“Secretly we hate each other”

Yesterday I went to a small city in the Southwest of Macedonia called Kichevo (Kërchovë) to get some business owners to fill out the survey for my thesis. This meant that I had to sit down with each business owner after being introduced by my friend, ask them to fill out the survey, and then we would chat over coffee for an hour or so.

The first person I met was a former business owner whose name was Ibrahim (not his real name). Since he no longer owned a business, he didn't really qualify for my survey, so instead I thought it would be interesting to just have an informal interview. I took notes and got his permission to quote him in my thesis. I found the interview fascinating, and wanted to share some of the main points below.

The first part of the interview centered on the nature of the business and if it was profitable. Ibrahim explained that the business was very seasonal, so it was busiest right before New Years and during the summer months when all the emigrants returned home. Averaged out, it made around 300-400 euros/mo., which is around the average salary in Macedonia.

He also mentioned that 99% of his customers were Albanian, but he didn't think this had to do with any inherit discrimination. Ibrahim explained that the bigger reason was that his shop was a bit more high end, so the only people who could afford his products were the Albanians and Macedonians working abroad, but that the Albanian population had a much higher percentage of emigrant workers than the Macedonian population.

This led to a discussion about communist era discrimination that caused the current situation where over half the city’s population is working overseas. Basically, according to Ibrahim, Albanians had found it nearly impossible to get jobs into any kind of state-run organization or company under a Slavic Yugoslavia. Since under communism nearly everything was state-run, this left the Albanian minority with only two-options: farm their land in the villages, or move abroad and get work. The government was happy to encourage Albanians to get visas to leave the country, since they figured that the emigrants would not return.

The percentage of emigrants is also higher in Kichevo because, unlike other Albanian areas, there is less fertile farmland along the mountainside, and also because there was an energy plant built on Albanian lands. This is a sore spot for Albanians around Kichevo, since the government took Albanian lands to build this plant and then bused in Macedonian workers. Even though the area around the plant is majority Albanian, less than 25% of the plant employees are Albanian. This is a good example of why the Albanian minority feels a bit resentful over the way they are treated by the Macedonian state.

When I asked Ibrahim why he stopped his business, his answer was very clear: custom corruption. He was importing his products from abroad, and every time he went to customs to pick up his shipments, they would infinitely delay releasing his goods until he paid the custom employees. This is an important point because for most of the business owners I have talked to, more than any kind of ethnic discrimination or tension, it is corruption and the non-business-friendly laws that they see as causing the most problems within Macedonia.

Lastly, I asked Ibrahim how he saw the current relationship and future relationship between Albanians and Macedonians. He mentioned that at the moment they collaborate and work together, but ‘secretly we hate each other’. He also mentioned that the only real hope for the future is due to the policies of the U.S and the European Union. Once Macedonia joins the EU, the Albanians will be able to cross freely to Kosovo and Albania and so have a kind of unity by default. Also, being part of the EU will force the government to abide by certain laws that allow for economic development and protect minority rights, preventing the government from following a lot of the policies they do at the moment.

I also asked what would happen if Macedonia was blocked from joining the EU for some reason, and although Ibrahim didn't think that would happen, if it did he supposed that the Albanians would push for a split federation for their part of the country or similar kind of ethnic-based territorial separation. 

All in all, a very interesting interview and one that I felt was a fair reflection of the perspective and grievances of many Albanians living in Macedonia. 

Sincerely,

Mr. Loew

Skopje, Macedonia

originally written on Sunday, March 9, 2014

Introducing Mr.Loew 2.0 - Blogger Refresh

I am back in Macedonia to try and finally finish my Master’s thesis (that I started in 2009). The deadline is Wednesday, so that means I have another year or so to finish it. For those not familiar with the Balkans, ‘deadlines’ are like the ‘Pirates Code’ in Pirates of the Caribbean: “they’re more like guidelines, anyway”. Not to mention my mentor is away in the States on a Fulbright until the end of August, so I have pretty solid grounds for an extension.

I put aside a week to print up my surveys and pass them around, but it’s going to take another week to get even the minimum number I need, so will be back in the summer and then hoping to come back and defend the thesis in September.

