silos of
difference. “Celebrate me because I’m different!” “Celebrate me because I’m
special!” “Celebrate me because I’ve been held down by the White man!” I think
it started as wanting be accepted, but it quickly devolved into wanting to be
different but not different.
I was included in a class action lawsuit because of the color of my skin. The
lawsuit was intended to give disadvantaged Blacks in the corporate world an
opportunity to advance their education so they could move up the corporate
ladder. I already had a Bachelor’s degree from a prestigious university, and
was being told that I needed to take advantage of this “opportunity.” I took a
class that interested me, but that had nothing to do with advancing me in the
position I held. It was “free” money. Except it wasn’t. The company paid for
it, and employee salaries (across the board) were likely limited because the
company had this lawsuit they had to pay for. I am grateful for the
“educational opportunity experience” I got, but in hindsight, I didn’t learn
any more than I had learned in the same class in high school — and I got to
take that class because of my intellect and ability, not because of the color
of my skin or my gender.
This post is not about my own hubris. Please bear with me.
A quick Google search says that a “system” is (1) “a set of connected things
or parts forming a complex whole, in particular” and (2) “a set of principles
or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or
method.” Wikipedia (which is where most people rely on their definitions of
things) says a system is a “ set of interacting or dependent component parts
forming a complex/intricate whole.”
So where is the other side of this oppression/diversity system? If Whites
hold the power and people of color are oppressed as part of this system, that
means both sides are, in fact colluding. It means both sides are responsible.
So why are Whites obliged to feel guilty for their success while people of
color are continually oppressed for their lack of success? If Whites set a
standard that works economically, educationally, socially, etc., that works for
everyone, and people of color reject that just because Whites set it up, those
people of color are part of that system that keeps them down because of their
own rejection of people not of their color set it up.
According to the definition, a system needs more than one side to operate.
And the people “in power” can only operate as long as the “oppressed” acquiesce
to being the ones “not in power.” So I say to the “oppressed,” stop dwelling on
the past. Stop demanding equality so long as you are only seeking revenge for
the actions of the past. Equality has existed for a number of years for people
of color. We have the opportunity to change the future for ourselves. Many of
us have. We blame no one but ourselves for not taking advantage of the opportunities
presented to us.
Two new, heretofore undiscovered duties of the Federal government have been discovered. The duty of Preventing Gun Violence and its sister clause, Keeping Us Safe. They are Article 9 3/4 subsection A & B, respectively, or something, so don't feel bad for missing it.
In ensuring the government meets its duty to Prevent Gun Violence and Keeping Us Safe there is not a gun that exists, that a liberal does not want to grab, nor is there a gun control law written, that they do not want passed.
"But sillies, we don't want to take your guns"
Oh, really? “We will get away from this notion that some gun cases are mere possession cases,” said Richard M. Aborn, president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City, who helped to spearhead the new approach. “When somebody makes a decision to pick up a gun, that’s like a pre-murder case.”
"Aha! You wish to apply to purchase a gun! Therefore, you must want to commit murder most foul! Since, you sir, are indeed a murderer in thought, though not yet in deed, you most definitely must be denied possession of a gun."
Pre-crime. I am on the record, repeatedly, stating that the simple act of wanting to own a gun will make you either mentally ill or a criminal to those that wish for the power to dispense rights to the deserved.
CNN published this piece after Obama's lecture on the badness of an armed citizenry. ( The one where he looked a survivor of rape, in the eyes, and told her that a gun would not keep her safer.)
"So, what should Obama do? The President needs executive actions that cannot be obstructed by Congress. That's only possible under a declared National State of Emergency for the Gun Violence Epidemic."
Basically he wants the president to martial law to control guns the way the left sees fit.
Besides not having accurate facts to back up his claims, this guy is not only wanting to get rid of due process, but also wants to get rid of one of the most foundational principles of our Constitution, the checks and balances that keep our co-equal branches of government in line. He wants his ruler to have a strong hand when dealing with the issues he agrees with, not giving any thought to what will happen if the party he disapproves of gains the position of power. I would attribute that to not only short sightedness, but incredible hubris. They do not think they can lose.
To the anti gun crowd, the inanimate gun is the problem they can solve. The human heart is one they can not. Not directly anyway. The world will be the better place they know it can be if only enough laws are passed controlling our actions. If only enough media outlets and schools show us the proper way of thinking we will come to appreciate their efforts.
The safety of the populace can not be left to mere men. That Great Responsibility falls on to the benevolent shoulders of our Elected Officials. Through the power of the ballot box, these former examples of humanity are transformed to Better Men (or Women) better suited for the job of protecting us from ourselves.
