"Nothing to see here..."

[lektrode]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

I no longer think Palin is stupid. My diagnosis is a case of appalling ignorance. I believe McCain's choice of her to be VP was indeed stupid.

Speaking of McCain, the Keating episode was just one reason to not vote for him. The other, and for me the more important reason, is found here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ft-behind.html

No matter what the Clintons and their supporters might say, character does count.

+1
and tho her primary detractors are the intellectual liberal/left, i happen to believe that the character description of 'intellectual' isnt necessarily the only determinant of one being 'smart' - and like her or hate her, one thing she DOES possess is STREET SMARTS - something that all the intellectual capacity - or higher education - in the world doesnt automatically convey (as evidenced by the current occupant and his apologists, primarily on the 'intellectual' liberal/left)

the evidence of this is simply:

from: http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/26/wh...omes-to-palin/

emphasis= mine

let’s take a look at some things the media and the D.C./Manhattan elite haven’t quite gotten around to mentioning.

1. As governor in 2007, Palin was responsible for the largest veto totals in state history, while investing $1 billion in forward-funding education and fulfilling public safety and infrastructure necessities.

1. Palin invested $5 billion in state savings during a time of economic surplus.

1. Palin reduced spending by 9.5% from 2007 to 2010 and slashed earmark requests by over 80% during her time as governor.

1. Under Palin, Alaska’s total liabilities were reduced by 34.6% overall.

1. As governor, Palin was the CEO of the state and had substantial authority. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, “In Alaska, the Governor has line-item veto power over the budget and can only be overridden by a three-quarters majority of the Legislature.”

1. Palin’s free-market approach to AGIA (Alaska Gasline Inducement Act) featured full transparency with respect to competitors and no back-door meetings. It also unlocked the ConocoPhillips, BP and ExxonMobil monopoly and marked an enormous step toward energy independence.

1. Palin tossed out the corruption-ridden, structurally-flawed Petroleum Profits Tax of the Murkowski administration and put forth ACES (Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share), which incentivized development while seeing to it that Alaskans — resource owners as per the Alaska Constitution — would receive “A CLEAR and EQUITABLE SHARE (ACES) of the value of their commonly-owned oil and gas.” The result? Alaska was left with a $12 billion surplus. Also, as reported at Big Government, “The number of oil companies filing with the Alaska Department of Revenue has doubled, indicating that competition has indeed increased. Alaska has the second most business friendly tax set-up — up two spots since the passage of ACES. Additionally, a report from Governor Parnell’s Department of Revenue indicated that 2009 yielded a record high in oil jobs.”

1. Palin held ExxonMobil’s feet to the fire when it wasn’t abiding by a lease agreement to drill in Point Thomson. (You thin-skinned hockey mom, you!) After over 25 years of sitting on leases with no activity, ExxonMobil finally got to it.

1. Palin served as president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors, chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, vice chair of the National Governors Association Natural Resources Committee and chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

1. Palin’s commitment to free-market competition and transparency is well-evidenced by her establishment of the Alaska Health Care Strategies Planning Council (HCSPC) and her introduction of the Alaska Health Care Transparency Act. The American Spectator points out thatalthough it didn’t make it through the legislature, “The Alaska Health Care Transparency Act confirmed that Sarah Palin means it when she says she’s in politics to ‘challenge the status quo and to serve the common good.’ Moreover, her push for greater competition also demonstrates that she understands the potential of the free market to cure much of what ails American health care.

and this: (sorry if i'm quoting from biz-oriented/conservative publications, vs pulling from places like huffpo and salon.. its because i WORK FOR A LIVING and dont have time to peruse the more 'high minded' world of the chattering class (= why i hang out here, for balance to my POV ;)

from: http://online.wsj.com/public/article...733097089.html

• September 4, 2008

Focus Turns to Palin Record
Governor Pushed Conservative Agenda, but Showed Flexibility

Gov. Palin throughout her career has consistently positioned herself as a reformer, a stance that led her to tangle repeatedly, in Wasilla and Juneau, with people she considered opponents, sometimes driving them from office.

