The Giffords Shooting and Its Aftermath

Just a few points here. Had I been around a computer when the shooting happened, I would have had about 10 posts on it, but I was at a conference. Now so much has been said. But a few points.

1. While Jared Loughner it seems was not a right-winger in any normal sense, it is still entirely appropriate to point fingers at the violent right-wing rhetoric dominating the nation. Not only because such language can embolden the crazy, but because that rhetoric is wrapped up in the very real policies loosening gun laws so that people can have enormous clips of ammunition.

2. On top of that, the right, going back to Reagan, have decimated funding for mental health institutions. Loughner clearly needed a lot of mental help. And while his crazy behavior got some attention from the people who ran into him, there was nothing they could do get him real help. William Galston argues for a return to involuntary commitment, something that civil libertarians have opposed. While such laws can be and have been abused, we do clearly need to take a more active role in committing people with violent tendencies, if just for observation. But Galston puts the cart before the horse, because who are the officials who are going to put people like this away and where are the beds coming from? With an ever-shrinking tax base for social services, institutions like mental health facilities lose funding and there's no money to hire the government workers you'd need to find the mentally unstable and process them through the system.

3. From a political perspective, the big loser is Sarah Palin. Truthfully, the whole Tea Party movement loses here because a lot of Americans are flinching in the face of the violent rhetoric that propelled them to power. Many Republicans are defending themselves vociferously. Some, such as Rush Limbaugh, claim that Loughner was a liberal and a Democrat, but this just alienates most people at this time. But no one lost more than Palin.

Perhaps she was right to be irritated that people connected her with the shooting, but then again, she's the one who had a target over Giffords' district. Her aide claiming that it was actually surveyor symbols just insulted our intelligence. But then the "blood libel" comment earlier today was just stupid. Not only does she not know what the term means, but it's an anti-Semitic reference used in discussing the attempted assassination of a Jewish congresswoman. Palin is of course getting slammed and rightfully show.

This also demonstrates how hopeless Palin's presidential candidacy is. How many Republicans slapped their palm against their forehead when they heard that? Some at least. And probably a lot of independents and almost all Democrats. What a joke.

Of course, she's the master at generating attention over the politics of resentment. But there's a big difference between Sarah Palin and, say, Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan. Nixon and Reagan were successful because they could effectively tap into this anger while also fooling other voters into believing they stood for more. Palin completely fails at being anything but a mouthpiece of resentment.

As Ezra Klein states:

So that's Palin's substantive response: Politics has never been reliably civil, her critics are unfair to her and at least she's not shot anybody. All that is true. But you won't find "stop bothering me, this tragedy isn't my fault" in the chapter headings of any books on leadership. Palin could've taken this opportunity to look very big, and instead she now looks very small. And that's not the fault of her detractors or her map. It's her fault, and her fault alone.

Indeed.

3. Farley responds to this CBS poll question asking whether violence against the government is ever justified:

Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government, or is it never justified?

Republican 28% yes, 64% no
Democrat 11% yes, 81% no
Independent 11% yes, 81% no

Kos is outraged, Farley not so much. And like Rob, I agree that certainly it can be justified to take violent action against the government. I can think of lots of reasons that might happen. But while that's a good theory, it's quite telling that at this point and time, you have 28% of Republicans who say this versus 11% of Democrats and independents.  It says that a whole lot of people would be more than happy to see violence against Democrats like Gabrielle Giffords, even if they aren't going to instigate it themselves. And that's really screwed up.

Our Responsibility in Killing Animals

Lemieux points us to this moronic Aaron Sorkin piece attacking Sarah Palin for killing animals on her show. It's tempting to damn the Huffington Post for hosting editorials like this, but I'll leave my distaste for that site alone here.

Rather, it's worth mentioning because Sorkin represents the massive disconnect consumers of animal products have from their production.

"Unless you've never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather chair or eaten meat, save your condemnation."

You're right, Sarah, we'll all just go fuck ourselves now.

