From WesTexas@aol.com Sat Mar 26 23:12:16 2005 From: WesTexas@aol.com (WesTexas@aol.com) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:12:16 EST Subject: [Culturechat] Many Germans Want Berlin Wall Back, Study Finds Message-ID: <1a8.34745143.2f774650@aol.com> --part1_1a8.34745143.2f774650_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Interesting item that was posted on the Drudge Report: BERLIN (Reuters) - Nearly a quarter of western Germans and 12 percent of easterners want the Berlin Wall back -- more than 15 years after the fall of the barrier that split Germany during the Cold War, according to a new survey. The results of the poll, published Saturday, reflected die-hard animosities over high reunification costs lowering western standards of living and economic turmoil in the east. The survey of 2,000 Germans by Berlin's Free University and pollsters Forsa found 24 percent of those living in western Germany want the Wall back -- double the eastern level. In Berlin itself, 11 percent of westerners and 8 percent of easterners said "yes" when asked: "Would it be better if the Wall between East and West were still standing?." The Berlin Wall was breached on Nov. 9, 1989, paving the way for the unification of Communist East Germany with the West on Oct. 3, 1990. But billions of euros (dollars) spent rebuilding the east have failed to prop up the depressed region, which is plagued by high unemployment and a shrinking population. The poll also found that 47 percent of the easterners agree with the statement that the West "acquired the east like a colony," while 58 percent of the westerners back the statement that "easterners tend to wallow in self-pity." --part1_1a8.34745143.2f774650_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Interesting item that was posted on the= Drudge Report: 

BERLI= N (Reuters) - Nearly a quarter of western Germans and 12 percent of easterne= rs want the Berlin Wall back -- more than 15 years after the fall of the bar= rier that split Germany during the Cold War, according to a new survey.
The results of the poll, published Saturday, reflected die-hard animosities=20= over high reunification costs lowering western standards of living and econo= mic turmoil in the east.

The survey of 2,000 Germans by Berlin's Free University and pollsters Forsa= found 24 percent of those living in western Germany want the Wall back -- d= ouble the eastern level.

In Berlin itself, 11 percent of westerners and 8 percent of easterners said= "yes" when asked: "Would it be better if the Wall between East and West wer= e still standing?."

The Berlin Wall was breached on Nov. 9, 1989, paving the way for the unific= ation of Communist East Germany with the West on Oct. 3, 1990. But billions=20= of euros (dollars) spent rebuilding the east have failed to prop up the depr= essed region, which is plagued by high unemployment and a shrinking populati= on.