Ms. Palin began her political career in the small town of Wasilla, 45 miles north of Anchorage, where she served on the city council and then as mayor. When she ran for governor in 2006, she took on in the Republican primary an incumbent who had been hammered by a string of controversial decisions. She beat him handily, and went on to defeat former Democratic Gov. Tony Knowles by a wide margin. His mantra against her: "The untested mayor of a small town."
...

Her term as governor began on a combative note. The state had been rocked by raids by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents of legislators' offices around the state in 2006, as part of a probe into influence-peddling by oil-field contractor VECO Corp.


The new Republican governor appeared at a news conference with the former leader of the Democratic minority in the Senate to unveil an "Ethics White Paper" calling for a clampdown on questionable dealings by lawmakers.
...
.....

Beyond her advocacy of reforms in Wasilla and Juneau, Ms. Palin's Republican backers say her record shows her to be a classic fiscal conservative. They note that when she first took office as mayor, city coffers were flush with revenue from a new sales tax. She took the opportunity to reduce property taxes.

She displayed some enthusiasm for taxpayer relief after becoming governor, too. She got the legislature to pass an energy-relief measure last month that will send $1,200 checks to eligible Alaskans to offset the rising cost of gasoline and other fuel in the state. Alaska's fuel costs are higher than many other states' because of its remoteness and vast size. Unlike most states, Alaska's coffers are overflowing with money from high oil prices, and there will still be plenty left in a $5 billion surplus after the state pays around $800 million to the citizens.

But Gov. Palin has also at times pushed more taxes and more spending. As governor, she essentially raised taxes on oil companies as part of a deal to help update Alaska's formula for extracting royalties off of crude production.

theres a lot more to this one: http://online.wsj.com/public/article...733097089.html

and this:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah...r/469079218434

Do insolvent states actually believe other states should bail them out? In June 2009, I was invited to introduce Michael Reagan at an event in Anchorage. In my remarks as Governor of Alaska, I warned against President Obama’s debt-ridden stimulus bill and its effect on all our state budgets. I believed that the bill’s benefits would be limited because government would grow exponentially, and I warned that the package was equivalent to a federal bribe with fat strings attached that created new unfunded mandates for state governments. At the time, most state legislatures, including Alaska’s, chose to ignore that warning. I predicted that states like California would soon be coming to the federal government asking for a bailout. After I gave that speech, I remember the mocking I received for predicting California and other big government states would continue to spend recklessly and yet expect others to bail them out. The naysayers in the media went a bit wild in their condemnation of my sounding that alarm.

Well, fast forward to today. We now know that the nearly trillion dollar stimulus package didn’t lead to the job growth promised by President Obama; instead it left already struggling state governments even deeper in debt because now they are on the hook to continue programs and projects that were started by these “free” federal funds. So now, as predicted, folks in Washington and in over-spending state capitols are whispering the dreaded “b-word”: bailouts – for individual states!

American taxpayers should not be expected to bail out wasteful state governments. Fiscally liberal states spent years running away from the hard decisions that could have put their finances on a more solid footing. Now they expect taxpayers from other states to bail them out, which will allow them to postpone the tough decisions they should have made ages ago and continue spending like there’s no tomorrow. Most Americans would say these states have made their bed and now they’ve got to lie in it. They accepted federal dollars and did not voice opposition to the unfunded federal mandates, and they even re-elected politicians who foisted debt-ridden programs on them that could never be sustained.

Instead of coming to D.C. cap in hand asking for more “free” money, they should follow the example of their more prudent sister states and take the necessary steps to sort out their own finances. They must start by reforming their insolvent pension systems. Many states have multi-billion dollar unfunded pension liability problems that they have refused to address for many years. They’ve deferred their spending problems, assuming the problem deferred would be an issue avoided; instead, it’s resulted in a crisis invited. These states still won’t reform their costly defined benefit systems for fear of offending the powerful public sector unions. Sooner or later, their pension systems will collapse unless they do what states like Alaska did, which is to swap unsustainable defined benefits, which are more like glorified Ponzi schemes, for a more prudent defined contributions system.

