I've About Had It Updated

I regret the casualties of the loner loser who needed to display his madness by killing innocents.  But I have had it with the idea that this is all the fault of the Right Wing, talk radio, Sara Palin, or whatever.  This is truly disgusting.
For the most part, I do believe that the people who occupy the Left side of the spectrum are decent people who want to help others, but are sadly misinformed and ignorant of what they do.  I could just as easily say that the Left is intent on the destruction of my country, ala Cloward-Piven, but I don't.  On the other hand, when I listen to Joe Klein, Kieth Olbermann and others on the TV today, their vitriol is simply dripping as they rub their little hands with glee that they have a hammer with which to silence all of their enemies, I am forced to reconsider how malevolent the Left may actually be.
There seems to be a concerted effort to demonize all things not Democrat using this loser, pothead, stoner, madman as the vehicle.  Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein and Markos Moulitas display their contempt for facts and logic here.  Even a member of Congress as well as Andrew Sullivan are only too quick to take advantage of the situation.  And it's not just individuals acting recklessly, the "news" services are jumping on as well. 
Of course, when it was Major Hassan who opened fire killing twice as many innocents at Fort Hood, the call was for everyone to not overreact.  Or the guy who was the Discovery Channel shooter, he was also given a pass.
Let's face it, this is not an example of the Right making anyone act a certain way.  This is a boon for those on the Left to attack and try to silence those who disagree with them.  It is wrong, and it is un-American to use these sort of false accusations when you can't win the public with your argument.  It is tempting to sink to their level and act like the Islamist bastards and start to make snuff videos of innocent Leftists being beheaded.  Apparently, that is "legitimate" violence that must be appeased as opposed to the idea that belief in limited government and fiscal responsibility should ever even be discussed.
As angry as I am with the slander/libel of the leading lights of the Left, I do realize tthat there are some who would deplore the violence without limitation.  Lanny Davis is the only one that comes to mind at the moment.  It's possible that there may be one or two others.  But for the most part, their deliberate use of the tragedy for political purposes is beyond contempt.  If they don't denounce these sort of baseless accusations, I will no longer hold their opinion worthy of consideration.

The Olbermanns, Krugmans, and Kos kooks can all just go to Hell until then.

UPDATE:  I had forgotten about the Holocaust Memorial shooter and the guy who flew his plane into the IRS office a while ago.  And don't forget the murder of two soldiers in Arkansas.  All of these were committed by leftists.  In order to stop the violence, we need to silence the Left immediately.  Anything that they say can and is being used by these deranged lunatics as an excuse to murder people.  When, oh when, will the Left finally acknowledge that their hatred is so dangerous?

UPDATE 2.  As bad as it has been, now a Democrat group is using the Giffords shooting as a fundraiser.  Have they no shame?

Understanding Their Logic

Logic, as a study, is a method of analyzing problems through a structured reasoning process.  i.e. If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.  But in politics, what is called logic is anything but.
For instance, in the man made Global Warming nonsense, if it is getting warmer, it's because of global warming.  And if it's getting colder, it's because of global warming.  Are you starting to see a pattern here?  Also, make sure that you say that the scientists have formed a "consensus" that the "science is settled."  Of course, no real scientist would say that a consensus is science, nor that it is settled.  They would say that the facts prove the theory, or disprove it, or that the facts support the theory, but haven't been proven conclusively.  In any event, none of the rhetoric or ad hominem attacks that have taken place by those who want to keep the poor people of the world in their penury, without any hope of improvement for them or their children could be considered to be logic.
And then, we have violence.  In case you didn't know it, a Democratic Congresswoman from Arizona was one of a number of victims who were senselessly attacked.  Perhaps because she is a Democrat, the first allegations were that the shooter was a deranged Tea Partier.  Paul Krugman immediately blasted that without any other evidence, it had to be a Right Winger.  Of course he wasn't the only one.

Did liberals like Congressman Raul Grijalva, Arizona Democrat, Markos, Moulitsas, and Andrew Sullivan speak too soon for the sake of hoping that the Tucson shooter could have had a tea party or a right of center affiliation? From all of their statements today, both said and written, it sure seems like it.

In the parlance, this is known as making lemonade out of lemons. Someone is shot? Well, let's just use it to demonize our "Enemies" because opponents is too civilized. But it's too much fun to be a demagogue as shown in the same article about the founder of the Daily Kos:

The Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas hit Twitter at around 2pm making such statements like:

If Palin's crosshair effort was excusable, why has her PAC scrubbed her site of that page?

Arizona sheriff investigating assassination went on rant about right-wing hate radio rhetoric. He shouldn't have gone there?

How dare people "politicize" a political assassination!

F***ing American Taliban

Sharron Angle's first amendment remedies, in action. That rhetoric MATTERS.

Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin,http://is.gd/knNgl

However, Twitter followers began to point out to Mr. Moulitsas that a Daily Kos blogger by the name of "Blue Boy" posted a blog on Thursday on Mr. Moulitsas's website with the headline: "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!"

The headline was referring to Ms. Giffords's vote against now Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, for Speaker of the House. Rep. Giffords instead voted for Democratic Georgia Congressman John Lewis. After Mr. Moulitsas was bombarded about this blog on Twitter, the blog disappeared and so did a number of Tweets from @Markos for a number of hours, when the alleged shooter was later identified as Jared Lee Loughner, an obviously disturbed individual who enjoyed reading:

Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

Additionally, Moulitsas's Daily Kos placed a "bulls eye" on Rep. Giffords as well as a primary target in 2008. (h/t Hillbuzz).

