Tuesday, February 12, 2013

The Question and The Answer

It's been over a year and I haven't posted because circumstances have kept my attention elsewhere, but I got into a discussion tonight that I want to share, that I feel needs to be shared. Here it is ——

Posted on Facebook after the State of the Union address:
Marco Rubio spoke and said we succeed by hard work and using our brains . . . great comments. But if it did not work before the election what makes the Republicans think it will work now? . . . The question [is] what will actually work? . . . How do we break down the walls of ignorance and lies?
My reply:

The message worked, the messenger did not. Where the messenger worked – governor's races, state legislature races – we won. Romney was a mistake, an establishment, moderate, flip-flopper. Can we please admit that and move on?

His response:
With all due respect . . . the message did not work. It really did not work for senatorial candidates either. How do we "fix" the message without killing the messenger?
My reply:

With all due respect, I stand by my comment. Romney was just the quickest example. I frankly think some of the GOP senate candidates last year were truly second-raters ("legitimate rape," seriously?). Obviously, that wasn't the complete answer, but I am convinced it is the core of the answer and, if you can't get that much, you won't get the rest. The rest being equally simple:

1] Stop pussyfooting around the truth. There is no bipartisanship, there is no deal to be made, there is no compromise. This is war — bloody, horrible, all out, no holds barred, win or die war! Liberalism must be obliterated as a political power in the USA or the USA will cease to exist. No one wants to believe it, most refuse to think it, but it is happening and if we don't start fighting like it's Armageddon, we will wake up one day very soon and realize that Armageddon is over and we lost.

2] Get real contenders. Candidates that can truly articulate the message and have a solid record of living the principles they espouse. Scott Walker types — he beat the unions, withstood a recall, turned his state's finances around and did it all with the style and dignity that screamed "statesman."

3] Control of the message. Don't let the liberal media script the conversation. When someone asks your candidate a stupid question, say, "That's a stupid question. America doesn't care. What America wants to know is: When are the jobs coming back? When are my taxes going down? When does the budget get balanced? Well, here's my plan. And, by the way, the only reason I'm stepping across the aisle is to bash some damn liberal's head in."

4] Pray like it's all on God. We should be begging God on hands and knees, in sack cloth and ashes to forgive us for our ingratitude, our ineptitude and our inactivity. We have sinned by permitting our wealth and our security to blind us to the truth of what is going on in our own homes.

5] Work like it is all on us. Repentance is an action verb. It isn't enough to acknowledge our mistakes, we must pro-actively work to correct them. Like Thomas Jefferson did in 1776, inspired men and women are now, daily, placing before us "the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent." The truth is here in front of us — it always has been — we must commit to do what is necessary to turn the tide back to the principles which made us great. This will require sacrifice: Spend the money, take the time, understand the issues, meet the people, make the case, get out the votes – all of them! We must win so big that they cannot cheat well enough to win.

Happy birthday Pres. Lincoln!
Thanks for listening, I'll be back soon with another rant.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Osawatomie — Meeting the Real Barack Obama

On December 6th, the President spoke at Osawatomie, Kansas.  Not much has been said about this speech, possibly because the leftist media doesn't want a whole lot of attention paid to this speech.  During the 2008 campaign, Obama portrayed himself as a moderate.  This speech is anything but moderate; it shows what Obama really thinks.  In case you didn't get to hear it, I present a few highlights – well, lowlights – of this socialist manifesto:
The Housing Bust:
For many years, credit cards and home equity loans papered over the harsh realities of this new economy.  But in 2008, the house of cards collapsed.  We all know the story by now: Mortgages sold to people who couldn't afford them, or sometimes even understand them.  Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off.  Huge bets – and huge bonuses – made with other people's money on the line.  Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn't have the authority to look at all.
Those mortgages were forced on banks under laws passed by Democrat-controlled Congresses.  The regulators were career federal bureaucrats.  It was the Republican Party (and you can find the videos on youtube.com) who warned Congress that this was a house of cards and Democratic majorities that ignored the warnings.

In 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here, to Osawatomie, and laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism.  "Our country," he said, ". . . means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy . . . of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him."
A "triumph of a real democracy," as we have shown in a previous post would be a defeat of America's constitutional republic.