My home state made the switch from defined benefits to a defined contribution system, and as governor, I introduced a number of measures to build on that successful transition, while also addressing the issue of the remaining funding shortfall by prioritizing budgets to wrap our financial arms around this too-long ignored debt problem. When my state ran a surplus because we incentivized businesses, I didn’t spend it on fun and glamorous pet projects for lawmakers – though that would have made me quite popular with the earmark crowd. In fact, I vetoed more excessive spending than any governor in our state’s history, and I used the state’s surplus to bring our financial house in order by paying down our unfunded pension plans that some other governors wanted to ignore. This fiscal prudence didn’t make me popular with the state legislature. In addition to vetoing hundreds of millions of dollars in wasteful spending, I put billions of dollars into savings accounts for future rainy days, much like most American families do in responsibly planning for the future. I also enacted a hiring freeze and brought the education budget under control through a commitment to forward-funding. I returned much of the surplus back to the people (it was their money to start with!) through tax relief and energy rebates. I had proven as the mayor of the fastest growing city in the state that tax cuts incentivize business growth, and though the state legislature overrode some of my veto cuts and thwarted an additional tax relief request of mine, the public was supportive of efforts to rein in its government.

It’s one thing to veto spending and reduce the size of government when your state is broke. I did it when my state was flush with revenue from a surplus – though I had to fight politicians who wanted to spend like there was no tomorrow. It’s not easy to tell people no and make them act fiscally responsible and cut spending when the money is rolling in and your state is only 50 years shy of being a territory and everyone is yelling at you to spend while the money is there to build. My point is, if I could fight this fight in Alaska at a time of surplus, then other governors can and should be able to do the same at a time when their states are facing bankruptcy and postponing this fight is no longer an option.

So, let’s not continue to reward irresponsible political behavior. Instead of handing out more federal dollars, let’s give the governors of these debt-ridden states some free advice. Shake off the pressure from public sector unions to cave on this issue. Put up with the full page newspaper attack ads, the hate-filled rhetoric, and the other union strong arm tactics that I, too, had to put up with while fighting those who don’t believe a state needs to live within its means. Stand up to the special interests that are bankrupting your states. You may not be elected Miss Congeniality for fighting to get your fiscal houses in order; but in the long run, the people who hired you to do the right thing will appreciate your prudence and fiscal conservatism.

As Michael Reagan’s dad once said, “We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected…. ‘We the people’…” The people deserve leaders who will make the tough decisions to secure the future prosperity of their states.

- Sarah Palin

so while she might not please the intellectual crowd (which was the main issue/problem, admittedly amongst lots of others, with ole gee dubya...), she did have what it takes to be - at least - The Governor of AK - and has, in fact, MORE EXPERIENCE than the current occupant of the whitehouse, and never mind street smarts

so - the question is: shall EJ attempt to interview her here in the 'tulip?

YES, MOST CERTAINLY, as we really do need to know if she actually writes most of her own stuff - and i believe she does - she is also EXACTLY the type of politician we need more of (vs the bunch of clowns running the country - into the ditch - that we have currently) - and what kind is that?

the kind that isnt afraid of what she sez and what it will do to her standing in political opinion polls -
and ISNT AFRAID TO BE A ONE-TERM office holder (which they should ALL be)

and hey!
even if i am a (kinda)rightwing redneck from new hampster (and PROUD of it, since the NH legislature makes a 100bux/year, balances the budget and does it with NO SALES AND NO INCOME TAXES every year, for the last 300)

and thats my story and i'm stickin to it.

[jiimbergin]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

nice post, Lektrode

[lakedaemonian]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

nice post, Lektrode

+1 agreed.

I have to admit to being quite shocked(in a positive way) at that article by Palin.

I have to also admit to quite possibly being a brainwashed victim of media bias against her......which is something that really does bother me ever time I find it happening.

I sincerely hope she wrote it herself......but I have to admit to being a bit cynical.

I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

The news media is owned by a handful of billionaires. It's even more corrupt than congress. Its star pundits are mercenaries. Palin is just another in a long string of Joe Pynes. Can't believe this site would give her any credence. Ouch!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Pyne

[lektrode]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

The news media is owned by a handful of billionaires. It's even more corrupt than congress. Its star pundits are mercenaries. Palin is just another in a long string of Joe Pynes. Can't believe this site would give her any credence. Ouch!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Pyne

well... as they say where i come from:

"...ya bettah get ya believa fixed..." (altho ya cant get theyah, from heah...)

