What a glorious one-liner:

“You are a pyromaniac in a field of straw men.”

It’s Will vs Reich.

Newsbusters has the transcript [bold my emphasis]:

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: Can government, should government do what the congressman is doing and allow upward mobility, which stalled?

GEORGE WILL: Big government inevitably exacerbates the problem of inequality. Big government inevitably is a servant of the strong. I’ll give you two examples. The tax code has been changed 4,500 times in the last decade. Every one of those times at the service of a group strong enough and attentive enough and wealthy enough to hire a Washington lawyer to represent them to game the tax code.

The welfare state exists to transfer wealth basically from the working young and retired elderly — working young and middle aged to the retired elderly. The elderly are, according to the CBO study, the net worth of a family of a household on average, household headed by someone 65 years old or older is 47 times larger than that of the net worth of a household of someone 35 or younger. That’s a record, and has doubled in the last five years. Big government is responsive to big, muscular interest groups.

ROBERT REICH: Well, I — let’s just be clear about the facts. I mean, right now, the top 1 percent is claiming in terms of their pay, a larger share of total income than has been at any time since before the Great Depression. And their tax rates — and their tax rates are lower than they have been in 30 years.

You look at that period. I mean, George, you say that, you know, big — rich people and big corporations have undue influence. Yes, I agree with you. But the answer is not to shrink government and not even to have government attempt to invest in education, in job training and all of the ways in which we traditionally have generated upward mobility. The answer is to get money out of politics, to make sure that those who are at the top reaches, that is both individuals and corporations, don’t have the untoward influence they now have.

One final point. In the first three decades after the second world war, we had in this country much more of an equal distribution of the fruits of economic growth. And yet what happened? It turned out that in those days, the economy grew faster than it has grown since. There was, under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, whom nobody accused of being a socialist, a marginal tax rate on the top of 91 percent. I’m not advocating we go back to 91 percent. I’m just saying that for conservatives to say that we cannot tax the wealthy, when all of the nation’s wealth and income, virtually speaking, is at the top, to invest in people and education and training and everything else we need to invest, it’s absurd on its face.

WILL: You are a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen. No one is arguing against government investing in education. That’s not –

CONGRESSMAN BARNEY FRANK (D-MASSACHUSETTS): Wrong. You guys are.

CONGRESSMAN PAUL RYAN (R-WISCONSIN): No, we’re not.

WILL: No, we’re not.

FRANK: I’ll make the point.

WILL: Look, I’m not attacking the elderly. I am elderly.

Reich ignores six decades of tax receipts showing how the “one percent” pay an egregiously progressive amount year after year. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay only a consumption tax, noting on income (further highlighting the need for a flat tax or simple graduated consumption tax to replace our burdensome, economy-killing Rube Goldberg-type system). Furthermore, when rates are cut, revenues increase (see the 1920s, 60s under Kennedy, and 80s). There is a great chance to multiply resources via investment and employment as opposed to the Marxist notion Reich supports: a game of cups, aka wealth redistribution.

Here’s a simple question: if wealth redistribution works so well, then why are record numbers of Russians falling into poverty? Why is China moving (albeit slowly) to a more capitalist-based economic system to combat their high levels of poverty? China arbitrarily defines its own level of poverty because of the UN average was used their poverty numbers would double.

(more…)

Only Media Matters can bury the lede of their latest Christian-bashing missive five graphs down into a story. After starting one story on Tim Tebow, the article plunges headfirst off the cliff into insanity by switching gears and blaming poverty in America on … Christians:

… but as the network exaggerates the threat to Christianity in America, it simultaneously downplays — even mocks — the very real plight facing those whom Christian teachings demand be shown compassion: the poor.

Poverty in the U.S. is on the rise. Incomes are decreasing. According to the Census Bureau, right now there are over 46 million Americans in poverty, more than there have been at any time since they started publishing poverty estimates. Fifteen percent of U.S. households are “food insecure,” meaning they lack money to properly feed themselves on a daily basis. They face a host of problems, both quantifiable and not: lack of access to health care, chronic underemployment, disrupted family life, and so on.