The snotty quote was posted by Sarah Palin on (like all the great frontier women who've come before her) her Facebook page to respond to the criticism she knew and hoped would be coming after she hunted, killed and carved up a Caribou during a segment of her truly awful reality show, Sarah Palin's Alaska, broadcast on The-Now-Hilariously-Titled Learning Channel.

I eat meat, chicken and fish, have shoes and furniture made of leather, and PETA is not ever going to put me on the cover of their brochure and for these reasons Palin thinks it's hypocritical of me to find what she did heart-stoppingly disgusting. I don't think it is, and here's why.

Like 95% of the people I know, I don't have a visceral (look it up) problem eating meat or wearing a belt. But like absolutely everybody I know, I don't relish the idea of torturing animals. I don't enjoy the fact that they're dead and I certainly don't want to volunteer to be the one to kill them and if I were picked to be the one to kill them in some kind of of Lottery-from-Hell, I wouldn't do a little dance of joy while I was slicing the animal apart.

The problems with this are legion, but I'll stick to the disconnect between production and consumption. Palin's show is disgusting. Watching her kill a halibut by bashing its face in with a bat is not something I ever want to watch.  But halibut are killed this way. And we eat halibut. As a consumer, you are partially responsible for the production methods of the product. In this case, if you don't want to see halibut bashed in the face with a bat, don't eat halibut.

Moreover, Sorkin's claim he doesn't like to torture animals may be true enough, but hardly exonerates him from the charge of some responsibility for doing so. There are libraries full of information on factory farms and slaughterhouses discussing the inhuman ways cows are killed, how chickens live in cages no bigger than bodies, etc. This is all animal torture too. You eat factory farmed meat, you have a measure of responsibility.

The difference is that Palin shows the torture of animal production for political reasons. Her animal snuff films/reality show are loathsome. But the response from Sorkin and many others says a lot about the blissful ignorance most of us remain in when it comes to our animal products.

Shorter Sarah Palin: "I'm Just Like God"

Seriously. Nevermind the offensiveness of the claim or its (unsurprising) irrelevancy. Palin simply (and unsurprisingly) doesn't seem to understand /chooses to ignore that the problem wasn't the hand-writing itself; it was calling out Obama for using teleprompters in speeches, and then having to refer to notes on her hand to answer prepped questions. Even God didn't ever demonstrate that kind of hypocrisy.

I'd ask if there is any end to the narcissistic, shallow, faulty logic of Palin, but the answer to that question was apparent from the moment she hit the national stage.

What I Learned from Election 09

1. Money can buy you an election in NYC, but not by nearly as much as you thought.

2. "Red States" are a myth. North Carolina elected an openly gay mayor of Chapel Hill and the first Democratic mayor of Charlotte in three decades.

3. "Blue states," sadly, are also a myth, as Corzine goes down in Jersey. Any bets on whether he'll return to Goldman Sachs?

4. Boring Blue Dogs don't win close elections, progressive, dynamic reform candidates win close elections. See Deeds, Creigh, losing a state that Obama won fairly easily.

5. Palin is still poison. And Democrats have two more vote in the House.

6. People are still willing to vote to take away the rights of others. Dear Maine, I am sorely disappointed.

7. While gay marriage is still scary, apparently gay politicians, at least in cities, aren't.

8. Most importantly, there IS no coherent narrative from last night. Maybe the only thing we can say is that organizing matters, GOTV mattters, and the media don't have a clue.

Gov. Sarah Palin resigns

Huh? Is this really the way to focus on the 2012 presidential election as people are positing? What the hell is going on here? Any ideas?

Shorter Sarah Palin: "I should have the monopoly on getting fame and attention!"

If I were Levi Johnston (and words do not express the magnitude of how glad I am I'm not), I wouldn't be too worried about the Palins accusing me of undertaking "a quest for fame, attention, and fortune, are engaging in flat-out lies, gross exaggeration, and even distortion," about my relationship or anything else. Coming from the Palin camp, that sounds like a flat-out recognition of his political skills.