/mode=NH-yankee-drawl ;)

but i will agree with you, 100% - on the corruption of the lamestream media.

it was proven, aside from recent chatter about 'the recovery' and 'things are lookin up, unemployment falling, real estate "bottoming" etc etc - but most assuredly in 2008, when it was ALL BAD NEWS, ALL THE TIME - and with essentially the same set of facts/figures as today minus about 2 trillion in wasted/borrowed money - better in fact, nearly all the way round (if one doesnt count what happened on wall st, which was then bailed out at the direct expense of main st) while ignoring anything other than flattering coverage of and doing everything they could possibly do to elect the least experienced and most in-effective POTUS of the last 100 years.

oh and one more thing:
the nearly 100% lack of attention to The Crime of The Century known as: bailout and subsequent cover-up of the political class' abject failure to address/dealwith TooBigToFail.inc

they own it, 100%

and say/think what you will about palin, but at least she puts out The Truth when she - or whoever - writes it

why i'm really hoping that Mr J can score an interview with her here. (then we'll get to find out if shes a phony, but at least she talks the talk and she walks the walk, unlike most of the rest of em)

[photon555]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

I detested McCain in 2008, yet I held my nose and voted for him as the lesser of two evils. Palin being on the ticket made it easier to pull the lever. Would McCain have been a better President? I honestly don't know. One could argue that all the socialist and hate America first actions and speech would not have occurred. And one could argue that he would have done even more damage than Obama since he would presumbably have had more bipartisan support. But I believe Palin would have broken party rules and spoken out as VP against the worst of "politics as usual." Remember some of McCain's staff hated her passionately and were willing to sabotage their own campaign just to libel her. I would greatly desire seeing an interview of Palin on iTulip. I'm expecting it to confirm the picture we see of her in these statements. You don't do what she did in AK despite the vicious opposition without character and determination. Whether or not she can speak spontaneously as well as she writes doesn't affect her political courage as far as I'm concerned, or change my support for her if she should decide to run for office. Many in the main stream media have been propagandists, not journalists for as long as I can remember, and I will be 62 this September. So I'm not surprised at the negative (when there's any at all) coverage of Palin.

I support honest political reform, but I have become disillusioned to the idea that there is a political solution to our nation's problems. What we face is primarily a moral and spiritual problem of decay all across the spectrum of society. I'm a Christian so I'll put it in a theological/accounting framework. The wages of sin have been earning interest for a long time and what we're seeing now is the legally mandated payouts beginning to take place. There's a lot more to come. I don't know whether or not we survive as a nation, but I do know that sooner or later everybody gets what's coming to them. "The wheels of God's justice may grind slow, but they grind exceeding fine." I'm glad I have His Son as my sacrificial substitute and defense attorney 'cause I'm one of the worst people around that I know of.

[Raz]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

I detested McCain in 2008, yet I held my nose and voted for him as the lesser of two evils. Palin being on the ticket made it easier to pull the lever. Would McCain have been a better President? I honestly don't know. One could argue that all the socialist and hate America first actions and speech would not have occurred. And one could argue that he would have done even more damage than Obama since he would presumbably have had more bipartisan support. But I believe Palin would have broken party rules and spoken out as VP against the worst of "politics as usual." Remember some of McCain's staff hated her passionately and were willing to sabotage their own campaign just to libel her. I would greatly desire seeing an interview of Palin on iTulip. I'm expecting it to confirm the picture we see of her in these statements. You don't do what she did in AK despite the vicious opposition without character and determination. Whether or not she can speak spontaneously as well as she writes doesn't affect her political courage as far as I'm concerned, or change my support for her if she should decide to run for office. Many in the main stream media have been propagandists, not journalists for as long as I can remember, and I will be 62 this September. So I'm not surprised at the negative (when there's any at all) coverage of Palin.

