Lawson for Congress

[Splash and Dash] also illustrates a cautionary tale of how government incentives, no matter how well-intentioned, can sometimes be subverted into windfalls for the few.

We are increasingly faced with evidence that our government exists to serve lobbyists and special interests. From the recent Farm Bill, the veto for which was (maybe) overturned, to irrational government favors showered on ethanol proponents, we have created systems ripe for abuse and exploitation.

Splash and Dash is a perfect example. Thanks to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, your taxes and our government’s debt are paying a $1 per gallon subsidy for blended diesel that combines petroleum diesel with diesel from agricultural products such as soybeans. Now, foreign biodiesel manufacturers are exploiting this subsidy for fuel that benefits European drivers, but we’re paying the bill. Here’s how it works:

The maneuver begins with a shipload of biodiesel from, say, Malaysia, which pulls into a US port like Houston, says John Baize, an industry consultant in Falls Church, Va. Unlike domestic diesel-biodiesel blends, which typically contain from 1 to 10 percent of biodiesel, the Malaysian fuel starts off as 100 percent biodiesel, typically made from palm oil.

Then, the vessel receives from a dockside diesel supplier a “splash” of US petroleum diesel. It doesn’t take much to turn it into a diesel-biodiesel blend that is eligible for US subsidies.

If the ship holds roughly 9 million gallons, it takes only about 9,000 gallons of traditional diesel (0.1 percent of the total) to make the entire load eligible for the blenders tax credit.

The US importer of the load applies to the Internal Revenue Service for the credit – a dollar for each of the 9 million biodiesel gallons, Mr. Baize calculates. The next day the tanker can set sail – dash – for Europe. There, the US importer resells the biodiesel, taking advantage of European fuel-tax credits that, in effect, keep biodiesel prices above US prices.

You must be kidding me.

I’m not kidding, but I am realistic and a bit cynical. Government incentives, no matter how well-intentioned, will always be subverted into windfalls for the few.

Our income tax system is irreparably broken. Even though the American Jobs Creation Act was designed as a tax reform bill to reduce the burden of government, tinkering with our tax code always results in unintended consequences through interactions with our maze of special-interest-driven subsidies and favors.

A poster child for bad legislation is H.R. 2419, the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 — better known as the Farm Bill.

In a rare feat of bipartisanship, the House and Senate passed the final version last week by a veto-proof majority. Amazingly, details of this legislation are still coming to light. Given that the bill itself is 673 pages long, it’s not surprising that there wasn’t time to read it between horse trading in conference committee and the final votes.

I have four objections the Farm Bill, besides the simple fact that it is an unconstitutional disruption of our nation’s food supply, with negative global implications.

The first concern is the premise behind agricultural subsidies. We’re all familiar with rising grocery bills, and we’re feeling the impact of global commodity prices near all-time highs. The Farm Bill essentially “locks in” these high prices by setting subsidy payments for 2009 based upon today’s record levels:

Since the amount of the subsidy for 2009 is tied to recent record prices, farmers could reap a windfall if prices drop suddenly.

“I don’t think many people on the House side who voted for the farm bill realized there were $16 billion in potential higher costs in there,” said Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Charles F. Conner. “The budget exposure is tremendous.”

A blog item posted Monday by the agricultural magazine Pro Farmer described the new program, known as Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE), as “lucrative beyond expectations,” and said it is a “no brainer” for farmers to sign up for it.

The Agriculture Department estimates that subsidy payments to corn farmers alone could reach $10 billion a year if prices — which have been $5 to $6 a bushel — were to drop to $3.25 a bushel, a level seen as recently as last year. The $10 billion figure assumes most farmers would participate in the program, a view disputed by key lawmakers.

Think about it — the government has locked in today’s high prices so that we’ll be borrowing and printing money to subsidize farmers even if prices were to decline to year-ago levels. Does that make sense?

But that’s just the impact on our country. What do these farm subsidies do to the rest of the world, and the ability of other nations to feed themselves?

LAST week, both Houses in the United States Congress passed a Farm Bill that continues the present system of high agricultural subsidies, rewarding big farmers that have already gotten much richer because of the recent hike in food prices.