The poll also found that 47 percent of the easterners agree with the statem= ent that the West "acquired the east like a colony," while 58 percent of the= westerners back the statement that "easterners tend to wallow in self-pity.= " --part1_1a8.34745143.2f774650_boundary-- From WesTexas@aol.com Sat Mar 26 23:35:47 2005 From: WesTexas@aol.com (WesTexas@aol.com) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:35:47 EST Subject: [Culturechat] IEA Proposes Ban-Rationing-Enforced Quotas on Oil Consumption--Would Apply in US Message-ID: <1c8.256541a8.2f774bd3@aol.com> --part1_1c8.256541a8.2f774bd3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 5/6ths of the 3/25/05 New York Times OP-ED page was devoted to energy issues. The lead article was a Peak Oil article by Kenneth Deffeyes: "What Happens When the Oil Runs Out?" http://www.energybulletin.net/4883.html What is significant about the draconian proposals coming out of the IEA is that they have traditionally been in the happy face infinite energy camp. Note that the U.S. is obligated by an international treaty to implement severe cuts in oil consumption in the event of a shortage. Given our low density suburban lifestyle, the U.S. will be affected much more than European countries. J. Brown http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/032505_world_stories.shtml#1 >From Adam Porter at BBC -- International Energy Agency Proposes Ban-Rationing-Enforced Quotas on Oil Consumption -- Measures Would Apply in US Energy body wants brakes on fuel consumption by Adam Porter in Perpignan, France Thursday 24 March 2005 1:51 PM GMT The International Energy Agency is to propose drastic cutbacks in car use to halt continuing oil-supply problems. Those cutbacks include anything from car-pooling to outright police-enforced driving bans for citizens. Fuel "emergency supply disruptions and price shocks" - in other words, shortages - could be met by governments. Not only can governments save fuel by implementing some of the measures suggested, but in doing so they can also shortcut market economics. An advance briefing of the report, titled Saving Oil in a Hurry: Measures for Rapid Demand Restraint in Transport, states this succinctly. "Why should governments intervene to cut oil demand during a supply disruption or price surge? One obvious reason is to conserve fuel that might be in short supply. "But perhaps more importantly, a rapid demand response (especially if coordinated across IEA countries) can send a strong market signal." The report goes on to suggest a whole series of measures that could be used to cut back on fuel consumption. They are cutting public-transport costs by a certain amount to increase its usage while simultaneously dissuading car use. Sweeping proposals Then more radically the idea of going further and cutting public-transport costs by 100%, making them free to use. Car-pooling, telecommuting and even corrections to tyre pressures are also suggested. But the most hardline emergency proposals come in the form of drastic speed restrictions and compulsory driving bans. Bans could be one day in every 10 (10%) or more stringently on cars with odd or even number plates. They would be banned from the roads on corresponding odd or even days of the month (50%). The report says public transport should be made free to use In forming its conclusions the IEA tacitly admits that extra police would be needed in these circumstances to stop citizens breaking the bans. Even the cost of those extra patrols are part of the IEA's study. "Policing costs are more substantial and may consist of overtime payments for existing police or traffic officers or increases in policing staff. We assume this cost at one officer per 100,000 employed people." As an example that means that the US workforce, currently around 138 million people, would need an extra 1380 officers to help enforce the bans. It may seem an optimistic figure. But even if this were so, the IEA is not put off. "If our policing cost estimates are relatively low ... results clearly show that even a doubling of our estimate would make (bans) a cost-effective policy. The more stringent odd/even (day) policy is also more cost-effective than a one-day-in-ten ban, as the costs are the same ... maintaining enforcement is critical." Tough love Yet despite these measures, that many citizens would find quite draconian, the IEA concludes that tough love is better than none at all. "Our main conclusion finds that those policies that are more restrictive tend to be most effective in gaining larger reductions in fuel consumption. In particular, driving restrictions give the largest estimated reductions in fuel consumption." High oil prices are spurring talk of conservation and cutbacks in use Here, however, they do strike a word of warning for governments and those in power. "Restrictive policies such as this can be relatively difficult to implement and thus may come at higher political costs." According to the IEA's little-known emergency treaty, the Agreement on an International Energy Programme (IEP), "measures to achieve demand restraint fall into three main classes - persuasion and public information, administrative and compulsory measures, and finally, allocation and rationing schemes". This would mean that countries who signed up to the treaty, including the five biggest economies of the world - US, Japan, Germany, UK and France - would all have to institute cuts. "In the event of an activation of IEP emergency response measures, each IEA Member country will be expected to immediately implement demand restraint measures sufficient to reduce oil consumption by 7% of normal demand levels. In a more severe disruption, this could be raised to 10%." Effective ban? There are some interesting asides in the report. As Americans have the most cars, the driving bans could be got around by having one car with an odd, and one car with an even number plate. Proportionately it makes the ban less effective than in other countries. As well as this older cars may be kept in service longer if they have "useful" number plates which the IEA admits is "counter-productive from an air-pollution reduction perspective, as older vehicles would tend to pollute more". However, curtailing the working week and home working would be more effective in the US as more people travel to work alone in their cars. As would correct tyre pressures. In Japan speed reductions are less effective as there are less motorways on which to travel fast. Families with only one car would also be hit harder than their richer friends as "bans may have some additional costs in terms of reduced accessibility and mobility options particularly for single-vehicle households with limited access to alternative modes". Without doubt this report signifies that the IEA is searching for new ways to maintain supply security in a volatile oil market. Whether it can achieve its aims with this radical report is another matter. --part1_1c8.256541a8.2f774bd3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 5/6ths of the 3/25/05 New York Times= OP-ED page was devoted to energy issues.  The lead article was a Peak= Oil article by Kenneth Deffeyes: "What Happens When the Oil Runs Out?" = http://www.energybulletin.net/4883.html

What is significant about the draconian proposals coming out of the IEA is t= hat they have traditionally been in the happy face infinite energy camp.&nbs= p; Note that the U.S. is obligated by an international treaty to implement=20= severe cuts in oil consumption in the event of a shortage.   Give= n our low density suburban lifestyle, the U.S. will be affected much more th= an European countries. 

