Found a new product to share

It's a little off topic for this blog, but I wanted to share a note about a new product I found.  I'm a bit of a Linux nerd.  I worked for MS for 2 years, and enjoyed it.  I own a computer support company doing mobile IT work, and that's mostly Windows systems.

I have nothing against Windows or Microsoft, but I prefer Linux.  The only problem is that many companies will release software to work with their services and not bother to make any versions for Linux.  Forget the fact that it's really not that difficult to take the Mac software and compile it differently, they just don't bother because Linux is traditionally a smaller user base.

On of the most surprising offenders is Google.  Google Docs, which later became known as Google Drive, has turned into a competing service for Dropbox and other similar online storage solutions.  Being an Android fan, and a fan of Google in general, I choose Google Drive for my main storage.  I use the free versions of other online storage for various things as well, but my primary is Google Drive.  Except, they didn't bother to make a Linux version of their sync software.

Dropbox did.

Copy.com did.

So where is Googles?  At insynchq.com  This is not a free solution, but for a one time price of $9.99 it solves several problems.  First, for Linux users like me, it allows an easy method of setting up a regular data sync for files on Google Drive.  Better still, it has MANY more features than your average sync software, including support for multiple accounts.  There are versions for Windows and Mac as well, so you won't be left out.  Even though you have a Google Drive sync product that is provided for free download by Google, this may meet your needs better as well.  The comparison between the Insync client and the free Google Drive client is below.  You can clearly see that there are a ton of great additional features.

  Insync Drive

Multiple accounts  

Convert Google Docs to Office  

Symlink, junction and alias  

Built-in sharing without a browser  

External & network drives  

Non-admin Windows install  

Recent changes feed  

Desktop notifications  

Right-click share  

On-demand shared files syncing  

Linux  

Selective sync all folders + files folders you own

Name your own folder  

Revert read-only files  

Awesome support  

Whether you're on Linux looking for a simple solution, or you're on a Windows or Mac machine just looking for more features, it's hard to beat $9.99 ONE TIME for this service.  I've seen others that are only $.99, but they charge by the month.  10 months in, you'd have been better off paying the one time charge.

I've been using the free 15 day trial for 3 days now, and I've already decided to buy it.  There's simply nothing better out there, and I don't expect to see anything better any time soon.  Check out insynchq.com today to start your free trial.

If you're interested in getting free cloud storage, you can choose between a few service providers.  Google Drive is of course one of them (drive.google.com).  There's also Dropbox (dropbox.com) and Copy (copy.com).  As of this writing, Dropbox is only offering 2GB for free, while Google Drive and Copy both start at 15GB.  For Google, that is shared storage for all your Google services.  For Copy that is a starting point.  You can earn 5GB free for every person you recommend as well as 2GB just for posting a link to Twitter for them.  You can rack up some free storage fast, so I suggest Copy.com if you're just looking for free cloud storage.  

Starbucks and Guns

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz released a letter last week that I find a little annoying.  But even so, I can't fault the guy for it, and he worded things exactly perfectly.  I disagree entirely with the decision, and had I been CEO, that letter would have been very different, but the fact is that people have brought this on themselves.  

Anti-gun groups are holding rallies and pitching a fit that Starbucks dares to allow people in the store to exercise their rights in a legal fashion, based on the laws of the jurisdiction they're located in.  Meanwhile, gun rights groups are going completely bat-S crazy holding events and demonstrations at stores.  

Both groups have this in common.  Neither one bothers to get permission, or cares how their demonstration affects the businesses.  Ok, maybe the Anti-gun groups are actually TRYING to hurt the business, but the pro-gun side of this debate is doing a happy dance that Starbucks 'supports' them, and just crapping all over Starbucks for it.  

Here's the deal, folks.  Get a clue.  Starbucks is a business.  They are here to make money.  You're hurting them by being stupid and holding your little gatherings in their private place of business.  Did you not expect them to react?  Do something to try to stop the stupid and keep their business from harm?

Do I agree with Schultz's decision?  Absolutely not.  My letter would have said something along the lines of "any group holding an un-approved event in our stores without our express written permission, supporting or opposing anything,  will be escorted out by the police and given a trespass notice.  There will be no warnings and no discussion, and we will not have our private place of business turned into a three-ring circus for your cause."

Do I understand why he did it?  Absolutely.  Do I support his right to do so?  Absolutely.  

Will I disarm before going into a Starbucks?  Not a prayer in hell.  I'm not an open-carry guy, and I think openly having a weapon is an invitation to all sorts of trouble you don't want.  Assuming I go to a Starbucks, which is a rare event since I really don't like coffee, I will go armed.  Like I always have.