This is a real pity, even a scandal, because the US farm subsidies are the main cause (together with the subsidies in Europe and Japan) of the greatest distortion in world trade.

The subsidies enable high-cost farmers and food companies to sell their products at below the cost of production and unfairly beat off the products of farmers in developing countries that don’t have the same kind of money to subsidise.

Many developing countries around the world have been importing artificially cheapened imported rice, wheat, corn, and chicken from the US and Europe.

Their own small farmers, which are often more efficient than those in the rich countries, have been displaced by these subsidised imports – one reason why agriculture has fallen in many developing countries, making them vulnerable to the present crisis of food shortages and high prices.

While our subsidies might benefit foreign consumers when prices are low, as prices have risen rapidly, developing nations’ lack of domestic agriculture leaves them exceedingly vulnerable to supply disruptions.

My third objection is Department of Homeland Security’s slipping in an unrelated power grab to bring Foot and Mouth Disease research onshore, and taking control of that transition from the Department of Agriculture:

Lawmakers on Wednesday tentatively agreed that national security officials should fully control the expected transfer of research of highly contagious foot-and-mouth disease from an offshore laboratory to the U.S. mainland near livestock.

The Bush administration requested the legal change, which would erode the traditional role of the Agriculture Department in deciding the safest location to research one of the world’s most contagious animal viruses. The virus does not infect humans but could devastate livestock herds.

House and Senate conferees, negotiating a major farm bill, agreed to the administration’s wishes to place the Homeland Security Department in full control of the transfer, according to two Senate sources who demanded anonymity because conferees were not ready to announce their agreements.

I object to moving this research in close proximity to agriculture and large population centers from its current island-based location. Regardless of my opinion, however, it is a controversial issue that deserves to be debated separately. Here’s one more reason to embrace the One Subject at a Time Act.

The final problem with the Farm Bill is the pork:

Individual lawmakers, mostly senators, slipped several dozen “earmarks,” or pet causes, into the $290 billion bill that have at best tentative connections to the tilling of the land. There’s tax breaks for horse owners, water for Nevada desert lakes, aid for the Pacific Coast salmon fishery industry and a crackdown on puppy trafficking.

Rep. Jeff Flake, R-AZ, a leading opponent of earmarks, complained that some had been “airdropped in” at the last minute. “If you dig into them, you might find something untoward. You might not, but the fact is we don’t have time to do that.”

Note Rep. Flake’s frustration about not even being able to read the bill. As a physician, if I sign off on a report or study without reading it, I could easily be sued for malpractice. Congress routinely passes legislation that is not read, nor even readable in the time provided. Congress desperately needs some help in this regard — I support the Read the Bills Act, which would require that Congress actually read legislation before voting.

The Farm Bill is expected to cost $300 billion. Our Rep. David Price voted Yes — perhaps he didn’t read it, or perhaps he erroneously believes we can afford it.

We may not be able to sue Rep. Price for malpractice, but we can certainly express our desire for change in November.

How to Make Friends and Influence People, according to Mike Huckabee:

Reckless and irresponsible remarks such as those by Mike Huckabee at the NRA’s national convention add nothing to civil discourse, and distract from Sen. Obama’s record opposing Americans’ fundamental right to self-defense. Such comments only encourage the gun control lobby to disarm and render defenseless law-abiding citizens.

Mr. Huckabee, please apologize for your remarks. I’m a fan of satirical humor, and have overstepped the limits of propriety on more than one occasion, so I understand what it’s like to say that I’m sorry. Your comments went beyond poor taste, however, and work against the interests of gun owners everywhere.

Update: Mr. Huckabee did apologize, as shown here:

Needless to say, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and as a Congressional candidate disagree strongly with our 11-term incumbent on this important issue.

It seems redundant to clarify that position, given that my entire Congressional campaign is based upon the Constitution as our nation’s framework for federal governance. But given my upbringing and background in neurosurgery, I didn’t arrive at a true appreciation for the Second Amendment until later in life. Here’s an email I exchanged on this topic:

For the record, historically I was never a “gun person”. I was raised in a gun-free home, and as a surgical resident, I only saw the ugly side of firearm violence. It wasn’t until the Virginia Tech shootings that I began to question and research my nominally anti-gun beliefs. How could a homicidal madman remain completely uncontested for such a long time? If I was in that situation, would I want to be a victim?