J. Brown

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/032505_world_stories.shtml#1

From Adam Porter at BBC -- International Energy Agency Proposes Ban-Ra= tioning-Enforced Quotas on Oil Consumption -- Measures Would Apply in US=
Energy body wants brakes on fuel consumption
by Adam Porter in Perpignan, France
Thursday 24 March 2005 1:51 PM GMT


The International Energy Agency is to propose= drastic cutbacks in car use to halt continuing oil-supply problems. Those c= utbacks include anything from car-pooling to outright police-enforced drivin= g bans for citizens.

Fuel "emergency supply disruptions and price shocks" - in other words, shor= tages - could be met by governments. Not only can governments save fuel by i= mplementing some of the measures suggested, but in doing so they can also sh= ortcut market economics.

An advance briefing of the report, titled Saving Oil in a Hurry: Measures fo= r Rapid Demand Restraint in Transport, states this succinctly.

"Why should governments intervene to cut oil demand during a supply disrupti= on or price surge? One obvious reason is to conserve fuel that might be in s= hort supply. "But perhaps more importantly, a rapid demand response (especia= lly if coordinated across IEA countries) can send a strong market signal."
The report goes on to suggest a whole series of measures that could be used= to cut back on fuel consumption. They are cutting public-transport costs by= a certain amount to increase its usage while simultaneously dissuading car=20= use.

Sweeping proposals
Then more radically the idea of going further and cutting public-transport=20= costs by 100%, making them free to use. Car-pooling, telecommuting and even=20= corrections to tyre pressures are also suggested.

But the most hardline emergency proposals come in the form of drastic speed= restrictions and compulsory driving bans. Bans could be one day in every 10= (10%) or more stringently on cars with odd or even number plates. They woul= d be banned from the roads on corresponding odd or even days of the month (5= 0%).

The report says public transport should be made free to use
In forming its conclusions the IEA tacitly admits that extra police would be= needed in these circumstances to stop citizens breaking the bans. Even the=20= cost of those extra patrols are part of the IEA's study.

"Policing costs are more substantial and may consist of overtime payments f= or existing police or traffic officers or increases in policing staff. We as= sume this cost at one officer per 100,000 employed people."

As an example that means that the US workforce, currently around 138 millio= n people, would need an extra 1380 officers to help enforce the bans. It may= seem an optimistic figure. But even if this were so, the IEA is not put off= .

"If our policing cost estimates are relatively low ... results clearly show= that even a doubling of our estimate would make (bans) a cost-effective pol= icy. The more stringent odd/even (day) policy is also more cost-effective th= an a one-day-in-ten ban, as the costs are the same ... maintaining enforceme= nt is critical."

Tough love
Yet despite these measures, that many citizens would find quite draconian,=20= the IEA concludes that tough love is better than none at all.

"Our main conclusion finds that those policies that are more restrictive te= nd to be most effective in gaining larger reductions in fuel consumption. In= particular, driving restrictions give the largest estimated reductions in f= uel consumption."

High oil prices are spurring talk of conservation and cutbacks in use=
Here, however, they do strike a word of warning for governments and those in= power.

"Restrictive policies such as this can be relatively difficult to implement= and thus may come at higher political costs."

According to the IEA's little-known emergency treaty, the Agreement on an I= nternational Energy Programme (IEP), "measures to achieve demand restraint f= all into three main classes - persuasion and public information, administrat= ive and compulsory measures, and finally, allocation and rationing schemes".=

This would mean that countries who signed up to the treaty, including the f= ive biggest economies of the world - US, Japan, Germany, UK and France - wou= ld all have to institute cuts.

"In the event of an activation of IEP emergency response measures, each IEA= Member country will be expected to immediately implement demand restraint m= easures sufficient to reduce oil consumption by 7% of normal demand levels.=20= In a more severe disruption, this could be raised to 10%."

Effective ban?
There are some interesting asides in the report. As Americans have the most= cars, the driving bans could be got around by having one car with an odd, a= nd one car with an even number plate.