But to hear Fox News tell it, the poor don’t have it so bad. Earlier this year, the conservative Heritage Foundation released a report on how the ownership of household appliances demonstrates that “most of the persons whom the government defines as ‘in poverty’ are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term.” Seizing on Heritage’s laughably superficial assessment of poverty, Bill O’Reilly asked: “How can you be so poor and have all this stuff?”

I love when progressives pause their Bible-bashing long enough to pose as sudden experts on Scripture. Oh please, let’s do this. (You’ll see my reason why at the end.)

1) “Poverty in the U.S. is on the rise. Incomes are decreasing. According to the Census Bureau, right now there are over 46 million Americans in poverty, more than there have been at any time since they started publishing poverty estimates.”

And  when did this start exactly? The answer: with this administration. Remember when Newt Gingrich called Obama the “food stamp president?” While the Dixified minds of dog whistle progressives are certain that “food stamps” is code for “black people,” the reality is that more white Americans are on food stamps–in fact, more Americans, period, are receiving government assistance now than ever:

A record 18.3% of the nation’s total personal income was a payment from the government for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment benefits and other programs in 2010. Wages accounted for the lowest share of income — 51.0% — since the government began keeping track in 1929.

The income data show how fragile and government-dependent the recovery is after a recession that officially ended in June 2009.

More:

Americans on the government dole received an average of $7,427 each in benefits in 2010, up from an inflation-adjusted $4,763 in 2000 and $3,686 in 1990. Thus, benefits have more than doubled in the last 20 years! Keep in mind that the federal government pays about 90% of these benefits.

How can this be? Under the Obama administration, families have watched jobs disappear, incomes shrink, food and gas prices rise, and the economy downgraded for the first time in a century. Ace of Spades with the numbers:

All while government spending increased at a record pace:

Don’t you think this has something to do with the increased poverty rate? And while we’re waxing poetic on Scripture, what say you of this racket presented in the graph above, of the astronomical increase in non defense federal spending?

WWJD?

(more…)

“Disgusting,” said Brzezinski after viewing Gingrich’s remarks.

One of the “Morning Joe” panelists had this quip:

“the immorality of income inequality …”

“Income inequality” comes by way of free will. No one forced the students protesting to agree to student loans whose terms they could not meet; no one forced homeowners to agree to home loans they could not afford–the only lack of economic free will which has created any disparity is directly due to the economic policies of an administration whose strategy of shrinking the tax base while increasing the burden of revenue sans cutting entitlements is a no-win situation. But no one is “occupying” the space in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If you want to talk “income inequality” let’s talk about how none of the occupiers are protesting the Obama administration over seizing public capital to unfairly prop up failed energy companies oh, who also donated to Obama’s campaign. Coincidence, I’m sure.

Fascinating: the choice to be productive and successful is immoral yet this is not:

Coast Guard member spit on near Occupy Boston tents: MyFoxBOSTON.com

Redefining greed is a progressive strategy. It is the very definition of greed to expect someone else to provide you your way of life with their capital in which you had no hand producing.
(more…)

Here’s an interesting look at how Media Matters for America (MMfA) works, along with the quick manner with which some in media bow to its George Soros financed influence. Whatever one may think of it, it’s beyond obvious that the 53% versus whatever percent meme is about Federal Income Tax. No one has ever suggested that anyone gets away scott-free without paying taxes of some sort in America – unless perhaps one is on Obama’s short list for a job in the White House. As the saying goes, nothing is certain but death and taxes. Unfortunately, when Anderson Cooper invoked the 53% number during the recent GOP debate, he wasn’t quite nuanced enough for the crew at MMfA and they immediately attacked.

Conservative activists have created a Tumblr called “We are the 53 percent” that’s meant to be a counterpunch to the viral “We are the 99 percent” site that’s become a prominent symbol for the Occupy Wall Street movement. The Tumblr is supposed to represent the 53 percent of Americans who pay federal income taxes, and its assumption is that the Wall Street protesters are part of the 46 percent of the country who don’t.

Erickson’s movement is based on a fraud. While nearly half of American households have paid no income taxes in the past few years, the vast majority of Americans do pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes, as well as state and local taxes. In an April New York Times article, David Leonhardt explained how figures like the one Erickson was pushing distort the economic debate away from growing income inequality while completely ignoring taxes that all American households pay.