Anyway, getting back into an academic frame of mind inspired me to try blogging again. In order to avoid it being a short lived inspiration, I am going to focus this blog on three topics:

1.  International Relations (I am expecting the first couple to be related to Macedonia)
2. U.S. Politics
3. My views on economics

For now, I’ll shy away from my own religious beliefs, or maybe if this goes well, I will set up a separate blog for that.

Sincerely,

Mr. Loew

Skopje, Macedonia

originally written on Sunday, March 9, 2014 

Corporations are People Too - Mitt Romney, Good Idea!

Hey Everyone,

I'm back in the Skopje center and was looking over my last Xanga entries because I was thinking of blogging about a political point. I love blogging, but just don't have the extra time... but one blog a year isn't too bad. Maybe one will become popular someday :)

Anyway, still moving forward with life, as well as the farming project in Albania. Working and living in Ireland, and thinking of buying an apartment, if I can get the down payment. It just makes sense, because the mortgage would be cheaper than the rent I'm paying now... but have some debts I have to work with as well, so again, it's a balancing act.

Love the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. Haven't been able to watch them for awhile, so catching up yesterday and today for this week's episodes. Keeps me fair and balanced ;), because I still see myself as being a pretty strong Republican. Cobert took a crack at President Obama yesterday, after showing a couple takes in a row of Obama saying 'Peace is hard' at the U.N., he followed with, "but apparently winning a Noble Peace Prize is not so hard." LOL.

On that funny note, I would like to propose my solution to a pretty silly problem we have in the U.S. - an incredibly high corporate tax rate but often not paid due to a variety of loopholes. The loopholes are encouraged by a high tax rate... I think Romney made a good point when recently at a rally someone asked him why we can't raise the corporate tax rate, and his gut response was 'corporations are people too'. This gave me a great idea: why not tax corporations as people? In other words, why not tax corporations on their entire global income, minus the domestic taxes they pay in each country they are in. Of course it would be stupid to do that at our current tax rate, but what if we drop the rate to 15% (or maybe even 20%) and then require all corporations to provide an international audit. This is what I have to do with my personal income, and I don't see why corporations should be let off the hook on this. We could make a exception amount (for example: up to 10 million dollars on worldwide income is exempt from the international tax rate), and for countries where the tax rate is higher then there could also be deductions counted towards the total (so if a corporation paid 21% tax in the U.K, the 6% would be deducted from what they owe). This would also apply to any corporation trying to set up in the U.S., no matter where they originally were incorporated, although there would probably have to be a new legal entity created to allow some flexibility on this in order to prevent scaring away FDI.

Anyway, just a random thought. I'm sure it would be politically suicidal in one way or another. Although this one might not count, all good economic ideas tend to be politically dangerous, since as John Stewart put it, you can't really sell an idea by appealing to American's love of math. However, I wonder if anyone think it makes any sense from an economic perspective.

While I'm spouting out crazy tax theories, I would also suggest dropping the social security tax to a total of 10%, and make it a universal tax, including in the amount people make over 100K, although maybe it makes sense to lower it progressively until it gets down to 1% or 2%. After that, since it is meant as a social safety-net program, provide it on a need basis. That should ensure the program can pay for itself, but it should also be able to provide a large enough fund to start investing it the way the Norwegians have been investing their oil money, and over time it should be able to become self sufficient. A portion of the profit can then be used to pay off national debt, and when that's done we can start using the fund to provide more social improvement programs without relying on tax revenues.

Anyway, that's all the time I have for this kind of randomness, and I obviously need more time to flush out these theories and see if they have any merit, but feedback is always welcome, even from the random stranger who stumbles upon my blog...