As I mentioned in a previous post, Germany is having a bit of a rape culture problem ( though to be honest, it's a cultural rape problem, but whatevs). The revised number is now up to 150 reported complaints during a 1000 man violent sexual assault rampage. The descriptions of the men were specific and quite problematic for authorities. Seems all of the perpetrators had a belief system in common. Most of them were of Arab or African origin ( as per witness description), some specifically, Syrian refugees, by their own admission. They literally told police that “I am Syrian. You have to treat me kindly. Mrs Merkel invited me"
Merkel, Time's Person Of the Year, herself, has come out with strong condemnation, of the victims of course, for not taking the proper precautions. While not specifying head to toe coverings and related male escorts when going in public, one can only assume.
Thus, de facto sharia, without even a fight. The strong man is tied, he shaved his own head, and can only watch as his women are raped and sold as chattel.
Here in the Evil Patriarchal bastion USA, feminists have been decrying words, glances and thoughts as rape. A man talks to you on campus, rape. If he looks at you, rape. If he thinks you are unattractive and refuses to have sex with you, rapity rape. One can only hope that Merkel can take time from governing/ruining Germany long enough to do a speaking tour of American universities.
Allow me to just spitball here for a moment....something just ain't sitting right....
If you are the average supporter and follower of the Black
Lives Matter movement, I feel sadness and sorrow for you. You are following
pied pipers, siren singers appealing to your emotional confliction; fiddlers
deftly running their bows across the strings of your doubts, your guilts, your
needs, your unsatisfied longing to be a part of something larger
than yourself. If you are an organizer of this racialist variant of grievance
stoking leftism, I feel nothing but contempt for you. You are lying,
manipulating, merchants of blame for fun and profit. Peddlers of nebulous
angers, loosely defined grievances; the wares that you hawk are cheap replicas
of history, a history that you diminish with a rebranding campaign based on an
appeal to nostalgia. Black Lives Matter is nothing more than the next
rearrangement in the Progressive Socialist shell game where slight of hand and
distraction is employed to render the participant unaware that the pea of
secular salvation has already been discarded and all promise of payoff is as
empty as the three half shells sitting on the table before them.
The Wikipedia page for Black Lives Matter (I assume, authored by supporters or organizers
themselves) is the usual ideological tossed salad of vague idealism that
purports to be, “a decentralized network and
has no formal hierarchy or structure.” A
patent phrase that has been used as a tactic of feigned non-responsibility for
acts of the few in the name of the many. Acts inspired by a few core,“activists,” that often lead to acts of
violence by the,“allied,” but as equally (non)responsible (individual) actors within, “movements,” where there are no,“individuals,” only the,“cause,” under the guise of,"peaceful protest," while absolving the movement's role in inspiring acts of disruption, looting, riot, and siege as acts not advocated by the whole, but wholly supported. The tactics, language, sentiments, and slogans have all been used by the Occupy Movement, Critical Mass, $15 Dollar an Hour activists and agitators, Labor Union activists and agitators, the drive to Recall Walker movement, the LGBT rights movement, the Anti-War movement, AdBusters, PETA, Code Pink, Moms Demand Action, Pussy Riot, Earth First; leftist activist front groups of generic, umbrella chagrin that invest their futures in blaming the past for solutions unrealized. Solutions never presented. Solutions talked about in terms unrealizable. Movements in the Sixties, co-opted from nascent movements of the Forties and Fifties, in reaction to romantic desires borne of the Thirties, attempted but never realized since the 1800's.
Ironic, in a way, that the stated desires and goals of a 21st century black liberation movement is so rooted in the philosophies of a 19th century German, co-opting and employing the tactics of a 20th century Jew, whilst supporting in personhood the BDS Movement. Melding the racial and ethnic hate and blame ethos of a supposed preacher with a mob mentality approach to "justice."
I expect this flavor of incongruous froth from organizers of coffee house revolutions. What is sad, is that otherwise reasonable people are now taking swigs of that bitter brew and finding it delicious.
Reading the news this morning, I came across an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that discussed how Johnson Controls is merging with Tyco and will be moving its corporate headquarters to Ireland, a move that will save the company and estimated $150 million/year in taxes. Who is Johnson Controls and what do they make you ask? Johnson Controls, among other things, is one of the three companies that makes batteries. Pop the hood of your car, and there is a very good chance you'll find a Johnson Controls manufactured car battery. They were "saved" by the GM bailout in 2008, and as the headline of the above linked article says, after receiving tax payer funds, they pull up anchor and leave.