From there, presumably concerned at having displeased the storm troopers over at MMfA, aka the Progressive thought police watching uber alles things media, Cooper was quick to accept his comeuppance and grovel for mercy. That may sound harsh, unfortunately, the story doesn’t end there.

(more…)

On CNN’s State of the Union this morning, host Candy Crowley joined the ranks of white journalists who presume to speak on behalf of black Americans in expressing their alleged skepticism about Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain.

Blaming racism for the economic gap between blacks and whites, Crowley asked Cain whether his success was due to “luck,” or a “loving family,” rather than skill and hard work, which apparently are never enough in our racist society. (Should the government redistribute luck and love?)

Cain took it in stride, pointing out that economic policy is at the root of unemployment for all Americans. While acknowledging that some racism exists, Cain highlighted more important causes of the racial economic gap, such as differences in education and the geographic concentration of blacks in failing cities. He also used Crowley’s questions as an opportunity to discuss his own 9-9-9 plan for tax reform and economic growth.

CROWLEY: We are back with Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain. I want to play for our audience something that you said Friday. You were addressing the Values Voter Summit, and the subject was racism.

CAIN [clip]: I have achieved all of my American dreams, and then some, because of the great nation, the United States of America! What’s there to be angry about?

CROWLEY: And I would say to you an unemployment rate for blacks that is far higher–almost six percent higher, seven percent higher than for whites; a percentage of black incarceration in the nation’s prison systems that is far greater; a lack of–and for all of your skills, is there not some luck in that, I want to ask you that–but, you know, there–I would tell you that minorities, especially African-Americans, can name a lot of things that speak to a certain amount of racism that they can still complain about. And so I wonder if you are taking your good fortune and superimposing it over everyone else, when it doesn’t really apply? (more…)

“I believe the children are our future … teach them well and let them lead the way …”

(more…)

Oh, but he was speaking figuratively. Of course. Dig the #newtone.

I’m curious as to how Feingold plans to validate his freshman Marxism 101 accusation that billionaires got their wealth by stealing from the poor.

The Wall Street Journal in 2007 published a study which showed that the vast majority of the American wealthy are nouveau riche as their wealth is, on average, less than 13 years-old. Contrary to Feingold’s hysteria, these new wealthy are self-made entrepreneurs, not robber barons. They earned their money through commerce. Such success used to be celebrated as evidence that the American Dream still existed, that you too can start from nothing and make it anywhere in America so long as you have the will and persistence. What you put into it is what you get out of it. Since the breakdown of the American psyche by Marxist-loving liberals, the American Dream is now something of which successful Americans should be ashamed. How dare Americans who work hard reap any reward from their work! They should pay their fair share!

Except they do. They pay theirs, yours, and everyone else’s. Analysis of tax data shows that the top 5% pay 58% of all federal income taxes in the United States, while the bottom 50% pay less than three percent.

(more…)

CNNs Fareed Zakaria and the New York Times’ Paul Krugman have solved our economic problems. They’ve decided that a space alien attack will save us. Aside from the guffaw factor of space aliens, there was so much wrong with this CNN segment that we must lay them out for discussion.

First on the clip is some pinhead from Harvard claiming that “infrastructure spending, that’s great.” He says he’d even borrow money for such programs. This guy thinks that if we had another giant stimulus (like a WWII Works program), why we’d be doing just “great.”

He is, of course, a Keynesian fool. Stimulus does not work. Stimulus has never worked. Further, “stimulus” itself is a misnomer. Take Illinois, for instance. It got millions upon millions of dollars in so-called stimulus money from Obama. Do you know what Illinois did with that money? It paid existing debt, it paid current bills. It “stimulated” nothing with all those millions. This happened all across the country in every state. The “stimulus” did not stimulate anything but instead went to pay exiting bills and created nothing new, supported no new projects. It was a sham.

Amusingly, this guy tried to qualify his support of infrastructure spending saying “as long as it isn’t Big Dig” sort of over spending. The “Big Dig” is a reference to the underground Central Artery/Tunnel Project undertaken by the Boston Metro Highway System that is famous for being a total boondoggle that has gone billions over budget, not to mention having so many structural and engineering failures that the whole thing is a death trap waiting to happen.