Why Not Give Your Kids Ridiculous Names That Very Well Could Make Them Hate You More Than They Already Will?

Am I the only one who thinks it's perhaps a little inappropriate that Bristol Palin named her baby Tripp? I mean, one of the kid's grandmothers was just arrested and charged with 6 felony counts for drugs. And the kid's name is Tripp? Really? At least the giving of stupid names to children is officially a multi-generational tradition in the Palin family now.

Republican Candidate, 2012

It's worth looking ahead to who the Republican presidential candidate might be in 2012.

You might ask, "This is so far away. It's a pointless exercise."

If we were talking about the Democrats, you'd be right. Who could have projected the Obama, Clinton, or Dukakis nominations 4 years before they happened? A few were talking up Obama, but it seemed like 2012 at the earliest. Even John Kerry was far from a given.

On the other hand, when have the Republicans nominated someone outside of their inner circle of expected candidates? McCain, W, Dole, Bush Sr., Reagan, Ford, Nixon, etc. All very expected candidates. I don't quite know enough about the Goldwater candidacy to know whether that is the last time someone came out of nowhere. If not Goldwater, we are looking back to Willikie or Landon. And that's a long time ago.

So who then are the top 5 candidates for the Republican nomination:

5. Bobby Jindal. Oh pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease. The governor of Louisiana, Jindal is a real loon and is totally unelectable. Some Republicans think he's the answer to Obama. That's because he is not white. The similarities end there. This is a man who claimed to run exorcisms in college. Yes, he is the Exorcist. He is a real extremist. The fundies love him. I place him relatively low though because they love Palin more. If Palin really loses her credibility with the base, look for Jindal to rise to #2 on this list.

4. Jeb Bush. Don't count out Jeb. At this point, his name is his biggest negative. How that will play in 4 years remains to be seen. By all accounts, he's a lot smarter than W. He is also fluent in Spanish and has a Latina wife. This would likely bring his numbers up among Latinos, making him a much better candidate in the West than McCain. I'm sure there are those in the party apparatus who would like to see this. Still, the Bush name is a huge negative and although Americans have short memories, it's hard to see him overcoming this.

3. David Petraeus. I don't actually think this will happen, but Petraeus could potentially be the candidate to unite all wings of the party. I don't even know for sure that he is a Republican, though I can't imagine that he is not. Still, unless he really establishes himself as a social conservative, I don't think the evangelicals would go along at this point.

2. Sarah Palin. The base loves her. Bill Kristol, Rich Lowry, and the punditry are in love with her. She has great appeal to the redneck side of the Republican electorate. On the other hand, her political reputation is almost beyond repair with everyone who doesn't love her. And that's like 80% of the nation. If she is the nominee, I fully expect a spate of Republican fundraisers and power brokers to openly support Obama and the electoral map to look like 1964. This is what Rob predicts but I don't think she's likely to win the nomination.

1. Mitt Romney. Romney is going to be the nominee. He's going to have support of all the money. The only way he is not the nominee is a full revolt from the base. Either way, Romney is not a scary candidate because the base is going to be dejected with Mittens and scared of his Mormonism. He is also as exciting as paste. What we are going to see in the next 4 years is a Republican civil war between Romney and Palin. It's going to be fun to watch.

Election Gossip

A few other people have linked to this, but check out this great insider info from the campaigns that Newsweek is publishing.

Among the highlights:

The debates unnerved both candidates. When he was preparing for them during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, "I don't consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."

You do have to wonder how the candidates put up with this shit. And did Brian Williams actually think that was a good question? The punditocracy is not the best and the brightest, though they certainly think that about themselves.

McCain also was reluctant to use Obama's incendiary pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, as a campaign issue. The Republican had set firm boundaries: no Jeremiah Wright; no attacking Michelle Obama; no attacking Obama for not serving in the military. McCain balked at an ad using images of children that suggested that Obama might not protect them from terrorism. Schmidt vetoed ads suggesting that Obama was soft on crime (no Willie Hortons). And before word even got to McCain, Schmidt and Salter scuttled a "celebrity" ad of Obama dancing with talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres (the sight of a black man dancing with a lesbian was deemed too provocative).