You can read the full text of the letter below:

Tuesday, September 17, 2013 Posted by Howard Schultz, Starbucks chairman, president and chief executive officer

Dear Fellow Americans,

Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.

From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.

We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.

Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors.

Sincerely,

Howard Schultz

SCOTUS does something right, but ....

If you noticed, this week the Supreme Court has handed down a few decisions.  As usual, homosexual issues were a hot topic, and two decisions from SCOTUS really hit the nail on the head in regards to this issue.

It's nice to see SCOTUS vote on the side of the Constitution and Individual Liberty.  If you're homosexual and you want to get married, it's nobodies business but your own.  This same sort of idiocy played out over half a century ago when some people DARED to want to have an interracial marriage because (gasp!!) they fell in love with someone who wasn't the same color as they were.

Way to go, SCOTUS.  Way to go.  Now, about those other individual rights that have been trampled...... get on that.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx?Term=12

Obama says Congress is dysfunctional...... well, DUUUUUHHHHH

Jamie Dupree 

Obama calls Congress "dysfunctional" but says he's confident he can get immigration reform bill approved

That's the tweet I got from Jamie Dupree, Washington Correspondent.  For the record, Dupree is the ONLY person I bother listening to or reading for actual news out of DC.  You can follow him on Twitter at https://twitter.com/jamiedupree or catch his blog from the AJC at http://www.wsbradio.com/weblogs/jamie-dupree/.  I suggest you do both, as he's all over it like stink on the Congressional records.  

But back to the topic at hand.  OBAMA says CONGRESS is dysfunctional.  Isn't that a bit of slight-of-hand on his part?  It's like when two white-trash neighbors are feuding, and one calls the cops on the other because the broken down car parked in his front yard is an eyesore.  Then the other neighbor calls the cops of the first neighbor and claims the motor swinging in his tree devalues the trailer, and it just escalate from there.  

Here be some facts:

1) Congress is dysfunctional.  Thanks for pointing out the obvious, Barack.

2) The Executive branch is dysfunctional.  SNAP!  Didn't see that comin, didja, Obama?

3) The Judicial branch is dysfunctional.   

4) Politics is dysfunctional.  

For the record, I feel it's important that I take a moment to point out that Barack Obama was absolutely, 100% correct in his assessment of Congress.  Even if it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  

Sequestration Woes = More DC BS

What a load.  Sequestration causing flight delays.  Sequestration causing police and firefighter cuts.  Sequestration causing blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Bull.  The sequestration was 2%.  It was nothing.  It was a drop in the bucket.  Delays, fuss, muss, and bologna happen because the government and it's departments are the most incredibly inefficient constructs ever to disgrace the planet with their presence.

Anyone who's ever run a business, or for that matter, successfully managed a families finances, knows full well that 2% is a significant figure to find a way to cut, but it's easily accomplished by prioritizing your needs.  The Federal Government couldn't prioritize, and for decades has kicked the can.  Then they ended up making this ridiculous deal as a "compromise" between the D's and R's so they could punt once again.

Now it's back and it's biting them in the ass.  The D's are blaming the R's, the R's and blaming the D's, and nobody seems to recall that this was a bipartisan compromise on a neglected budget.

Any department could easily cut 2% and still do their jobs.  As a matter of fact, I'd venture a guess that most departments could trim well over 25% and still be effective in doing what they are actually supposed to be doing.  They need to prioritize.  Get it straight.  Stop wasting money.  People are tired of working and working and working to give 1/3 of their earnings to the Federal Government to be used to support duplicate and triplicate projects that aren't a necessary or proper role of Federal Government in the first place.

Enough is enough.  Congress, stop bitching about the 2% cut hurting services, and start talking about why you have people in charge of departments that can't be trusted to run their departments properly.  Don't fight the symptom, fight the problem!

April 24th, 1915.... We'll NEVER Forget

We remember.  98 years has passed, but we remember.

How could we not?  More than a million perished.  Friends.  Families.  Neighbors.  Gone.  You marched them into the desert.  You murdered.  You maimed.  You left the bodies where they fell along the long march into nothing.  You 'relocated' hundreds of thousands of people to the afterlife.  

And to this day, you still can't be bothered to admit your wrongs.  98 year ago today, you began an autrocity.  An autrocity that the world is still shaky about remembering.  Many deny.  The guilty won't accept their guilt, and attempt to punish others who speak out against it.  The guilty still hold many of our lands, as if they were somehow entitled to it because of their bravery in murdering 1.5 million of our countrymen.  Buthering our people and claiming our lands for themselves, then denying the entire thing for generations.  