Problem is, every state project becomes a version of the Big Dig at some level. At the very least they always, always, always go over budget, at worst they become a pit of political failure and corruption. So, while this Harvard pinhead tried to qualify his position, he did so on a bed of quicksand.

(more…)

This weekend the New York Times, the fishwrap of record, had yet another one of its left-wing excuses for political analysis, this one about rumors of how Team Obama intends to carry on its continuing re-election campaign on matters economic. The piece is so chock full of bias that you don’t even have to get past the first paragraph to see it.

Apparently it took two writers to stuff this thing full of left-wing bias and falsehoods as it is given the by-line of Binyamin Appelbaum and Helene Cooper.

Check out this first paragraph:

As the economy worsens, President Obama and his senior aides are considering whether to adopt a more combative approach on economic issues, seeking to highlight substantive differences with Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail rather than continuing to pursue elusive compromises, advisers to the president say.

Now just look at the tenor of this paragraph. It is presented as if the President is not responsible for the economic downturn because he hasn’t done enough left-wing interfering with the economy. And it ends with the blatantly false claim that Obama is the one has been seeking “compromises” with the Republicans.

None of these contentions are true.

The reason the economy is failing is because Obama has indulged too many socialist, left-wing policies already. Further, he’s not yet, not once made any attempt to make compromises with the GOP. In fact, just the opposite. He’s insisted that it has to be the Republicans that need to drop “politics” and compromise with him.

(more…)

Actually yes, yes he does.

While losing an economic debate with Rep. Al Brooks, Contessa Brewer throws down the “well do you have a degree in economics?” card.

Ed Morrissey notes:

Brooks actually has three degrees: political science, economics, and law. As a lawyer, Brooks would have been experienced enough not to make Brewer’s mistake in a cross-examination, which is to ask a question without first knowing the answer. Not only that, but Brewer was being flat-out rude as well as foolish; MSNBC invited Brooks to appear to get his perspective on the issues. If their hosts respond by belittling them (whether it backfires or not), what does that say about MSNBC, its management, and the kind of invitations they make?

Since Brewer made an issue out of having an economics degree before engaging in economics debates, she must have a doctorate in the subject herself, right? Not exactly. According to her Wikipedia entry, Brewer has a baccalaureate in broadcast journalism (magna cum laude). Apparently they didn’t teach interviewing skills at Syracuse, or logic either, as a requisite for the degree.

Would Brewer merit enough intelligence to discuss the issue with a degree?

(more…)

Gloria Borger on CNN said recently that the tea party is “now become substantially just the no tax party as opposed to a party that cares about the deficit.” I understand that she was speaking about the movement and its relationship to the GOP as the tea party is, nor will be unless the GOP royally fudges these negotiations, as opposed to calling the movement itself a party. However, her narrow acknowledgement of grassroots’ expectations and influence on the GOP skews the objectivity in her analysis.

The GOP aside for a moment, the tea party has asked first for a budget from Democrats, and we’ve gone over 800 days without one from Democrats. We’ve also asked for enumerated cuts with emphasis on the debt-driving entitlement system. Republicans have received little in the way of compromise on those two items, and not without a trillion-dollar tax hike in the process.We know what history says about this subject.

Sen. Rubio put it best:

To be clear, new revenues are an essential component of any viable debt reduction deal. We can’t simply cut our way out of this debt; we also need to grow our way out of it. The best way to do this is by increasing the number of taxpayers gainfully employed in our economy and by easing burdensome regulations, not by raising taxes.

As far as “hijacking,” the GOP was hijacked away from conservative principles long ago. A party that supported and defended TARP, increased federal (as opposed to state) control over education in No Child Left Behind, and supported Medicare expansion hardly represents the values of a group that wants both parties in Washington to behave more responsibly. (The influx of so many grassroots, non-career politician types in last year’s elections was the beginning of grassroots making good on its threat to consume the GOP from within — and if the Mitch McConnell types fight too much and insist on asinine economic policies, a third party threatens to form.)