Once I began looking at the issues rationally, it became clear that armed, law-abiding citizens and common-sense measures like concealed carry permits have net positive effects. Permit holders are much more likely to defend themselves, or others, than to engage in gun violence (see this summary, or Crime, Deterrence and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Lott and Mustard).

More importantly, criminals by definition don’t obey laws.

The fact that our North Carolina campuses are “gun free zones” creates an illusion of security, and prevents those students and faculty 21 years of age and older (who can and may already have a permit to conceal off-campus) from potentially averting tragedy on-campus. Furthermore, since the penalties for carrying in a gun-free zone are so severe, if a permit holder’s travels might include campus on a particular day, that person just doesn’t carry at all (thus negating the value of the permit).

You might find this Web site interesting:

http://www.concealedcampus.org/

If 1% of the population is quietly and unobtrusively armed, criminals tend to think twice before they assume they have a defenseless victim.

The good news is that responsible gun ownership and a citizen’s right to self-defense is not a partisan issue in North Carolina. Here are some well-reasoned comments from a thread in the state Democratic blog:

http://bluenc.com/north-carolina-senator-supports-allowing-firearms-in-national-parks#comment-76315

We have a good concealed carry educational curriculum and licensing process in North Carolina:

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/11/18/guidelines-for-the-use-of-deadly-force/

However, we need to enlighten our state legislators so we can remove the capricious, arbitrary, and counterproductive “no-carry zones” that disarm law-abiding citizens and leave criminals with an absolute advantage. For a summary of North Carolina gun laws, including no-carry zones, visit the NRA-ILA’s Gun Laws page and click “North Carolina”.

You must be kidding me.

I first started studying how Washington works when I was in medical training, back when HIPAA was being born. Remember HIPAA? The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act? As I watched Congress empower unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists to share my protected health information with anyone having a financial interest in my care, “You must be kidding me” became a regular refrain.

But then I discovered a much more serious medical problem in Washington. Despite the fact that Congress loves providing drugs for our senior citizens, even at risk of national bankruptcy, they have thus far failed to diagnose or treat their own illness: Legislative Attention Deficit Disorder, or LADD.

The most common symptom of LADD is failure to focus on a single topic when creating legislation. Instead, legislators become excited when reading legislation that is likely to pass. As a result of this excitement, their minds begin wandering to the grab bag of promises they have made to special interests. In the final stages, this inability to concentrate on the legislation’s original topic culminates in spasmodic and capricious additions and amendments that are completely unrelated, dangerous, and costly.

Today’s example is typical: Senator Dianne Feinstein added an amnesty provision for up to 1.35 million illegal agricultural workers to an Iraq supplemental appropriations bill:

At today’s markup of the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee committed an outrageous act of disrespect for our men and women in uniform and to the citizens of this country by adopting an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that gives amnesty to illegal-alien agricultural workers. The copy of the amendment obtained by NumbersUSA indicates a maximum of 1.35 million illegal aliens, plus their families, could obtain “emergency agricultural worker status” for a five-year period. However, the amendment also provides for an adjustment of status, which paves the way for permanent legalization.

You must be kidding me.

Folks, this is just plain bad government. Unfortunately, it’s up to you to fight back. Regardless of your stance on the Iraq war or immigration, is it appropriate for legislators to hijack legislation in this fashion? Shouldn’t we insist that our legislators embrace common sense, and limit legislation to one subject at a time so votes can accurately reflect the opinions of our elected representatives?

Please, help restore common sense to Washington. I have three requests:

1. Visit NumbersUSA to learn more about this affront to good government, and how to contact your Senators today to fight this back-door attempt at amnesty for illegal immigrants. As NumbersUSA notes, there is no need for amnesty for agricultural workers — there already is an H-2A foreign agricultural worker program that provides growers with unlimited temporary workers.
2. To address the broader problem of LADD, learn about the One Subject at a Time Act, which requires Congress to limit legislation to a single subject. I support the One Subject at a Time Act, along with the Enumerated Powers Act, Read the Bills Act, and Write the Laws Act, as nonpartisan “good government” reforms that would drastically improve our legislative honesty and effectiveness.
3. Donate today to our Congressional campaign. In the week since the primary, I have been focused almost entirely on fundraising. We are preparing a large, targeted mailing and need your immediate help today!