When will it end?  Will a nation never address it's previous wrongs?  Simply admit that something horrible took place, at their direction?  A known and proven fact, that is ignored, glossed over, forgotten, or denied by a large portion of the world for nothing more than political reasons.  

We don't ignore.  

We don't deny.

We will NEVER forget the Ottoman Turk Murderers who attempted to raze our people from the surface of this earth.

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

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/04/the-politics-behind-the-armenian-genocide.html

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/genocidefaq.html

A sad day for liberty....

  Today  marks the passing of a legend.  Margaret Thatcher, the first and thus far only female Prime Minister of Great Britain, has died.  Initial reports mark the cause of death as complications resulting from a stroke. 

More details:  http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/world/europe/uk-margaret-thatcher-dead/?hpt=hp_t1

The Iron Lady, one the of greatest defenders of liberty in the 20th century, will be sorely missed by those who cherish individual liberty and know the humongous part she played in defending it over the years. 

'The Problem With Liberalism Is Eventually You Run Out of Other People's Money!'

- Margaret Thatcher

Madam Prime Minister, you will be missed as long as their is still individualism and liberty alive on this earth.  May your example be the shining light that guides us through the dark ahead and on to freedom in the future.  Rest in peace, dear lady, you have done your work and surely earned a high place in whatever afterlife you may find yourself in.  

Announcement

This is just an announcement about what is going on with this blog.

I recently spoke with someone who was interested in having some specific types of articles posted to this blog.  He is a proponent for Social Security reform, and as this is 1) political and 2) something I support, I offered to make him an author on this site. I suspect there will be at least one new post coming from him in the near future, and possible more.  He is welcome to post as often as he'd like, as much as he'd like.

I'm also exploring the idea of having multiple authors allowed to post, in order to continue to have fresh content coming up on a regular basis.  I have yet to try to contact anyone to see if they'd be interested, but it's an idea I have and will follow up on sometime in the next several weeks.

As you can tell, I haven't posted in a while.  Quite frankly, I've been busy with my businesses, and haven't had the time to do much politicing, let alone writing about politicing.  I'm hoping to find more time in the future to write more, as I rather enjoy it, but right now I simply haven't got the spare cycles to do everything I'd like to do.

One thing I have done is finally get my website up for my Computer Repair business.  I've been doing repair work for years, mostly by word-of-mouth to friends of friends of friends, and such.  I finally decided to take the step to make a real business out of it.  Anyone who reads this and posts to social media, blogs, or whatever, please please PLEASE!!  Repost a link to http://www.colecomputerservices.com.

It takes you almost no time, and could help me in a big way.  Part of the way search engines rank pages is based on the number of sites that are pointing to that page.  So if a couple of people add it to their blogs, their facebook, or the websites that they run promoting whatever, that would all add up to help my results pop up a little higher in the search results, which translates to more business for me, being able to hire someone to help out, and hopefully having more time to write stories.

So you see, it's really in your best interested to post a link for me.  :)

Romney Not Going to Win the Election

Ok, all you Romney supporters bouncing around out there.  It’s time to face some facts.  Romney will NOT win this election.  I didn’t way he CAN’T, I said he WON’T.  It is, of course, possible.  All things are possible.  The problem is that he won’t pull it off. 

Here’s why.  Romney is a business man.  He’s good at business.  He’s also a politician.  He’s been pretty successful at that too.  But Obama.  Oooooo-bama!  HE is a CAMPAIGNER.  That man could out-campaign damned near anyone on the planet.  Add to that the fact that there is a lot of racial motivation at play, and as a black man, he automatically gets the vast majority of the black vote as well as a large percentage of the overall minority vote before he even opens his mouth……

How is Romney going to compete?  The only possible answer to that is poorly.  Romney is not as smooth as Obama.  He doesn’t have automatic drawing power simply because of the color of his skin.  He’s not the incumbent (incumbents nearly always have the advantage – better the evil we know than the evil we don’t know, right?).  And he’s not preaching the right messages.  He still is talking about Obamacare far too much.  His message needs to be “get our troops home” and “fix the economy”.  Period.  Plain and simple.   That’s not what he’s saying, though.  That’s not what he believes.  It’s not what he’ll do.  And it’s going to cost him this election. 

State + Alcohol = Mass Confusion

It would appear that stupidity abounds, no matter where you may be.  With Washington finally getting rid of the state liquor monopoly, this Friday being the first day that hard alcohol can be sold in non-State run retail space, the confusion that set in before the bill was even passed is still going strong. 