I'm not buying into the rehabilitation of McCain's reputation that he and so many others are already engaging in. However, is their any doubt that Bush and Rove (or Lee Atwater for that matter) would have used this stuff all the way? Although I would not call McCain's campaign classy in any way, it could have been worse.

NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign, and aides kept him in the dark about the details of her spending on clothes because they were sure he would be offended. Palin asked to speak along with McCain at his Arizona concession speech Tuesday night, but campaign strategist Steve Schmidt vetoed the request.

This stuff is hilarious. Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus. Wow. There sure is a lot of hatred of Palin coming from the McCain team.

Newsweek is promising more of this kind of thing. It's quality insider gossip.

If there was still any doubt about Palin’s cluelessness...

It’s ironic that after all her disastrous interviews, and catastrophic media appearances, it takes a prank phone call three days prior to Election day to rub in the fact that Sarah Palin is absolutely clueless about everything.

If you haven’t seen the youtube video of a prank call made to Palin by a Canadian comedian pretending to be French president Nicolas Sarkozy, you must.

Setting aside the fact that Palin’s staff was careless enough to put this call through (as Biden said, the same people who failed to vet Palin failed to vet this phone call), the 6-minute video is riddled with traps, ALL of which Palin fell for.

When the comedian refers to singer, Steph Carse as the Prime Minister of Canada, Palin nods along. She clearly does not know that it is Stephen Harper who is the Prime Minister of one of the countries that borders the state of which she is the executive (note that Canada abutting Alaska is part of her claim to foreign policy experience – along with being able to see Russia from her house).

When the comedian asks her about the PM of Quebec, “Mr. Richard Serroi” who is “so next to him,” Palin acknowledges that she has enjoyed working with Candian officials – Canadian officials, whose names she is curiously unaware of. Serroi is a radio personality in Quebec, a Canadian province that is nowhere near Alaska, and whose head of state is Premier Jean Charest.

Palin also seems totally unaware of jabs such as the fake Sarkozy’s statement that he could see Belgium from his house, and is curiously nonchalant to his admission that his wife is hot in bed!

In addition to being appalled at her ignorance, I find it disturbing that she laughs – almost callously - at the prankster’s clearly sarcastic remark about his love of killing animals.

"I just love killing those animals. Mmm, mmm, take away life, that is so fun," he says, and Palin snickers.

Besides all of that, how do you not know that the President of France wouldn’t just decide to pick up the phone and make small talk with a likely (god forbid) veep candidate in the US?

The McCain camp, of course, had to put a positive spin on this gaffe as well. "Governor Palin was mildly amused to learn that she had joined the ranks of heads of state, including President Sarkozy and other celebrities, in being targeted by these pranksters. C'est la vie," Palin campaign spokeswoman, Tracey Schmitt said.

That Palin is a national joke was obvious before this. That she enjoys being a national joke is clear now.

So, Exactly What Kind of Questions IS Sarah Palin Good At Answering (Besides Scripted Questions)?

Of all the delightful parts of this story, there's one portion that leaves me confused:

A Palin associate defended her [over allegations she's "going rogue], saying that she is "not good at process questions" and that her comments on Michigan and the robocalls were answers to process questions.

Um....what the hell is a "process question?" Is it a question that was formed in a process in which Palin could never take part (and therefore not be prepared for the answer)? Is it a question that requires basic cranial processes to work normally? Just what is a "process question?"


Given how Palin's history of "answering" questions has played out over the last 2 months, it's hard to see "not being good at process questions" as anything other than a jargony euphemism for "she lacks the basic brain functions and/or mastery of the English Language necessary to answer simple questions." And when your own "associates" are saying that, that's not a good sign.