Economic Policy:
It's a simple theory – one that speaks to our rugged individualism and healthy skepticism of too much government. It fits well on a bumper sticker.  Here's the problem:  It doesn't work.  It's never worked.  It didn't work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression.  It's not what led to the incredible post-war boom of the 50s and 60s.  And it didn't work when we tried it during the last decade.
Wholesale lie of the most transparent sort – oh, that's the "most transparent administration" that Obama promised! We've been looking for it for years!  Apparently, Obama hasn't heard of "The Roaring Twenties," the "post-World War II boom," or "the longest period of sustained economic growth in US history."  The largest periods of economic growth are the ones which Obama claims never happened.  By the way, in the last decade, Bush the Younger started his presidency with an inherited recession founded on the dot-com bust and the fallout from 9/11.  The Bush tax cuts brought us from three quarters of shrinkage to a growth rate of 7% in just two years!
Falling Incomes:
We simply cannot return to this brand of your-on-your-own economics if we're serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country.  We know that it doesn't result in a strong economy.  It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and its future.  It doesn't result in a prosperity that trickles down.  It results in a prosperity that's enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens. . . . over the last decade, the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about six percent.
Another lie, as shown by the Washington Times:  "Real personal income for Americans . . . has fallen by 3.2 percent since President Obama took office in January 2009. . . . Income excluding government payouts increased 12.7 percent during Mr. Bush’s eight years in office."
Green Jobs:
In today's innovation economy, we also need a world-class commitment to science, research, and the next generation of high-tech manufacturing.  Our factories and their workers shouldn't be idle.  We should be giving people the chance to get new skills and training at community colleges, so they can learn to make wind turbines and semiconductors and high-powered batteries.
Ah, yes, we need to continue to invest time, effort and money in proven failures like "green" jobs.  Let's face it folks, we have a fossil-fuel-based economy, and we're going to continue to have one for a generation or two or three. Maybe in 20 or 50 or 100 years, these technologies will replace coal, oil and natural gas, but not in this decade.
Job Growth:
Yes, businesses, not government, will always be the primary generator of good jobs with incomes that lift people into the middle class and keep them there.
And yet, government payrolls are the only ones that have increased under Obama.
Deficit Reduction:
Today that choice is very clear.  To reduce our deficit, I've already signed nearly $1 trillion of spending cuts into law, and proposed trillions more – including reforms that would lower the cost of Medicare and Medicaid.
No, he hasn't.  He hasn't cut a single government program, he's added more.  He hasn't cut federal spending, his are the three largest budgets in US history, a total of approx. $5 trillion in new debt in 3 years – compared to the $5 trillion increase during Bush's 8 years.

It is wrong for Warren Buffett's secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.
To this, I will agree; if anything, they should pay exactly the same rate.  But Obama fails to mention that Warren Buffet shouldn't have a delinquent tax bill of almost $1 billion, as the Huffington Post reported in August.
A tax code that makes sure everybody pays their fair share.
Yeah?  Under Jimmy Carter, the "fair share" maxxed out at 70% of your income.
The Bottom Line:

This speech was the real Obama – bigger government, higher taxes, less freedom – in other words, less a republic and more a socialist-democracy, a political system which didn't work in the 17th Century or the 18th Century or the 19th Century or the 20th Century and which won't work in the 21st Century.
Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

Monday, December 5, 2011

Naming America — The On-going Debate

Let's step away from politics for a day, and look at one of America's historical curiosities.

North and South America, according to my grade school textbooks, were named after Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian explorer who realized that Christopher Columbus had not found India, but a completely new continent.