All over Facebook and the Twitterverse, people are talking about the 27% “increase” in the taxes on liquor that was included with the bill, and horribly misinterpreting that tax.  Even some news agencies, who shall remain nameless, are getting it stupefyingly inaccurate, and these people get paid to present the facts. 

Meanwhile, while all of Washington is abuzz with shock and awe, confusion and wonder, Idaho is busily flexing their moral-muscle and banning a certain brand of vodka.  Why, you ask?  Well, this brand of vodka was obviously dangerous!  It has a name that might possibly be insulting to a certain group of constituents.  It could even be religiously offensive.  Five Wives Vodka, made it Salk Lake City, could possible offend Mormons, what with the name that insinuates polygamy and a picture of five women hitching up their skirts on the front of the bottle. 

This vodka was so offensive that the Idaho state-run liquor stores are refusing to carry it.  Since Idaho runs their liquor sales in the same way Washington does (until Friday), that effectively closes the entire Idaho market to a manufacturer for no reason but the whim of the powers that be in Idaho. 

Meanwhile, back in Washington, the 27% “increase” in liquor costs will be more than offset by the fact that the WSLCB is no longer able to tack on their 52% markup on every bottle.  If you do the math, you may notice that 27% is less than 52% (25% less, in fact) and store will be competing for your business, so they won’t be able to just tack on that 25% as a profit margin and keep the prices the same that they were.  You’re likely to be paying between 10% and 20% less for your liquor purchases now, and you get the choice of where to go and the additional benefit of different stores choosing to stock items that the state run stores didn’t opt to have. 

While Washington, by privatizing liquor sales, is looking at reduced cost, increased convenience and increased selection, Idaho continues the government monopoly model and has likely cost jobs for a distillery in Utah because they didn’t have a PC enough name and label for the people of Idaho, who must be easily offended since the legislature has to censor what they see on shelves.

DSHS Employee Arrested for Food Stamp Theft

A 44 year old Graham woman who works for the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, the entity in charge of the States Food Stamp program, was placed under arrest on suspicion of food stamp theft. 

The Pierce County DSHS office was contacted by a former client who had turned in his EBT card in September of 2010 when he received a letter stating that he needed to recertify for his benefits.  He thought that a bit odd, as he had asked the account be closed, and the office found that the card had been used to make purchases totally more than $3200 since that time. 

They asked the Washington State Patrol to investigate, and the subject of the investigation was moved to a different assignment in DSHS for the duration.  The investigation concluded with her arrest for four counts of unlawful redemption of food stamps, which is a felony. 

On a lighter note, I’m sure she spent the $3200 she save in food purchases for something really awesome, and we all get the joy of helping to pay for it.  Now that she got caught, we get to pay her room and board for a few years as well.  The only ‘win’ to be found in this story anywhere is the guy who managed to get himself financially stable enough not to need the state assistance anymore.  What’s even more impressive is that he voluntarily went in and turned in the card, even though he likely could have kept drawing benefits for at least a little while longer. 

He used the system for precisely what it was intended for.  To help get back on his feet.  One could only hope that there might be a few more people out there like this guy.  Hat’s off to you, good sir.  I hope you have kids, and are teaching them to be as responsible as you are.  We could use a few more people like you in this country.

WEA Endorses GOP Candidate & Gov. Gregoire Appoints GOP Senator to State Position

You didn’t read that wrong, the Washington Education Association, an organization that typically is considered “left-leaning” by people who consider themselves to be “right-leaning”, has endorsed across the void.

Kim Wyman, Republican candidate for Secretary of State, is the first statewide candidate to receive an endorsement from the WEA.  As unions typically tend to favor Democratic candidates, and teachers tend to favor democratic candidates, it comes as a bit of a shock that a teachers union might go for a GOP offering. 

The WEA also endorsed two Republican candidates for the state Legislature, among the usual smattering of Democratic candidate endorsements. 

Added to this unusual showing of non-partisan political maneuvering, we have Governor Gregoire’s appointment of GOP Senator Cheryl Pflug of Maple Valley to a state position on the Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, which pays $92,500 per year.  This is nearly double what a State Senator is paid, and comes with the added benefits of not having to run for election, and being a six year appointment.  Some cynical folks will likely say this appointment was made in order to get Pflug, the incumbent, to drop out of the Senate race to allow a Democratic candidate to have a better chance at winning, but being Pflug was one of only 4 GOPers to support legalizing gay marriage in this state, she had already likely alienated a decent sized chunk of her more “traditional marriage” favoring supporters out there. 