Sincerely,

A brother and friend,

Youngil Ely Loew

I initially wrote this blog on Xanga:

http://loew01.xanga.com/755222052/mitt-romney-corporations-are-people-too

Commerce vs. TDBank

This is a very personal rant against my now-dead favorite bank. Commerce, which had the awesome and accurate motto: " American's most convenient bank". They had a wide open space in their bank, friendly atmosphere, and open on Sundays. All checking was free, with no charges for people under certainly 'daily minimum balances' etc. Well, they were a victim of their own success... and stupidity. They sold themselves, and their motto, to TDBank. I was pretty nervous about it from the onset, because I suspected that the people in charge of TDBank were NOT the revolutionary founders of Commerce. I'll miss you Commerce, but a part of me can't help but resent you for your lack of principles by selling your soul to the retards that run our economy. You were a bright spot in the sea of stupidity. You really were. A true capitalist business, which ironically most of our current "capitalist" have no understanding of. TDBank thought it could walk in and steal Commerce's most novel ideas, like being open late on Saturdays, being open on Sundays, giving out free pens, and then run everything else like they normally did... They didn't understand that there was a certain spirit and attitude that Commerce Bank had towards their customers. They had a unique approach to the banking business, and I actually enjoyed going to the bank for the first time in a long time... I figured I would never need another bank. Well, no longer. TDBank, you suck. You are definitely no longer 'America's Most Convenient Bank', and I hope you go bankrupt, but with no government bailouts. I love capitalism. I just wish banks practiced it... instead of charging me $25 for my business account all of a sudden. Bastards... I'll pulling all my money out of TDBank. If anyone cares, and you have a TDBank account, I'm asking you to do the same. Find a local bank that has free checking, and put your money there. That's all for my ranting... Sincerely, Youngil Ely Loew

Defiance

I just finished watching Defiance. It’s an awesome movie. It has all the good things that awesome movies have: good lines, some romance, some humor, action, and a great plot. Supposedly, it’s also a true story (as opposed to “based on” a true story. There’s a big difference) It’s a serious movie, because it’s about Jews during WWII, but not depressing. It’s inspiring, and more importantly, it has some good points that make you reflect on the value and meaning of life.

There was one scene which was the most powerful for me, and it made me cry… it was the scene which brought home an important theological point: sometimes, you just have to kill somebody.

Let me explain. I’m not talking about Jews fighting Germans out of revenge or self defense. There was plenty of that in the movie, and there is plenty of that in most movies. In this scene, a Jew has to kill a Jew. It’s a perfect picture of good and evil, standing face to face, and yet the good one was the one who pulled the trigger. The scene is powerful because I understood the motivation, at least what I imagine the motivation was, of the person who pulled the trigger. He didn’t do it out of anger, pride, or any other self-centered thought. It wasn’t out of a sense of self-righteousness. It wasn’t a spur of the moment decision. He thought about it, maybe even prayed about it, and in the end he knew it was the only choice he had. He didn’t want to do it… and that was the most powerful part. In a way, the action contradicted everything he had been striving to accomplish up until that moment, and at the same time, any other action would have completely destroyed everything he had built. I knew he would do it, and yet I was still surprised when it happened. After the shock, I realized that it was the only right and moral thing to have done in the situation.

I realize that I am a second generation of a young religion. If for some reason our faith has to survive for two millennium (which I pray every day that it doesn’t) I realize these words could be interpreted in exactly the opposite way that I intend then. I don’t want to create a justification for murder… However, I think motivation is an important factor in understanding what is right and wrong. An action by itself cannot be either good or bad, I think, but the motivation behind the action determines whether it is good or evil.

It’s like the scene from Wizards First Rule. (Spoiler Alert and Obscure Reference Alert) When the main character has to kill the girl who bonded him to her, he has to turn the Sword of Truth into a blazing white fire. No one had ever done this before, because it only turns white when you kill a person with love for that person. I think the main character in Defiance did the same thing. He understood that the person he was going to kill was just young, a bit arrogant, starving, and not really an evil person. Also, he was a fellow Jew, struggling to survive in a world gone crazy. He didn’t want to kill him, and in a way, he loved him. But he had to. It was the only way… and if you’ve seen the movie, I think you would agree.

Then I understood Moses, and why he had to have people killed when they started worshipping the golden calf. Or when there was a rebellion and he had all those that wanted to return to Egypt stand on one side, and once they were separated into two camps, the earth opened and swallowed the rebellious group whole… It’s same thing, on a larger scale. It was the motivation that God was looking at, and it is the motivation that determines whether an action is good or evil. That is why when he struck the rock twice it was a sin. He let anger control him, and even though the action was small, the motivation was completely wrong. He lost faith, and if his anger had been directed at a person, he would have killed them. The Bible says that he killed the Egyptian soldier out of anger, but maybe he also did that with the right heart. Who knows?