I support honest political reform, but I have become disillusioned to the idea that there is a political solution to our nation's problems. What we face is primarily a moral and spiritual problem of decay all across the spectrum of society. I'm a Christian so I'll put it in a theological/accounting framework. The wages of sin have been earning interest for a long time and what we're seeing now is the legally mandated payouts beginning to take place. There's a lot more to come. I don't know whether or not we survive as a nation, but I do know that sooner or later everybody gets what's coming to them. "The wheels of God's justice may grind slow, but they grind exceeding fine." I'm glad I have His Son as my sacrificial substitute and defense attorney 'cause I'm one of the worst people around that I know of.

+1.

[jiimbergin]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

I detested McCain in 2008, yet I held my nose and voted for him as the lesser of two evils. Palin being on the ticket made it easier to pull the lever. Would McCain have been a better President? I honestly don't know. One could argue that all the socialist and hate America first actions and speech would not have occurred. And one could argue that he would have done even more damage than Obama since he would presumbably have had more bipartisan support. But I believe Palin would have broken party rules and spoken out as VP against the worst of "politics as usual." Remember some of McCain's staff hated her passionately and were willing to sabotage their own campaign just to libel her. I would greatly desire seeing an interview of Palin on iTulip. I'm expecting it to confirm the picture we see of her in these statements. You don't do what she did in AK despite the vicious opposition without character and determination. Whether or not she can speak spontaneously as well as she writes doesn't affect her political courage as far as I'm concerned, or change my support for her if she should decide to run for office. Many in the main stream media have been propagandists, not journalists for as long as I can remember, and I will be 62 this September. So I'm not surprised at the negative (when there's any at all) coverage of Palin.

I support honest political reform, but I have become disillusioned to the idea that there is a political solution to our nation's problems. What we face is primarily a moral and spiritual problem of decay all across the spectrum of society. I'm a Christian so I'll put it in a theological/accounting framework. The wages of sin have been earning interest for a long time and what we're seeing now is the legally mandated payouts beginning to take place. There's a lot more to come. I don't know whether or not we survive as a nation, but I do know that sooner or later everybody gets what's coming to them. "The wheels of God's justice may grind slow, but they grind exceeding fine." I'm glad I have His Son as my sacrificial substitute and defense attorney 'cause I'm one of the worst people around that I know of.

+2, I am surely blessed to be a sinner saved by Grace.

[BadJuju]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

What we face is primarily a moral and spiritual problem of decay all across the spectrum of society.

I think it is unfair to say we are facing moral and spiritual decay. That has been said for thousands of years now. As a whole, the world is a much nicer place than it once was. We don't even have to look far to see how bad things were just a century or so ago.

As an atheist, all I see is the same crap that has repeated itself countless times over history. Power being concentrated in the hands of a few while everyone else is hung out to dry.

[jiimbergin]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

I think it is unfair to say we are facing moral and spiritual decay. That has been said for thousands of years now. As a whole, the world is a much nicer place than it once was. We don't even have to look far to see how bad things were just a century or so ago.

As an atheist, all I see is the same crap that has repeated itself countless times over history. Power being concentrated in the hands of a few while everyone else is hung out to dry.

You are, of course, right that the same crap has repeated itself countless times since the begining of time, just as God said it would. Christians believe God is Loving and Just. And justice will happen in His time. We don't expect to convert you here on itulip, but if we are wrong (which we are certain we are not), then it is not of much consequence to us, but if you are wrong......

[BadJuju]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

You are, of course, right that the same crap has repeated itself countless times since the begining of time, just as God said it would. Christians believe God is Loving and Just. And justice will happen in His time. We don't expect to convert you here on itulip, but if we are wrong (which we are certain we are not), then it is not of much consequence to us, but if you are wrong......

That's okay with me. Personally, I believe in non-spiritual reincarnation and that we will have this conversation an infinite amount of times in the future. Also, I do not believe a truly benevolent god would demand worship.

[littleshark]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

I've always respected Palin for what seem to be honest, good family values, and the fact that she seemed to do some good things in Alaska. But hearing her speak, she's always come across as a dummy who any slick politician could whip in a debate. Even to hear her speak with the shills on Fox News who spoon feed her, she is cringeworthy.