Proportionately it makes the ban less effective than in other countries.=

As well as this older cars may be kept in service longer if they have= "useful" number plates which the IEA admits is "counter-productive from an=20= air-pollution reduction perspective, as older vehicles would tend to pollute= more".

However, curtailing the working week and home working would be more effecti= ve in the US as more people travel to work alone in their cars.  As wo= uld correct tyre pressures. In Japan speed reductions are less effective as=20= there are less motorways on which to travel fast.

Families with only one car would also be hit harder than their richer frien= ds as "bans may have some additional costs in terms of reduced accessibility= and mobility options particularly for single-vehicle households with limite= d access to alternative modes".

Without doubt this report signifies that the IEA is searching for new ways=20= to maintain supply security in a volatile oil market. Whether it can achieve= its aims with this radical report is another matter.

--part1_1c8.256541a8.2f774bd3_boundary-- From WesTexas@aol.com Mon Mar 28 17:05:01 2005 From: WesTexas@aol.com (WesTexas@aol.com) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:05:01 EST Subject: [Culturechat] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?3/28/05=20WSJ:=A0=20Unlikely=20Allies=20Fight=20U?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?.S.=20Oil=20Dependence?= Message-ID: <1a2.30515a95.2f79933d@aol.com> --part1_1a2.30515a95.2f79933d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 UG9saXRpY2FsbHksIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgYXJ0aWNsZSBpcyBlYXJ0aHNoYWtpbmcgbmV3 cy7CoCBJ4oCZdmUgbWV0IEZyYW5rIApHYWZmbmV5LCBhbmQgZm9yIGhpbSB0byBqb2luIGZv cmNlcyB3aXRoIGVudmlyb25tZW50YWwgZ3JvdXBzIGlzIGluY3JlZGlibGUuwqAKCk9uIGEg bWljcm8gbGV2ZWwsIEnigJl2ZSBiZWVuIGRvaW5nIHRoZSBzYW1lIHRoaW5nIGhlcmUgaW4g RGFsbGFzLCB3b3JraW5nIHdpdGggCnRoZSBsb2NhbCBTaWVycmEgQ2x1YiB0byBzcHJlYWQg dGhlIHdvcmQgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGRhbmdlcnMgb2YgUGVhayBPaWwuwqAgSeKAmW0gCmFsc28g dGVudGF0aXZlbHkgc2NoZWR1bGVkIHRvIHRlc3RpZnkgdGhpcyB3ZWVrIGluIGZyb250IG9m