I think it is the same with God. The Bible has many stories where God kills people, or orders the Jews to kill people. Atheists read this and say that if there is a God, he’s genocidal and sadistic, but I think they’re missing the point… it’s possible to kill with the right motivation.

If you don’t think so, watch Defiance.

I hope I was making sense. I get sentimental at two in the morning…

On a lighter note, please watch my newest “Ask a Moonie 6 – DCPS” http://tinyurl.com/nyrv7y. It’s kinda funny, and hopefully educational.

I love you guys…

-Youngil Ely Loew

Is America a Christian Nation? Article by Kevin McCarthy

(NOTE: This is not my work. I am reposting an excellent article I recieved from a good friend, the Rev. McCarthy - check out his website at: www.truemasterplan.com )

At a press conference in Turkey, President Obama took issue with the idea that the United States is a Judeo-Christian nation. Some were taken aback by his statement.

"One of the great strengths of the United States," the President said, "is ... we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

The problem, today, is that Americans are confused over the specific “set of values” to which we will be bound. In 2007, the Culture and Media Institute did an in-depth study of Americans’ beliefs and attitudes. Like most studies, it found that the vast majority of Americans believe in God. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that when the study also probed further, to understand how those beliefs translated into ethical choices, what became clear is that Americans are increasingly ambivalent or confused about values. This study reached the following conclusion: “America no longer enjoys cultural consensus on God, religion, and what constitutes right and wrong."
The spiritual principles that once formed a values consensus in America no longer hold sway today. In its place, a society of confused values has emerged with uncertainty about what constitutes right and wrong. Without clear standards, we are a ship without a rudder and compass. We lose the cohesion that binds the nation together. This is why we are witnessing such upheaval in America today. We have lost our ethical and moral clarity.

The discussion of America as a Christian nation usually proceeds without touching upon the most essential elements that should be discussed. We need to be extremely clear about how the Founders viewed religion generally, and what they thought would be religion's contribution toward society. The Founders saw a vital role for religion in the public square. It is a historical fact that in the 18th century, the Founders, and most of America, experienced religion within the Christian experience. However, their views on the civil role of religion are relevant to all faiths, then and now. The Founders emphasized religious principles, the "self evident" truths, as the foundation of our nation. They saw religion as absolutely necessary for our form of government to operate properly. Religion provided the virtues. ..the cultural consensus, the national morality. ..that was essential for liberty. It was essential because freedom necessitated a virtuous populace to willingly practice the discipline required for a functional self-government to occur. This is why John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Benjamin Rush, a member of the Continental Congress and a signer of the Declaration of Independence was equally emphatic,

“The only foundation for a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.“

There is no question that it was the Founders' Christian faiths that brought them to these universal truths about liberty and equality. But it was also the idea of "civil religion," as expressed by the 18th century French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau believed that "There is a profession of faith which is purely civil. . . not strictly as religious dogmas but as expressions of social conscience without which it is impossible to be a good citizen" Our “ideals and set of values” as President Obama refers to them, in the Founders' view were not the doctrines of personal Christian faith but were, rather, transcendent principles, “self-evident truths” that were rooted in a public affirmation of God, the Creator, from which we received the endowment of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I do not believe the Founders' would have asserted that it was only the Christian religion from which could be derived the transcendent principles of good citizenship. In a letter to the President of Yale, shortly before his death, Benjamin Franklin articulated an overview of what he considered the essential principles of a sound religion. In doing so, he gives us an insight into the Founders' views on religion. They spoke in terms of common principles of faith around which believers could unite in the interest of the well-being of the nation. Franklin's letter to Ezra Stiles is a fine example of that view. The Christian religion, to its good credit, was the avenue by which the Founders, themselves, discovered those values, but they never asserted any particular religion as the exclusive channel to those principles. They are available to all and are, therefore, "self evident" . . . even those who profess no faith can resonant with virtues that "without which it is impossible to be a good citizen."