With all this cross party action going on, one can’t help but wonder…. are we finally going to see a little work in this state towards fixing problems regardless of party affiliation, or is this just a quirk of the game?

Medical Marijuana–The Controversy Continues

Over and over again, we’ve watch the same debates play out in different places.  Should it be legal?  Should it be legal only with a prescription?  Should it be totally illegal?

There seems no end to the varying opinions on this.  Marijuana is a controversy that just won’t go away.  As someone who believes the war on drugs is completely outside the scope of the Federal Government, I firmly believe that there should be no Federal level regulations on any drugs.  However, the states still have the power to make laws, and they are not constrained by the US Constitution in the way the Feds are. 

In Washington State, Marijuana became legal for medical use, with a prescription and a handy-dandy medical marijuana card so you can show the cops that yes, indeed, you’re allowed to have this, a couple of years ago.  The state goofed, however, and never codified the system for distribution.  This left a giant gaping hole for the Feds to wander in, ignoring the fact that Washington had passed legislation allowing medical marijuana.  There have been numerous Federal Raids of dispensaries that popped up since the legalization, and the Feds continue to arrest and prosecute more individuals all the time.

It’s high time (pun intended) that the powers that reside in Olympia get in gear and define exactly what the correct and legal method for purchase, sales, transport, and possession of medical marijuana is, so that there can be clear state laws to prevent Federal Agents from raiding indiscriminately.  While most people are unaware, State law actually trumps Federal law in all but a very few, strictly defined matters.  The Federal Government is constrained by the Constitution in what it’s allowed to do, and while they don’t follow the laws as they are supposed to, if a State were to stand up for itself and say “hey, this is OUR law, it’s OUR power, stay out!”, there wouldn’t be a whole lot the Feds could do about it. 

Washington needs to set the example, pass legislation defining exactly what the mechanisms are for legally obtaining, selling, transporting, growing, harvesting, using, controlling, or possessing marijuana are, and part of that legislation needs to include a clause making it illegal for any employee, official, agent, officer, or representative of this state, or any county, city, or municipality within it, to assist the Federal Governments enforcement of their own illegal drug laws within our borders. 

The time has come, Olympia.  Stand behind your decisions, stand up for your citizens, and stand firm against the Feds.  We are a free state of free people, and DC needs to be reminded of that.

Higher Education Costs on the Rise–Still

Just read a story at http://www.theolympian.com/2012/05/16/2107098/state-help-for-higher-education.html and felt I really needed to comment on this.

First of all, the main thrust of this article is “we gotta do something, government, help us, help us” in regards to tuition.  Tuition is being artificially jacked up because of government interference, and we’re demanding that government do something to “help” with it. 

The article continues to sight declining State funding of Universities over the last several decades.  A major contributor to declining state funding has been the Federal Government taking on an ever increasing roll in funding universities, as well as subsidizing loan programs, artificially keeping interest rates lower than they would/should be, and other things to “make education affordable for everyone.”

While this sounds like a laudable goal on the face of it, the fact is that this serves to encourage schools to offer programs that appeal to a broader range of people who can suddenly get a government guaranteed loan to go to school, regardless of whether or not the programs is actually useful.  It encourages the schools to offer more and more courses that, while appealing to some, offer degrees that are more useful as toilet paper than they are as degrees.  The schools encourage people to explore a great many of these programs, increasing the amount of time people spent in school, which in turn increases the amount of money the school takes in. 

The students don’t care, since they don’t have to pay for anything until later, and many of them simply do not understand that they are taking useless classes at far above market value prices.  The number of people being granted a degree increases every year, which devalues the degrees that others earn, and makes it so a Bachelors Degree is worth about what a High School Diploma was 50 year ago, as far as job potential goes.

The government has done far more damage than good in their quest to “make education affordable to all.”  By artificially holding down interest rates, while simultaneously lowering the bar to qualify for loans, and then backing those loans so the banks don’t have to risk anything, they government has created a situation where tuition can rise astronomically, raising the cost of education while at the same time decreasing the value one receives for that money.  It’s like inflation squared.  Education is a great goal, but it needs to be a personal goal.  If you don’t need to work hard prior to going to college, you’re unlikely to be successful at working hard in college, and beyond.  This is why 53% of Bachelors Degree holders under 25 are underemployed or unemployed.

So we demand the government step in to “help” again?

Define Libertarian

Not too shabby.  Makes a solid point.  Watch along.

Libertarian is a Verb