Howdy, y’all! I’m the new blogger for Lawson for Congress. My name is Paige Michael-Shetley, and I am the Youth Coordinator for the campaign. I will be a contributor to the blog on as frequent of a basis as I can. I will mainly be making posts related to economics (my specialty) and abstract philosophy, but occasionally I will meander into other areas.

For my first post, I would like to recycle a post I made on my own blog, Liberty Republicans, a few months ago. (Note: Posts I make on that website represent only my own views, not necessarily those of B.J.) This is a post of which I am particularly proud, and I think all of us who are engaged in political could do quite well to give it a read and take its lessons to heart.

One of the unfortunate realities of today’s political environment is the fixation on the idea of a divide between two groups: the Conservatives vs. the Liberals. Perhaps this is a natural consequence of a society that cherishes competition (and God knows how much I cherish competition myself), but it is unfortunate that we should prioritize association with these identities and the clash between them to the point where we treat the situation the same as Yankees vs. Red Sox. (Or, to use an example with more local and personal relevance, Carolina vs. The University of New Jersey at Durham.) But rarely is the question ever asked: what does it truly mean to be conservative or a liberal?

As one studies political philosophy extensively, one finds that the labels “conservative” and “liberal” typically do not describe an unmistakably clear set of policy positions. It is often the case that “hyphenation” of these terms develops: the segmentation of these groups into certain subgroups.

For instance, the term “paleoconservative” is used to describe conservatives of the Pat Buchanan variety: protectionist, isolationist, culturally conservative, fiscally conservative, and pro-civil liberties. This is in contrast to the “neoconservatives,” as represented by the Bush Administration, who generally favor trade benefiting special interests, military interventionism, restriction of civil liberties in the name of security, and are not as concerned with fiscal restraint, favoring “supply-side” ideas about taxes and tolerating the growth of the welfare state. However, even within these subgroups there can exist substantive disagreement on certain issues.

For example, in the paleoconservative tent, there can be a disagreement over what role the federal government should play in regulating cultural matters. Typically, paleoconservatives tend to support adherence to federalism, whereas some, like Buchanan, tend to favor a more activist approach using the federal government to preserve traditional culture. Furthermore, within the neoconservative tent, an issue of considerable divide tends to be immigration, with those such as President Bush and Senator John McCain favoring less restrictive immigration policies, while others like Duncan Hunter favoring more restrictive policies. One achieves a similar analysis when observing liberalism.

So, what do the terms “conservative” and “liberal” really mean in the realm of politics? I contend that they mean exactly what they mean in every other realm of life. From a search on Merriam Webster online, one finds this definition of “conservative“:

3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b: marked by moderation or caution c: marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners

As for liberalism? Well, quite a few ideas come to light here:

2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c: ample full
4: not literal or strict : loose
5: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

Thinking about these definitions of “conservative” and “liberal,” can you unmistakably pin down someone’s position on any issue whatsoever when they possess conservative or liberal attitudes and/or world views? Let’s take, for instance, the Bush tax cuts. By these definitions, one who is a “conservative” may have objected to them on the grounds that they would produce large deficits, if conservatism is indeed “marked by moderation or caution.” On the other hand, one could view the tax cuts as quite a liberal policy, given that they were “provided in a generous and openhanded way.” In fact, an analogous situation occurred in the 1960s: conservatives in Congress opposed the tax cut proposals of the Johnson Administration, an administration that history has tended to label as the poster-child of American liberalism, on the fear that they would produce large deficits. Instead of this scenario playing out in 2001 and 2003 when the tax debates came up, we have seen the exact opposite situation: the tax cuts were linked to the “conservative” position, while opposition to them was considered the “liberal” position.