IGEgVGV4YXMgCmxlZ2lzbGF0aXZlIHN1YmNvbW1pdHRlZSBpbiBzdXBwb3J0IG9mIGEgcmVu ZXdhYmxlIGVuZXJneSBiaWxsIGJlZm9yZSB0aGUgbGVnaXNsYXR1cmUuwqAKCkplZmZyZXkg QnJvd24KSW5kZXBlbmRlbnQgUGV0cm9sZXVtIEdlb2xvZ2lzdAoKMy8yOC8wNSBXU0o6wqAg VW5saWtlbHkgQWxsaWVzIEZpZ2h0IFUuUy4gT2lsIERlcGVuZGVuY2U7IEJpcGFydGlzYW4g TmV0d29yayAKdG8gUHJlc3MgZm9yIFJlZHVjZWQgQ29uc3VtcHRpb24sIFF1aWNrZXIgRGV2 ZWxvcG1lbnQgb2YgTmV3IEZ1ZWxzCgpFeGNlcnB0czoKClRvZGF5LCAyNiBmb3JtZXIgbmF0 aW9uYWwtc2VjdXJpdHkgb2ZmaWNpYWxzIGZyb20gUmVwdWJsaWNhbiBhbmQgRGVtb2NyYXRp YyAKYWRtaW5pc3RyYXRpb25zIHdpbGwgc2VuZCBhIGxldHRlciB0byBQcmVzaWRlbnQgQnVz aCBjYWxsaW5nIGZvciDigJxhIG1ham9yIG5ldyAKaW5pdGlhdGl2ZSB0byBjdXJ0YWlsIFUu Uy4gY29uc3VtcHRpb27igJ0gYnkgaW1wcm92aW5nIHRoZSBmdWVsIGVjb25vbXkgb2YgVS5T LiAKYXV0b3MgYW5kIGRldmVsb3BpbmcgYWx0ZXJuYXRpdmVzIHRvIGZvc3NpbCBmdWVscy4K CkZyYW5rIEdhZmZuZXksIGEgc2lnbmVyIG9mIHRoZSBsZXR0ZXIgYW5kIGZvcm1lciBSZWFn YW4gb2ZmaWNpYWwgd2hvIGhlYWRzIAp0aGUgQ2VudGVyIGZvciBTZWN1cml0eSBQb2xpY3ks IGEgbmF0aW9uYWwgc2VjdXJpdHkgdGhpbmsgdGFuayBpbiBXYXNoaW5ndG9uLCAKYWRkczrC oCDigJxJIGRvbuKAmXQgb2Z0ZW4gZmluZCBteXNlbGYgaW4gYWdyZWVtZW50IHdpdGggdGhv c2UgYXQgdGhlIE5hdHVyYWwgClJlc291cmNlcyBEZWZlbnNlIENvdW5jaWwgKGEgbWFqb3Ig ZW52aXJvbm1lbnRhbCBncm91cCksIGJ1dCBJ4oCZbSBkZWxpZ2h0ZWQgdG8gaGF2ZSAKdGhl bSBqb2luaW5nIHVzIGluIHRoaXMgaW5pdGlhdGl2ZSBiZWNhdXNlIEkgZG8gdGhpbmsgdGhl cmUgaXMgY29tbW9uIGdyb3VuZC7CoCAKVGhlcmUgaXMgbm93IGEgY3JpdGljYWwgbWFzcyBv ZiBuYXRpb25hbC1zZWN1cml0eSBtaW5kZWQgcGVvcGxlIGNvbWluZyAKdG9nZXRoZXIgdG8g bWFrZSB0aGUgYXJndW1lbnQgdGhhdCB0aGlzIGlzIG5vIGxvbmdlciBzb21ldGhpbmcgd2Ug c2hvdWxkIGRvIGF0IHNvbWUgCnBvaW50LuKAncKgIFJlZHVjaW5nIFUuUy4gb2lsIGNvbnN1 bXB0aW9uLCBoZSBzYXlzLCBpcyDigJxubyBsb25nZXIgYSBuaWNlIHRoaW5nIHRvIApkby7C oCBJdOKAmXMgaW1wZXJhdGl2ZS7igJ3CoAo= --part1_1a2.30515a95.2f79933d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PEhUTUw+PEZPTlQgRkFDRT1hcmlhbCxoZWx2ZXRpY2E+PEhUTUw+PEZPTlQgQ09MT1I9IiMw MDAwMDAiIEZBQ0U9Ikx1Y2lkYSBHcmFuZGUiIExBTkc9IjAiIFNJWkU9IjIiPlBvbGl0aWNh bGx5LCB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIGFydGljbGUgaXMgZWFydGhzaGFraW5nIG5ld3MuwqAgSeKA mXZlIG1ldCBGcmFuayBHYWZmbmV5LCBhbmQgZm9yIGhpbSB0byBqb2luIGZvcmNlcyB3aXRo IGVudmlyb25tZW50YWwgZ3JvdXBzIGlzIGluY3JlZGlibGUuwqA8QlI+CjxCUj4KT24gYSBt