Oh, if it was only that simple!  New research in the 20th Century has proven conclusively that we don't know who was America's namesake.  We have several contenders – some are better than others, but all are worth close scrutiny.  I present the basics of each claim – all the time wondering if more will surface in years to come!
The Italian
Amerigo Vespucci (1454-1512) sailed west from Europe twice, both times as ship's navigator.  In 1503 and 1504 he may have written to Lorenzo de Medici (nephew of the famous "Lorenzo the Magnificent") about his voyages.  Two letters were published under his name:  One, titled New World, claimed Cristoforo Columbo (Cristobal Colon to his Spanish patrons; Christopher Columbus to the English-speaking world) hadn't reached Asia, but a new continent.  The letters also describes sexual customs of the natives, which is probably the reason for their popularity.
Here the story begins to be cloudy.  In 1507, German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller published a map in Introduction to Cosmology listing the new discovery as "America."  Vespucci often followed the custom of Latinizing his first name ("Americus") in formal correspondence.  Did Waldseemüller translate that to "America" (the feminine form, following the example of Asia and Africa) and apply it to the New World?  Conventional wisdom says yes.
It is now believed his baptismal name was "Amerigho" — an old Gothic name still common in English as the surname Merrick or the female name Emily.  He was a friend of Colombo and held a royal appointment as chief navigator for the West Indies.  According to Introduction to Cosmology, "I do not see what right any one would have to object to calling this part after Americus, who discovered it and who is a man of intelligence, Amerige, that is, the Land of Americus, or America: since both Europa and Asia got their names from women."  This suggests Vespucci wasn't even involved with the naming; it was done by others in his honor but without his knowledge.  By the way, what Waldseemüller's map labels "America" is actually modern Brazil, the land Vespucci explored.  It was Gerard Mercator's 1538 Map of the World, which gave the name to both continents.
However, it isn't known with certainty that Vespucci wrote those letters.  The first letter describes two trips and the second describes four plus a book by Vespucci, The Four Voyages, which was never published and no manuscript has ever been known.  Some scholars also believe that, if Vespucci did give his name to the land masses, he would have called it "Vespuccia" or "Vespucca."  The naming convention of discovery was well-established long before this time period — when naming places after royalty, use the given name; when naming after commoners, use the surname.  Vespucci was certainly no royal.

The Englishman
Bristol, England, celebrates an adopted son, Welshman Richard Ameryk (also spelled Amerycke in English and Ap Meryke in Welsh) as the namesake of the New World.  This is an interesting possibility because the claim spans almost two decades and includes two distinct expeditions.

Conventional wisdom says Giovanni Caboto (called "John Cabot" by his English patrons) first visited North America in 1497, half a decade after Colombo, and the British based their claims on Canada from this date.  But Englishmen may have landed in North America much earlier, because of simple economics.  Fish was a mainstay of the Bristol economy and merchants bought salted cod in Iceland (which is west of England) until the King of Denmark shut down the market in 1475.  Four years later, Bristol merchants received a royal charter to find source of fish for trade that they could control.  One of these was Richard Ameryk.  It was simple logic that their expedition should head west, a direction in which they knew a source to be located.  Records of their business (found in 1960) state that Ameryk shipped salt to the fishing party to preserve their catch for transport to England.  Their base of operation was probably modern Newfoundland, whose waters, it is known with certainty, have been fished since the early 1500s.  Historian Rodney Broome recently wrote, "I believe the Bristol sailors named the area after the Bristol merchant they worked for." [1]
Years later, Caboto sailed west from England because he was sure the continents would be closer together in the northern waters.  He chose Bristol, then England's second largest seaport, as his jumping off point.  It is certain that Richard Ameryk, who had risen to be Collector of Customs at the Port of Bristol, knew of Caboto's expeditions and may have been part of the planning.  His earlier enterprise was evidence that Hy-Brasil, an Atlantic island named in Celtic legends was, in fact, no legend. [2] Caboto, perhaps with Ameryk's help, mounted three expeditions, at least one was highly successful — records of the first are sketchy, records of the third are lost.  Caboto was so successful that he received a handsome pension from King Henry VII, which was dispersed through his customs officer, our old friend, Richard Ameryk.  It is no stretch to suggest the northern lands were named by Caboto in honor of his benefactor, or that he simply continued using a name he'd heard among local sailors.  Caboto, by the way, also assumed this new land was an Asian island.
If the name "America" or some variant was known in England at this time, a half-decade before Vespucci's letters were published and a full decade before Waldseemüller's map, it is certain the new land could not have been named for the Italian.
The Carib Natives
In the late 19th Century, the tables turned when a Frenchman claimed "America" wasn't given to the Americas, but taken from them.  Geologist Jules Marcou, in the Smithsonian Institute 1888 Annual Report, describes a tribe and mountain range called "Amerrique."  Marcou suggests that this district was known to and visited by Colombo and Vespucci and, because of its rich gold deposits, the name became synonymous with gold.
Marcou goes on to quote sources stating that "America" was the popular name for the New World by 1515, which he says would have been impossible if Waldseemüller and Mercator were the only sources.  He believes the names would have passed far more rapidly by word of mouth among the sailors and tradesmen who serviced them, than among the literati who had little access to the expensive maps which had what we would today call a very small press run.
The Scandinavians
Here, it gets really interesting:  The Icelandic history, Saga of Eric the Red, describes how Leif Ericsson voyaged to a place he called "Vinland."   Long thought legendary, the arrival was confirmed by the 1960 discovery of the only known Norse settlement on the North America continent, a place now called L'Anse aux Meadows on the island of Newfoundland.
The Saga was first committed to parchment over 250 years after Ericsson's voyages, and not generally known among European historians until the 1700s.  Still, it became and remained a popular notion, even before proof existed.  It also gave rise to a 1930s idea that "America" is of Scandinavian origin: Amt plus Eric formed Amteric (Norse, "Land of Eric").  It should surprise no one that Leif would name his discovery after the father who discovered Greenland and inspired the son's explorations.
The Vinland settlements were short-lived, because of unfriendly natives, and even Greenland was abandoned as the climate cooled over succeeding centuries. 
Still, the settlements were real, and advocates of the Norse connection claim that North Atlantic sailors, as early as the beginning of the 11th Century, called Vinland Ommerike (oh-MEH-ric-eh), Old Norse, "farthest outland").  However, there is no proven historical record of this name outside Scandinavia until centuries after the name "America" was firmly in place.
The Conclusion
None is possible under the present circumstances.  Research will continue and, if records are still extant, perhaps proof will yet come that the name had a specific origin and its travels to the cartographers' print shop will someday be mapped.
The oddest possible answer is that North and South America were actually named for all of the above.  Could it be coincidental that Newfoundland was named twice — for Richard Ameryk and for Eric the Red, while Central America was named for the Amerrique tribe and Brazil was mistakenly given a name thought to be based on Amerigo Vespucci?