It appears, therefore, that the terms “conservative” and “liberal” are rather useless for defining consistent and predictable sets of political positions. Instead, these labels describe attitudes and the psychological approach through which one arrives at positions. Conservatives value adhering to tradition, caution, and restraint from radical change. Liberals value anti-orthodoxy and generosity, and they tend to possess more lax attitudes toward society and to react more favorably to change. What it all boils down to is that the individual who possesses these attitudes is ultimately the authority over what positions they take based on these attitudes and their own understanding of issues.

Hence, we have arrived at the source of the division in our political system. It is precisely because we in society seek so firmly to establish a form of team sport in politics, with the “liberals” vs. “conservatives,” where we view politicos and voters as members of these two teams and cheer them on as they take on our opponents, that we have established this rigid division in our political system and our society as a whole. Identity politics, and particularly party politics, is a particularly divisive and destructive form of collectivism that suggests we maintain loyalty to groups rather than loyalty to our own attitudes, world-views, and unique conclusions on policy positions. It is only when we begin to view ourselves and each other as individuals with unique perspectives, and understand what is truly meant by the terms “conservative” and “liberal,” that we can end the division of today and conduct ourselves with the primary motivation of what is best for our country.

Our three children are not economists, but they understand that going shopping with $14 means that they can’t afford something that costs $16. There’s simply not enough money.

David Price, however, has built a legislative career embracing the “gimme now” philosophy: if you can’t afford it, simply borrow and print the dollars necessary to make up the difference.

Two months ago, Rep. Price voted in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 312, which is a planning document that sets priorities for discretionary spending and annual budgeting over the next five years. This budgetary plan projects federal income of $14 trillion, yet plans to spend $16 trillion.

And that missing $2 trillion? More debt.

It’s been said that failing to plan is planning to fail. Our legislators are not failing to plan, however, they’re just flat-out planning to fail. In fact, they’re so committed to failing, that they even celebrate the fact that they’re completely divorced from reality. Here’s Rep. Price’s statement on this particular vote:

“This budget is a clear reflection of our priorities to build a stronger economy, keep our communities safe, and to do both in a fiscally responsible way,” Price said. “After President Bush and the Republican Congress turned projected surpluses into record deficits, this Congress is committed to reversing the damage.

Let’s see if I understand: throw some divisive partisan rhetoric out there, and claim that our massive fiscal irresponsibility is actually “responsible”. If we claim that we’re “reversing the damage”, perhaps we’ll escape blame for the inevitable damage that results when we can’t find foreigners willing to buy this next $2 trillion in debt.

The good news for our country, and our future, is that the people are beginning to discover the truth. It’s not a partisan issue — with gas prices and grocery bills heading up, people are beginning to understand that there are real consequences with the federal government borrowing and printing all this money. Yes, that’s right — when the government creates new money to pay for spending we can’t afford, the dollars you earn and save are less valuable due to the inflation our government itself creates.

It’s time to reject the “gimme now” school of economics. Our children deserve better, and David Price needs to understand that his well-meaning but misguided attempts to “help” are only making things worse for working Americans.

We simply can’t afford The Price.

This fascinating article on Politico outlines the pessimism that Newt Gingrich, Tom Cole, and other Republican leaders feel going into the November elections:

Shellshocked House Republicans got warnings from leaders past and present Tuesday: Your party’s message isn’t good enough to prevent disaster in November, and neither is the NRCC’s money.

The double shot of bad news had one veteran Republican House member worrying aloud that the party’s electoral woes — brought into sharp focus by Woody Jenkins’ loss to Don Cazayoux in Louisiana on Saturday — have the House Republican Conference splitting apart in “everybody for himself” mode.

“There is an attitude that, ‘I better watch out for myself, because nobody else is going to do it,’” the member said. “There are all these different factions out there, everyone is sniping at each other, and we have no real plan. We have a lot of people fighting to be the captain of the lifeboat instead of everybody pulling together.”

In a piece published in Human Events, the Republicans’ onetime captain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, warned his old colleagues that they face “real disaster” on Election Day unless they move immediately to “chart a bold course of real reform” for the country.

Wait, Newt. You’re looking for a “bold course of real reform”? Perhaps a “Contract with America”? Hey — I’ve got a great idea. Excuse me for being presumptuous, and I don’t pretend to be an experienced politician, but we’ve already got a contract with America: it’s called our United States Constitution.