Obama ran as a “transformational” candidate, but the supposition — and bias — in Borger’s analysis is that Obama’s transformation was better than that from which he wanted to change. He appointed the people whose  policy caused the housing disaster to oversee it; he nationalized large sections of the private sector, his failed trillion-dollar stimulus did nothing but contribute to an increased unemployment rate currently at 9.2%, his Interior Secretary fabricated reports to bolster a moratorium on Gulf drilling, the list is rather lengthy. You cannot look at the unemployment rate, foreclosure rate, business decline, etc. and answer affirmatively to the question: “Are we better off economically after four years of Obama?” How is this a positive transformation? Why is it bad to want to change this for the better?

(more…)

In a conversation about race, when one immediately thinks of black Americans when one hears food stamps, is not that a clear indicator of prejudice and stereotyping?

If you said yes, then check out the latest column from Salon’s Joan Walsh. Apparently, Joan Walsh believes food stamps are something inherent to black Americans only. When she could have nabbed Gingrich on his remarks yesterday morning about the individual mandate (insane) or his criticism of Rep. Paul Ryan’s goal of reforming entitlements (off-base) she went straw man.

This was Gingrich’s quote to which Walsh took exception:

You want to be a country that creates food stamps, in which case frankly Obama’s is an enormous success. The most successful food stamp president in American history. Or do you want to be a country that creates paychecks?

He was asked about it by David Gregory, who also apparently thinks only black Americans can be on food stamps.

(more…)

You may have heard of it, but never actually been privileged enough to witness one.  It’s an elusive creature without a doubt. However, today I present to you … a positive piece of journalism! If you want to sell advertising dollars, you better stir up a crisis and fast. I’m here to tell you today, that a lot of it is BS. Sure things are tough, but some of the world’s most successful enterprises were spawned amidst depression.

(more…)

There was a lot of discussion in the media this week about using our soldiers as a “political football.” After we learned that a White House draft guidance targeted the pay of our service men and women as a way to take revenge on Republicans’ targeting DC Planned Parenthoods, Democrats felt the wrath of the country — and support for Obama’s Libyan offensive sank further.

Prior to the discussion about our military however, was the discussion of the billion-dollar windfall profit AARP is set to receive, a gift from the Democrats. They cared so much about the elderly during the campaign season that they decided to craft legislation that would force millions of elderly Americans off Medicare Advantage and on to MediGap (which one can purchase as a member of AARP). Paul Begala last week argued on CNN that Democrats had to cut the federal subsidy for Medicare Advantage, you know, to cut the spending, while also ironically supporting the health control law, a subsidy that trumps any figure Medicare Advantage could have ever accrued. How convenient, too, that Democrats found a way to do this and also boost the member rolls and bottom line of AARP, one of the biggest supporters of their national health care subsidy.

While Nancy Pelosi said that Republicans were going to steal old people’s meals, while Louise Slaughter said that Republicans were going to “kill women,” Democrats themselves were quietly crafting cuts that would further affect the poor and elderly:

(more…)

Well, the earthquake we all waited for finally hit. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) unveiled his budget proposal for the next ten years. Originally expected to include $4 trillion in cuts, it ended up with more than $6 trillion. As expected, the liberal media was apoplectic and the knives have been drawn to cut him down. Within hours of its release, the condescension flowed.

Derek Thompson in the Atlantic started off well, insulting the intelligence of Republicans in general and Paul Ryan specifically.

“Republicans faced mockery in the last few years for inventing their own words. Rep. Paul Ryan did them one better. He invented his own math.”

It doesn’t get any better; it’s mostly filled with ad hominem attacks with one or two attempts at criticizing some small points. Sitting upon his safe perch, not required to deal with the realities of the situation the country finds itself in, Mr. Thompson is unable to even suggest a possible solution beyond the Status Quo.

I’d like to extend Mr. Thompson a helping hand, explaining some things here. Without some serious reduction in future entitlements, the United States will be insolvent sooner than later. Following the profligate spending of the last few years, the current deficit is equal to GDP. That can’t go on.

In any event, Mr. Thompson specifically lays down fire on the Medicare/Medicaid section of proposal. Clearly, the best way to do this is through fear-mongering. Seniors are going to lose all their medical care! Panic! He also takes issue with the fact that, instead of the Federal government overseeing Medicaid, it would reduce the amount put in and let each state work it out to the best of its ability. Never mind the supercilious idea that only the folks in Washington can run this stuff. The fact is, the closer to the final recipient is to the management team/ bureaucracy, the more efficient the system is. So yes, “Less Federal Spending + Less Local Spending = Better Care,” since the providers won’t be worried about dealing with a one size fits no one federal mandate.