If so, we have put to rest finally the notion that God has no sense of humor, for this could be the ultimate in Divine practical jokes.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

[1] Broome, Rodney, Terra Incognita: The True Story of How America Got Its Name, 2001.
[2] The name had nothing to do with the South American nation, it was the Anglicized form of Uí Breasail (Irish Gaelic, "descendants/clan of Breasal") an ancient tribe of northeastern Ireland.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Gun Control — The Law and the Facts

The following was posted on Facebook recently:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Switzerland issues a gun every household and trains them to use it. Switzerland has the lowest gun-related crime rate of any civilized country in the world and hasn't bee conquered in over 1,000 years.
Now, I have not been able to personally confirm these numbers (which you'll never see in the mainstream media) but the fact that unarmed citizens get shot by evil governments has been well-established by historians. (As is the fact that armed citizens shoot back.)

The liberal agenda in America still includes total and absolute gun control — i.e., removal of guns from the ordinary American.  Not only is this unconstitutional, this doesn't reduce crime, as the liberals keep claiming to justify their program.  The truth, as any conservative knows, is far different.  Individual, personal gun ownership, unrelated to military service, is constitutional and it is an effective crime deterrent.

Here are the law and the facts:
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States;
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966)
The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.
Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution;
Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate
(97th Congress, 2nd Session, February 1982)
Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns.
National Institute of Justice, US Dep't of Justice;
in Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse
(Report NCJ-143454, August 1995)
Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right.
Sam Cummings, US District Judge;
US v. Emerson 46 F. Supp. 2d 598 (1999)
Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms . . . the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.
Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey (D-MN)
According to the National Crime Survey, administered by the Bureau of the Census and the National Institute of Justice, it was found that only 12 percent of those who use a gun to resist assault are injured, as are 17 percent of those who use a gun to resist robbery.  These percentages are 27 and 25 percent, respectively, if they passively comply with the felon's demands.  Three times as many were injured if they used other means of resistance.
Prof. Gary Kleck, gun-control advocate, ACLU & Amnesty Int'l member;
in "Policy Lessons from Recent Gun Control Research"
Law and Contemporary Problems (vol 49: num 1: 1986)

I add some opinions from people you might be surprised to see on this list:
Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi, creator of civil disobedience
But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.
His Holiness, the Dalai Lama; in a May 2001 speech
on "nonviolent resolutions to conflict"
The world is filled with violence.  Because criminals carry guns, we decent, law-abiding citizens should also have guns.  Otherwise, they will win and the decent people will lose.
James Earl Jones, American actor (the voice of "Darth Vader")
Gun control?  It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters.  I want you to have nothing.  If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna’ have a gun. Safety locks?  You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger.  We'll see who wins.
Salvatore "Sammy the Bull" Gravano, American
gangster turned Mafia informant
The Bottom Line:
The 2nd Amendment is for citizens who understand that, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Unknown, very clever person

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

Monday, November 21, 2011

The United Nations – With Friends Like These . . .