In that respect, those that say "we are not a Christian nation". . . are correct. However, when it is then further asserted that the Founders were only seeking to establish a secular society and saw no public role for religion in the affairs of the nation, this would be entirely not correct. It is especially a problem today when virtually all religious influence is to be separated from the "State," on the one hand while, on the other hand, "The State" keeps expanding.

Today, separating church and state, means also separating traditional virtue from an exclusively secular and expanding State. This was the very circumstance that religious freedom was supposed to prevent. An example of this, recently displayed, is the circumstance of the reaction to the invitation extended former head coach of the Indianapolis Colts, Tony Dungy, to participate in the President’s Faith-based Council.

Josh Gerstein from Politico reports:
Dungy’s potential appointment drew flak from liberal groups such as People for the American Way and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who said Dungy’s vocal opposition to gay marriage made him an inappropriate choice for the panel.

“The Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships council shouldn't be used to reward voices of intolerance like Tony Dungy,” PFAW’s director of public policy, Tanya Clay House, had said in an earlier statement.

“It is extremely important for the advisory council to uphold civil rights and civil liberties and I am concerned that Coach Dungy is far from the best person to do that,” Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United, said.

Both groups pointed to Dungy’s endorsement of a gay marriage ban in Indiana and his involvement with a conservative public policy group, the Indiana Family Institute. For most people, especially for those who know him, Tony Dungy is a living saint, a man of God and an embodiment of integrity. Dungy strongly supports the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. It should concern everyone today that the traditional moral system that upholds marriage between a man and woman is not deemed worthy of “faith” councils that advise the Chief Executive.

I make this point because peoples of all faiths must come together today to affirm that the nation must turn, once again, to transcendent principles that embrace the idea of God and the family. Religious bodies will never agree on the various components of personal dogma. ..but with regard to "civil religion" . ..that is, the "virtues" rooted in transcendent principles. . .a new cultural consensus on values can be and must be forged.

Such a movement is desperately needed at this time and it should involve peoples of all faiths. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." There is no freedom, without practiced virtues – virtues that find their origins in the traditions of faith. As Benjamin Rush had said, "no religion, no virtue, . . . .no liberty." This is our problem today and if we can only saunter down the primrose path of easy fixes and false hopes, we should know that only tyranny awaits us there. . . .and it is the form of tyranny that is the worst of them all - the one of our own making; born out of the fading awareness that God is essential to the experience of freedom. If the nation continues down this path, it will only be pulled by the vacuum created where God has left.

“Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. . .a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.” Patrick Henry.

Ponzi Schemes and MLMs

I had a very important realization, one I should have had many years ago… MLMs are an evolution of the Ponzi Scheme. They are legalized scamming, and it is my belief that they have been hurting the economy and leading to its downfall. I’m just disappointed in myself for not seeing it sooner.

The last friend to try to get me involved in a Multi Level Marketing (MLM) company ended up showing me exactly why they are inherently flawed. I’m sure he doesn’t appreciate how grateful I am to him.

At the time, I was dishing out $10/mo to a popular MLM called Global Domains. This company let’s you purchase a domain name and provides you with a very simple web creating system for only $10/mo. They have such a slick little video at the beginning that I was completely sold. I even endorsed it to my friends, something I had never done before (because despite my stupidity, I always maintained a healthy skepticism of MLMs). One friend was so shocked by my email that he thought my email had been hacked into.

Global Domains, because it is a simple MLM, makes it easier to see past the BS that is shoveled at you and actually do the math.

Global Domains is competing with other website companies that offer similar services. The most well-known of these is GoDaddy.com. GoDaddy gives you the same service for roughly $10/year, or slightly more than $0.83/mo. Compare that to Global Domains $10/mo, and for the sake of simplicity, we’ll say that it’s a difference of $9/mo. What could possibly justify this gross over-paying? The potential for unlimited residual income, of course!