The $150,000 Clothing Budget

I can't believe I am saying this, but I actually sympathize a little bit with Sarah Palin on this $150,000 clothing budget thing. Unfortunately, women in public life are judged on how they dress. And considering that her real national constituency is right-wing males like Rich Lowry who see her as a sex object as well as a political figure, it was not unreasonable for the Republican Party to make these expenditures. Plus, it is totally legal. If Obama or McCain don't look super great all the time, it's not nearly as big a deal as if Palin had a bad fashion day. Plus, those guys do look good. They wear expensive suits and clothes.

So this is a total double standard. Frankly, it's sexist.

However, there is one important caveat. And this is where I lose most of my sympathy with Palin. She based much of her appeal around the bullshit political construction that she was like you and me. This is completely absurd. She almost nothing in common with regular people. She is like W in this way. One of the most frustrating things about the 2000 election was the whole "who do you want to have a beer with" thing. It wasn't just that it was an asinine question; it was that the obvious answer was Gore. Bush is a stupid asshole frat boy. He's like a guy in a beer commercial. You think you might want to have a drink with this person. Until you meet him. Then you realize that he is a jerk. Gore on the other hand might actually have something interesting to say and would probably want to chat with you a little. And he probably has better taste in beer.

Obviously, Palin's background is less elite than Bush, but she still lives a lifestyle that is far distant from that of "average" Americans, whatever that means. So the significance of the clothing budget is not the clothes themselves. It is the exploding of the bullshit media narrative the Republicans constructed around her.

Shorter Sarah Palin: Making Alaska Pay for My Kids' Flights Also Is Not a Breach of Ethics!

If a report my home-state's legislature issued had already found me guilty of a breach of ethics in public office (despite my flat-out lie that the report said I wasn't guilty), I don't think I'd really be billing my home-state for my kids' flight expenses on PR jaunts around the country. After all, I'm pretty sure that 7-year-old Piper Palin is not conducting any "official state business" by attending hockey games or anything.

Quick Political Snark

Apparently, yesterday Sarah Palin sent out an e-mail claiming "we can't leftist groups...steal this election."

Her concern is probably fair. If any leftist group "stole" an election, it would break the monopoly of the right on stealing elections.

Palin, Petitions, Pulling out, Polling down...

Just for the record, I'm not angling for a job at Variety.

The McCain-Palin campaign's recent decision to suspend operations in Michigan was widely reported this past week, as was the latest poll that shows Obama with a very healthy 16 point lead (Rasmussen's October 8th poll).

Michigan Republicans are feeling a little abandoned and have started a petition to convince Sarah Palin to come back to Michigan.

No to be outdone, the Michigan Democratic Party has started a petition to bring Tina Fey to Michigan.

As my good friend and frequent commenter Sator Arepo might say, "an hilarious development".

On the Palin ethics probe

Once again, I have more up at GlobalComment.com

It’s official. Sarah Palin was found to have abused her authority in the firing of a public official who would not fire her state trooper ex-brother-in-law, according to the probe released Friday.

Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan refused to fire Trooper Michael Wooten, who was involved in a divorce and custody dispute with Palin’s sister. The report cites repeated attempts and pressure by Palin’s husband, Todd, the “first dude” of Alaska, to have Wooten removed from his job.

The real question is, is this having any effect on the race?

The investigation has been under way since July, and Palin originally promised to cooperate. Yet after McCain asked her to join his ticket, Republicans began to claim that the investigation was politically motivated, even despite Republican dominance in Alaskan politics.

The Wooten probe has been, until now, just another punchline in the story of McCain’s largely unvetted Veep pick: the pretty conservative with the sharp tongue and folksy manner who couldn’t name a single newspaper she reads and didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is.

Now that it’s out, will it change anyone’s mind?

Read the rest.

She's a beauty queen

So I'm used to feminist complaints about overly retouched, unrealistic photos in fashion magazines. I've even indulged in a bit of this myself (even while I photoshop zits out of my own pictures on Flickr.)

But now apparently there's some controversy (granted, this is from FOX NEWS) about an UNretouched photo of Sarah Palin gracing the cover of Newsweek.