aWNybyBsZXZlbCwgSeKAmXZlIGJlZW4gZG9pbmcgdGhlIHNhbWUgdGhpbmcgaGVyZSBpbiBE YWxsYXMsIHdvcmtpbmcgd2l0aCB0aGUgbG9jYWwgU2llcnJhIENsdWIgdG8gc3ByZWFkIHRo ZSB3b3JkIGFib3V0IHRoZSBkYW5nZXJzIG9mIFBlYWsgT2lsLsKgIEnigJltIGFsc28gdGVu dGF0aXZlbHkgc2NoZWR1bGVkIHRvIHRlc3RpZnkgdGhpcyB3ZWVrIGluIGZyb250IG9mIGEg VGV4YXMgbGVnaXNsYXRpdmUgc3ViY29tbWl0dGVlIGluIHN1cHBvcnQgb2YgYSByZW5ld2Fi bGUgZW5lcmd5IGJpbGwgYmVmb3JlIHRoZSBsZWdpc2xhdHVyZS7CoDxCUj4KPEJSPgpKZWZm cmV5IEJyb3duPEJSPgpJbmRlcGVuZGVudCBQZXRyb2xldW0gR2VvbG9naXN0PEJSPgo8QlI+ CjMvMjgvMDUgV1NKOsKgIFVubGlrZWx5IEFsbGllcyBGaWdodCBVLlMuIE9pbCBEZXBlbmRl bmNlOyBCaXBhcnRpc2FuIE5ldHdvcmsgdG8gUHJlc3MgZm9yIFJlZHVjZWQgQ29uc3VtcHRp b24sIFF1aWNrZXIgRGV2ZWxvcG1lbnQgb2YgTmV3IEZ1ZWxzPEJSPgo8QlI+CkV4Y2VycHRz OjxCUj4KPEJSPgpUb2RheSwgMjYgZm9ybWVyIG5hdGlvbmFsLXNlY3VyaXR5IG9mZmljaWFs cyBmcm9tIFJlcHVibGljYW4gYW5kIERlbW9jcmF0aWMgYWRtaW5pc3RyYXRpb25zIHdpbGwg c2VuZCBhIGxldHRlciB0byBQcmVzaWRlbnQgQnVzaCBjYWxsaW5nIGZvciDigJxhIG1ham9y IG5ldyBpbml0aWF0aXZlIHRvIGN1cnRhaWwgVS5TLiBjb25zdW1wdGlvbuKAnSBieSBpbXBy b3ZpbmcgdGhlIGZ1ZWwgZWNvbm9teSBvZiBVLlMuIGF1dG9zIGFuZCBkZXZlbG9waW5nIGFs dGVybmF0aXZlcyB0byBmb3NzaWwgZnVlbHMuPEJSPgo8QlI+CkZyYW5rIEdhZmZuZXksIGEg c2lnbmVyIG9mIHRoZSBsZXR0ZXIgYW5kIGZvcm1lciBSZWFnYW4gb2ZmaWNpYWwgd2hvIGhl YWRzIHRoZSBDZW50ZXIgZm9yIFNlY3VyaXR5IFBvbGljeSwgYSBuYXRpb25hbCBzZWN1cml0 eSB0aGluayB0YW5rIGluIFdhc2hpbmd0b24sIGFkZHM6wqAg4oCcSSBkb27igJl0IG9mdGVu IGZpbmQgbXlzZWxmIGluIGFncmVlbWVudCB3aXRoIHRob3NlIGF0IHRoZSBOYXR1cmFsIFJl c291cmNlcyBEZWZlbnNlIENvdW5jaWwgKGEgbWFqb3IgZW52aXJvbm1lbnRhbCBncm91cCks IGJ1dCBJ4oCZbSBkZWxpZ2h0ZWQgdG8gaGF2ZSB0aGVtIGpvaW5pbmcgdXMgaW4gdGhpcyBp bml0aWF0aXZlIGJlY2F1c2UgSSBkbyB0aGluayB0aGVyZSBpcyBjb21tb24gZ3JvdW5kLsKg IFRoZXJlIGlzIG5vdyBhIGNyaXRpY2FsIG1hc3Mgb2YgbmF0aW9uYWwtc2VjdXJpdHkgbWlu ZGVkIHBlb3BsZSBjb21pbmcgdG9nZXRoZXIgdG8gbWFrZSB0aGUgYXJndW1lbnQgdGhhdCB0 aGlzIGlzIG5vIGxvbmdlciBzb21ldGhpbmcgd2Ugc2hvdWxkIGRvIGF0IHNvbWUgcG9pbnQu 4oCdwqAgUmVkdWNpbmcgVS5TLiBvaWwgY29uc3VtcHRpb24sIGhlIHNheXMsIGlzIOKAnG5v IGxvbmdlciBhIG5pY2UgdGhpbmcgdG8gZG8uwqAgSXTigJlzIGltcGVyYXRpdmUu4oCdwqA8 L0ZPTlQ+PEZPTlQgQ09MT1I9IiMwMDAwMDAiIEZBQ0U9IkdlbmV2YSIgRkFNSUxZPSJTQU5T U0VSSUYiIFNJWkU9IjIiPjwvRk9OVD48L0hUTUw+Cg== --part1_1a2.30515a95.2f79933d_boundary--