That is the crux of the problem: in order for a MLM to be sustainable, it needs to over-charge by at least 2X, probably 3X, the cost of all its non-MLM competitors. With Global Domains, you’re paying $9/mo for the potential to make money. That might seem like a good deal, but let’s see what your chances of making money actually are…

First, let’s imagine that you are the very FIRST person in the chain. You get 5 friends to sign on. The way Global Domains work is that you get a $1 for every person that signs on, up to five levels down. Since $1/mo is actually going toward the service you are getting, we’ll calculate your investment at $9/mo. So now that you found 5 people, you’re getting $5/mo, so you’re only paying $4/mo. If each of them gets 5 people, then that’s 25 people added to your line. Now you’re actually making money! 5+25 = $30/mo - $9 = $21/mo.

You+5+25+125+625+3125. That’s the limit if you bring 5 and each person brings 5 people. You’ll be making $3896/mo, your 5 friends will be making $771/mo, the next 25 friends will be making $146/mo, and the next 125 friends will be making $21/mo. Everything seems pretty nice, except you’re forgetting that 625 friends are paying $4/mo, and another 3125 friends are now paying $9/mo. In other words, since no good or service is being produced, in order for the first 156 people to make ANY money, they have to scam 3750 people into PAYING FOR NOTHING! That’s a ratio of over 24:1. If you keep doing the math, that ratio never changes. There are always 24 TIMES as many people paying for an MLM than people making money for an MLM (in our example only. Depending on the cost and expenses, this ratio changes, but I can assure you it is never lower than 10:1).

The trick is, the MLM people always make you think you can be one of the 1 in 25 that actually makes money. At 6 levels, there were already 3905 people. If you’ve ever done the doubling math, then think how fast the 5x math gets into ridiculous number. At level 10, there are already 2.44 million people (and remember, only 1 in 25 of them is making any money). At level 13, there’s over 300 million people in the MLM (which will never happen). In other words, if you get approached by someone to join an MLM, you’re already near the end of the line. You can only make money in an MLM if you start one, or if you know the guy who knows the guy who started it. Even worse, even if you do make money, you’re doing it at the gullibility of others. You’re making money out of their wrong belief that they can also make money, so hopefully Karma will kick your ass.

A Ponzi Scheme pays out their dividends using the money that the newcomers bring in. This is only sustainable while there are more new-comers each year than people part of the scheme. Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme could last so long because he was only dishing out a 15% return. Even at 15%, the market eventually saturates, because of the simple law of exponential growth. What if, however, the newcomers DIDN’T get a return? Well, then, you could keep the Ponzi Scheme going INDEFINITELY! The new-comers could continually pay into the scheme, and not get any money in return… and so MLMs were created.

This comes the next ingenious step in MLM; what I like to call SUPER-HYPE!!!J!!!. You have to convince the bottom rung of the ladder that they have the potential to make as much as you do, so they don’t leave. That’s why ALL MLMs make a nice side business selling promotional videos and holding seminars. They register you as a ‘business owner’ and show you simple upside-down diagrams of your earning potential (upside-down because they show you at the top of the ladder instead of where you really are – the bottom). The worst part is that the people telling you this believe it themselves, because it worked for them (or is ‘working’ for them, since they are not quite breaking even yet...) They’re making money, so why can’t you? They don’t realize they’re promoting a system that is inherently flawed and unbalanced. The smartest ones convince you that their products are actually WORTH what you’re paying for them, and that there is plenty of room for growth. I actually had a MLM person, who was paying $50/mo for some kind of daily vitamin supplement, tell me that market saturation was impossible! I should have realized then how full of BS the whole thing was right then. Unfortunately, I was kinda caught up in it all…

If you are involved in a MLM, please get out. I promise you that you can find the same product or service you’re paying for at a much cheaper price. If so, then every $1 you’re spending over the true value of that product is going into the MLM Ponzi Scheme machine, and paying for someone else to get rich. Even if the person who brought you in is a close friend, get out for their sake as well. I promise you they aren’t making money either, and even if they are making slightly over their monthly payments, do you really want them to be making money at the expense of 24 other people? Also, do you really even WANT or need that product you’re grossly over-paying for?

If you think this post has any merit, and if you know someone who is involved in an MLM, feel free to tag them or copy and paste this onto anywhere you think it will be helpful.

Thanks for reading.

A brother and friend,
Youngil Ely Loew