I found this ridiculous sentence while searching: "The cover photo is a very close-up picture, which drew controversy because many people say that a close-up picture of a woman is meant to be unflattering."

To me, among many, many other things, this proves the fact that Republicans chose Palin because she was pretty, not because of any other qualities she brought to the ticket. I've seen hundreds of unflattering photos of Obama and McCain this election cycle, not to mention insulting and racist cartoons. Yet we're supposed to be up in arms because she was NOT photoshopped?

First off, from what I know of photojournalism (and I do TA in the photojournalism department of my university), altering the photo is a breach of ethics. Now, granted, that usually has more to do with adding people into events where they weren't, or making someone look worse (whoops, Fox), or, perhaps, making a black man look blacker?

So apparently I'm supposed to be up in arms because a close-up photo of a very attractive 44-year-old woman with more money than average and better skin than I've got shows what, her pores? That she's got a few fine lines?

This is ridiculous.

I write in defense of beauty rituals and makeup, glitter and sparkle and high heels and femininity. And I don't pick on Sarah Palin for using any of the above. I don't even pick on her for being "Caribou Barbie" or "Bible Spice." She's allowed to be a pretty woman and to make herself even prettier.

But what the hell is wrong with us that a simple unretouched photo is enough to set the right wing howling that it's unfair coverage? What's wrong with showing a 44-year-old woman's skin? Do they honestly think someone's going to decide not to vote for her because they can see her laugh lines?

After debates over Biden's possible Botox, and comments that Palin could wink so she clearly hasn't had it (used to imply elitism on the part of the Democrats), this whole tempest in a teapot seems forced at best. At worst, it's profoundly insulting to the woman's intelligence--and to all of ours.

But then, presidential campaigns in general are an insult to our intelligence. And the more we harp on issues like this, the more they really do seem like a beauty contest.

You, sir, are no maverick.

Say the actual Maverick family, who have a long tradition of progressive politics. Yes, the word actually comes from an actual Texas family, and they're not happy about McCain and Palin's constant use of their name.

Unfortunately, they probably can't sue to force them to stop, but it is pretty hilarious.

But the New York Times reported on Sunday that the real Mavericks - a storied south Texas family with a long tradition in progressive politics - are not too happy about what they say is the misappropriation of their family name.

“I’m just enraged that McCain calls himself a maverick,” the Times reported Terrellita Maverick, 82, saying. The San Antonio resident is the scion of a family which has been outspoken about liberal causes for generations, and has otherwise bucked conventions.-Reuters

Times

Speaking of Ties to "Terrorists"....

There are many reasons not to buy into Palin's (and McCain's) claptrap talk about Obama being linked to "terrorists," (including the fact that basically every investigation has shown little beyond occasional run-ins), and I'm sure I'm not the first one to bring this up.

That said, it's really, really, REALLY hard to swallow "terrorist" claims from a campaign that embraces Henry Kissinger, given how Kissinger intentionally worked to overthrow democratically elected leaders and actively worked to implant and support regimes murderous in Chile, Argentina, (to mention only a few just in Latin America) that collectively used state-sponsored terrorism to kill more than 34,000 of their own citizens. But calling out Kissinger for war crimes and crimes against humanity - that's just crazy-talk from obvious anti-American radicals!

.....and if the Kissinger link weren't bad enough, Dave reminds us of McCain's "Nazi fetishist" friend. I'll say this for the McCain campaign: I've never seen a campaign at any level that was so willing to rely almost entirely upon arguments against their opponent (Obama's inexperienced; Biden's old; ties to "terrorists") that the candidates levelling the charges were even more guilty of (Palin's "experience"; McCain at 72; Kissinger and Liddy). It would be funny if it weren't so real....

Where Have Our Journalistic Standards Gone?

Dave Noon, i.e., d from Lawyers, Guns, and Money, on a Bloggingheads video about Sarah Palin in the New York Times.

As a certified maverick, shouldn't I be getting top billing in our leading institutions of journalism? Dave doesn't have nearly as much mavericktude as I do! Grrr....