The left wing liberals have obviously done a great job destroying her, and the Republicans are now debating weather they want to allow her to speak at the convention. Everyone thinks she's a dummy and a loony, so she's essentially become toxic to everyone. That in itself means she'd be a great interview. We need to find out who she really is.

My feeling is she's a little bit dopey, somewhat uneducated about Washington poilitics (but has learned alot), and conflicted between being the person who wrote that article and at the same time wanting to be looked at as serious politician in todays world. If she were in office, not sure which way she'd lean.

An interview here would be just awesome. She's such polarizing figure. EJ would kill it...I would hope to really like her much more coming out, because I've written her off.

[Jill Nephew]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

I think that peoples internal drives may not fluctuate throughout time, but the tolerance by the social context can fluctuate wildly. We have been very tolerant as a culture of 'the 7 deadly sins' for quite some time - it *seemed* nobody got hurt. Now we will most likely have the pendulum swing back the other way. I myself hope it is not couched in religiosity, dogma, 'old fashioned values' etc. As historically, those systems are not kind to women and I really am not in the mood to be burned at the stake for not staying home and raising kids. I have a business to run. And my business just happens to be to try to build tools to increase human integrity without religion, because human integrity and goodness and kindness to all of mankind is my passion.

And i am not a Christian. No offense, but I sometimes get the impression that Christians think they own the market on human decency, faith, grace, passionate love for the creation and charity. Just standing up for the 'little guys'.

You are, of course, right that the same crap has repeated itself countless times since the begining of time, just as God said it would. Christians believe God is Loving and Just. And justice will happen in His time. We don't expect to convert you here on itulip, but if we are wrong (which we are certain we are not), then it is not of much consequence to us, but if you are wrong......

[BadJuju]

Re: "Nothing to see here..."

And i am not a Christian. No offense, but I sometimes get the impression that Christians think they own the market on human decency, faith, grace, passionate love for the creation and charity. Just standing up for the 'little guys'.

This is also a concern of mine. A return to 'traditional values' often means putting innocent people to the pyre. Who will be the targets this time? Muslims, homosexuals, Mexicans, or all of them? They might even try to throw atheists like me into it. Who knows. I just hate how scapegoats are made and innocent people suffer regardless of who they are.

[Polish_Silver]

Sexual revolution: full steam Ahead, thank God! (or Darwin!)

I think that peoples internal drives may not fluctuate throughout time, but the tolerance by the social context can fluctuate wildly. We have been very tolerant as a culture of 'the 7 deadly sins' for quite some time - it *seemed* nobody got hurt. Now we will most likely have the pendulum swing back the other way. .

How tolerant are we, really? My college roomate went to a catholic school, where 15 year old boys were told that masturbation was a mortal sin, if unconfessed, leading to an eternity of torment. If you watch Kinsey, there is a scene where his father explains that he had to wear a chastity mechanism that pained him if he got an erection. Churches around here still hold meetings to discourage masturbation. Parents are paranoid over teen sexual activity.

Restrictions on sexual behavior are primarily to organize private property inheritance. If a woman had several lovers, the men could not figure out which son should inherit the farm. Hence the death sentence for unfaithful wives. Agricultural societies live in Malthusian scarcity and control sexual behavior to ration property and economic priviliges. Since we are moving away from land inheritance, sexual freedom is returning.

Pre-agricultural societies usually have a high degree of sexual freedom. Their societies are not based on property inheritance, so they don't care how many lovers a woman has.

A twist on this is the Lugu lake district in China, inhabited by the Muso people. The land is inherited mother to daughter, and the young girls are encouraged to have as many lovers as they want.

Our family structure, like our sexual attitudes, is a result of agricultural land inheritance.

Our religious and cultural attitudes are legacies from the agricultural revolution, and they are quite contrary to human nature, which evolved over the last 5 million hears. Private property and farming are characteristic of the last few thousand years.

What group has the greatest degree of sexual frustration? Young men aged 15-25 years.
What demographic group has the highest rate of suicide and destructive behavior?

hint: same answer as above.

The best book length treatment of this is Sex at Dawn.

Sexual experience may even be important for neurological development, and seems to prevent aggressive behavior.