Sixty-five years ago, in 1945, there was much to be thankful for. The Axis powers had been defeated, World War II was effectively over (the cleanup would take a while) and the United Nations Charter had just come into effect.  So, how's that whole UN think working out for the USA?

Fallacy #1: The United Nations Charter is a blueprint for peace. 

Yes, that's what they told us back in 1945. Unfortunately, it simply isn't true (and never was) according to Ambassador J. Reuben Clark, Jr., one of America’s foremost scholars in the field of international law.  After careful study, he concluded the UN Charter "is a war document not a peace document" and that it "is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace."  The Ambassador further noted:
[T]here is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war. . . . Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.
In fact, the so-called Korean and Vietnam Wars used to be called "UN Police Actions" and were conducted with the blessing of, and under the auspices of, the United Nations.
1990 — Pres. GHW Bush went to the UN for authority to invade Iraq.
1992 — Pres. GHW Bush got a Security Council resolution to send U.S. forces into Somalia
1993 Pres. Clinton received UN authorization to send troops into Haiti.
1994 Pres. Clinton responded to a UN resolution and attacked Bosnia.
2001 Pres. GW Bush said his Afghanistan attack plans "have been defined by the United Nations."
2003 Pres. Bush gets Security Council resolutions 678 and 687 to re-invade Iraq.
Even the US involvement in this year's Libya troubles was a UN decision.
Fallacy #2: In the UN forum, nations can talk and work out their differences.

Yeah, there's a lot of talk in the UN.  What has it gotten us?  Well, the fact of the matter (to cite one example) is that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.  How do we know this? Because he used them – on the Kurds in his war of genocide and against the Iranians in his war against them.  When a UN-authorized coalition finally went into Iraq to get rid of this madman, we found nothing.

Of course we found nothing!  The UN had debated the invasion option for something like a year and a half and passed resolutions that laid out the whole UN plan of attack. Those resolutions gave Saddam a year and a half to hide said weapons of mass destruction, and he did.  (I think he hid them in Syria, but that's another story.)

The point the UN telegraphed its blow and Saddam pretty much sidestepped it, making the USA look like the warmongering, imperialist bad guy.  Personally, I don't think either Iraq conflict was justified but, if you're going to fight a war, for heaven's sake well, let's put it this way:  If you're going to mug someone, do you sent the victim an engraved invitation to the event?

Fallacy #3:  All the money the USA gives away in foreign aid has won us friends in the UN.

You know the old saying, "You get what you pay for"?  Well, the UN is clearly the exception. Take a peek at the voting records of a few nations and the money we (the American taxpayer) are giving them:

Foreign Aid**
*In opposition to positions taken by the US.
**From official US sources (Census Bureau, AID, etc.).

So, we're paying people to oppose us.  That's like the Republican National Committee raising money to re-elect Barack Obama.

Fallacy #4:  The UN was created by people who believed in freedom.

Lloyd Bailey of Gainesville.com says:
The UN was located in the United States at Stalin’s insistence, and the land was donated by the Rockefeller family.  Immediately following the UN establishment, top military secrets were lost by convicted Russian spies that operated under UN diplomatic immunity.  Russia [actually the USSR] was granted 3 votes on the general assembly, while all other nations received one vote.  When Communist China was admitted, original founding member, free China in Taiwan was removed.
The UN was created by the globalist, Council on Foreign Relations, where 21 of its members were involved in the creation . . . the first secretary general of the UN was Algier Hiss, a convicted Soviet spy and CFR member.
The bottom line:
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. [George Washington, Farewell Address, 17 September 1796, emphasis added.] 
President Washington was right, as usual.  The United Nations isn't pro-republic; it is pro-socialist, anti-gun and anti-religion.  It isn't an organization dedicated to peace; it wants its own military to enforce its decrees.  UN diplomats have spied on the USA since Day 1, and are working toward eradicating US sovereignty in favor of a one world government. Make it your business to elect true conservatives on November 6, 2012 and you will have much to be thankful for on November 22, 2012. 

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.