In fact, I’ve been running a grassroots, insurgent Congressional campaign based entirely on limiting our federal government to its intended Constitutional scope, restoring fiscal sanity, restoring our civil liberties, ending the occupation of Iraq, pursuing a just and affordable foreign policy, ending inflation and restoring prosperity through monetary and economic freedom.

What’s really amazing is that this simple, unifying message just won my primary election with 71% of the vote against the establishment’s neoconservative candidate. Oh, and my friend Rep. Walter Jones won his primary with 60%, as well.

Even better, given how willingly our elitist incumbent Rep. David Price takes orders from his establishment Democratic handlers, I expect this message will challenge his 22-year reign quite effectively in November.

I sincerely hope that we have a cohort of good Republicans who are ready to serve the people, and the Constitution, in 2009. But Newt is right: letting the Democrats own the “change” message will eviscerate the Republican party.

The economic and security challenges we face are not partisan challenges. Neither should be our solution — it’s time to again embrace the real contract with America, and restore a Constitutional federal government:

Please help us take this powerful message to the 4th District. We’ve won the primary, and need your immediate support to start building our plan and organization for the general election. Please donate today.

It’s late, we’re just getting in, and neither JoLynn nor I have slept much in the past 48 hours. So this will be short.

Thank you to all of the donors, volunteers, and supporters who have built our campaign over the past four months. Our resounding victory tonight is not about me — it’s about a message that will transform American government, and the future for our nation. Our victory is also a powerful statement that we Americans are ready for change. We’re tired of negative soundbite politics that divides us against each other, and we’re tired of agendas being forced upon us by party elites who are increasingly disconnected from reality, and the challenges we face.

We are ready to embrace a federal government that focuses on its Constitutional responsibilities, and stops being a suffocating burden that will haunt our children and grandchildren.

During our victory celebration this evening, I had a number of people ask me the same question, “So how are you going to take the message to beat David Price?” While we have much planning and work ahead, one part of the answer is easy: “Order more Constitutions!”

We distributed ten thousand copies for this primary. Here’s to distributing 100,000 for the general election!

Unfortunately, we didn’t get any video at the event tonight. But I found this video amazingly impressive:

If you haven’t voted yet, this is the day!

An informal survey of mostly-Republican polling places suggests that turnout is light - one precinct in Raleigh that’s about equally matched between Democrats and Republicans had 600 voters by lunchtime, as opposed to a more typical 1,200. How much of that is low turnout versus early voting? We will see. Just make sure your vote is counted!

Also, I was informed that a supporter has created a grassroots Web site, with a fantastic introductory video:

… see you tonight at the Chop House Grille!

This weekend was a blur. Saturday we gave away our last 200 Constitutions at Apex Peak Fest, and spread the word for our conservative judicial candidates at the Western Wake Republican Club booth. Special thanks to John Harvila, whose heroic efforts provided a great forum for educating Republican voters about the importance of voting in tomorrow’s election.

There is a lot more at stake than just a presidential primary, or even a Congressional race. We also need to support Judge John Tyson, Marty Miller, and Dean Poirier or Jewel Ann Farlow. Specifically, Judge Tyson has been involved in an expensive primary election, and TODAY is the last chance to provide needed financial support to drive his campaign through November.

At this point, it’s all about turnout. Yes, we have radio and television spots running today, signs are beginning to appear at polling places, and we have a fantastic network of friends who have volunteered to help staff the polls. I am also excited to report that I was endorsed by the national Republican Liberty Caucus over the weekend. But advertisements and endorsements won’t win the election — for those investments to pay off, we need voters!

Here’s where you come in. Today, please call five friends, and send an email to your contacts reminding, imploring, and cajoling them to get out and vote tomorrow. Even better, to save gas, call your friends and in the neighborhood and carpool to the polls! One car, five voters.

Ultimately, that’s how we win. Please help us get our voters to the polls, and we’ll have a lot to celebrate on Tuesday night as we prepare to take on David Price and the big-government elitists who have been ignoring our Constitution for far too long in Washington.

After you’ve voted, please join us tomorrow night at the Chop House Grille at the northwest corner of High House Road and Davis Drive in Cary. If we all do our part, there will be much to celebrate.