Thompson tries to make fun of Ryan’s idea that cutting federal spending will produce jobs. This is counter-intuitive! The source of all good and all work is, of course, the central government. Empirically, that’s just not true. The last two and half years are proof of that. An increase in federal spending of unprecedented proportions has not only failed to create jobs anywhere but in the public sector, but has heralded in an era of staggering unemployment. Even the government sector has seen a loss of about 350,000 jobs.

So, let me tell Mr. Thompson something: reducing the scope of the federal government leaves a vacuum for certain services. Those services will be provided by the private sector at lower cost and greater efficiency leaving more money in the private sector to invest and, guess what? Yeah, create more jobs.

Really, the only one with the fuzzy math here is Thompson. They say gambling is a tax on the mathematically challenged, so what do you call doubling down on ideas that have proven to be a failure?

Of course.

Despite several ugly recent episodes and considerable movement by conservative activists to defund it, federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio survived an 11th hour deal on a spending bill to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year.

The continuation of funding for public broadcasting is one of several significant victories for Democrats regarding the policy riders in the bill still emerging 12 hours after Democratic and Republican leaders struck a deal to avert government shutdown.

(more…)

While we at Big Journalism spend most of our energy correcting bias and falsehoods originating from the left, every now and then we must take a moment to gently correct things that go off track with our friends on the right. This is one such case.

Jim Geraghty started a brouhaha yesterday by criticizing how the makers of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” received $1.2 million in tax credits by filming in the state — and that Palin signed the 2008 law which made it possible. Because she’s now apparently omnipotent, able to see into the future and plan for it by signing into law a complex program with numerous in-house checks and balances. Geraghty questioned Palin’s conservative credentials.

… but it looks problematic for a crusader for small government to end up collecting a seven-figure paycheck from an endeavor that received a seven-figure subsidy, all set up by a program she signed into law.

What’s problematic is to define the tax credit in this issue as a “subsidy.” 

Tax credits are offered as an incentive to do business in a particular area, city, or state as a way to attract business and commerce into said area. These tax credits are usually offered as a percentage of total money spent and the credits can be sold at a discount to businesses looking to alleviate their tax load. The exchange creates a cashflow that helps offset the costs of doing that particular business in that area; in this case filming in Alaska is very expensive. A net gain of dollars flows into those local communities and the credits establish a way for a particular locality to compete with other cities or states for business; over the long term it can they help establish a broader tax base by increasing the number of professionals drawn to the area.

The optimal situation is to have a tax code is low enough where regulations aren’t so restrictive so as to warrant the need for tax credits. That is the real debate. However, it is within every state and city’s right to make themselves more competitive by offering tax incentives to attract business and create a business community. Aren’t we, as conservatives, supporters of the 10th Amendment? You pay for things by increasing your tax base, not by increasing regulations or taxes.

(more…)

First came the disgrace of supposedly intelligent teachers in Wisconsin sporting hundreds of signs calling Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker “Hitler” and now comes the entire liberal blogosphere and it’s echo chamber in the left-media establishment claiming that Gov. Walker has “ginned up” a budget shortfall when he actually has a budget surplus. One wonders when the childish hyperbole and lies will ever stop for the left?

Lefty TV yakker Rachel Maddow, ever hooked into the most goofy left-wing talking point du jour and always ready to dutifully regurgitate same, recently made a big point about Walker’s mythic surplus, sneeringly saying that, “Wisconsin is fine… I am not kidding.” On her Feb 17 show, Maddow breathlessly informed us that Walker is just using the claim of a budget problem in a cynical attempt to destroy unions. Because, well, unions are so innocent, right? I mean they are just gently joshing with all those Hitler references, you know?

“I’m here to report that there is nothing wrong in the state of Wisconsin,” Maddow said in her best snarky tone. “Wisconsin is fine. Wisconsin is great, actually. Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year.”

Well, no. Not “actually” as it turns out.

(more…)