Of course, he has since scrubbed the site. Can't have such obvious hypocrisy that can't be covered by the usual suspects, er, I mean the Main Stream Media.
It must be really disappointing to them that instead of being a Tea Partier, he is just a classic Democrat.

Interesting Take on Elections and Race

As we have been told, we are a "nation of cowards" when it comes to all matters of race.  But National Journal does an interesting analysis of attitudes towards Democrats based on race.  Some of it I knew anecdotaly, such as the high percentage of blue collar men and women who are Republicans.  I had explained that in the past because so much of the Democratic Party emphasis is on being a victim, and if you are white you are not allowed to be a victim, so you can't participate.  Also, I think that the blue collar workers who are white are more likely to see a future that is bigger than their present situation and circumstances.
But the article is fascinating for how the breakout of votes by races goes.  Unquestionably, minorities are going to go for Obama in 2012, and whites are probably going to continue to give the majority of their votes to the Republicans.  I think the fight is going to be over the college educated white vote.  If Obama keeps the same percentage as before, he should be able to cruise to re-election.  On the other hand, if enough white collar college educated white voters feel that the government has become too powerful and intrusive, the Republican Party should be the direct beneficiary.
The emphasis that the article puts on Colorado is especially telling.  There, the original Republican senatorial candidate was a Mr. Buck, who was a Tea Partier and a social conservative at the same time.  Interestingly, by the time the election came around, he was almost irrelevant, as Mr. Tancredo who was also of a Tea Party philosophy, but running as an Independent was the second place vote getter.   The difference was that Tancredo was less about social issues such as abortion as he was about illegal immigration.  And if Buck had bowed out, it's quite possible that Colorado would have been added to the Republican pickups.
The whole article is kind of long, but well worth it.  I suggest you read it.

I Wonder How Schweitzer is Going To Deal Wih This?

The Obama administration is going to make a new Internet ID for all Americans.  I wonder if our good Gov will be as interested in stopping this as he was the Real ID program.  Of course, I agree with him on the Real ID objection, I am just afraid that this new Internet ID coming from a Democrat will be something that he will support.
Especially since he isn't going to be re-elected.

Montana is involved in a big time scandal

Edra Blixsewth who recently came into ownership of the defunct Yellowstone Club is now being reported that four years ago, she was licking the breasts of Rep. Mary Bono of California.  Tell me that isn't reason to be reelected!

Litlle by Little, the Truth Comes Out

Even on MSNBC

Throw Me Into That Briar Patch!!

I realize that I am not necessarily the smartest person, but I am obviously head and shoulders smarter than Senate Democrats. After having had a filibuster proof majority until Scott Brown was elected, the Democrats are now saying that it was the filibuster that kept them from getting anything done. Sure they had to waste all that time buying Senators from Louisiana and Nebraska, but they could have done it if they wanted to. But after the election, the Democrats are in a lesser majority and are seeking to improve their opportunities to destroy the country er, I mean pass legislation to support their owners, George Soros and the unions like SEIU.
They want to do it by changing the rules for filibusters.  Just think, the Democrats will be able to pass legislation without the input of any Republicans whatsoever!  Joy and merriment flows throughout Lefty land.  Now they will be able to get things done!!!
Have they any cognizance of a period of time when they are not in control?  How long has it been since Democrats were in the minority?  It'll never happen again can it?  And yet, in two more years, our own Jon Tester will be replaced along with about ten more Democrat Senators, leaving the present majority leader who once said

"Some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power," he said then. "They think they're wiser than our Founding Fathers. I doubt that's true."

Good old Harry, always available for a laugh. Even if he doesn't intend it. I am sure that he will regain his reverence for the founders after January of 2013. So, go ahead and muscle through the change in rules. just be aware that what goes around comes around, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell may begin his acceptance speech by noting: "I couldn't have done it without Harry."

I Wish I Had Said This

This is just exactly how I feel, and he says it with humor and wit. To simply cite to it would not do it justice, so in the spirit of spreading the word, here in its entirety is this:

Nancy Pelosi Might Just Be Insane
Democrats cope with an openly delusional Minority Leader.
by John Hayward
01/05/2011
Trackback Link


Nancy Pelosi gave her farewell press conference as Speaker yesterday. I’ll pause while the wave of relief and euphoria passes over you, grateful American. In fact, I’ll start over, just so we can enjoy that sentence again.

Nancy Pelosi gave her farewell press conference as Speaker yesterday. It was full of the expected boasting about achievements – it’s not as if she was going to admit she was the most catastrophic failure of a Speaker in recent American history, or that her successor faces the incredibly difficult task of repairing the damage she’s done. There wasn’t even much chance she would apologize for her dereliction of duty in failing to prepare a budget for 2011, leading us into the lame-duck roller derby in December. A thank-you to America for paying vast sums of money to transport her royal family in regal splendor aboard Air Force planes would have been nice.

In the middle of shaking her own hand, however, Pelosi said this: “Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra, pay-as-you-go.”

That’s just jaw-dropping. Pelosi presided over the greatest expansion of the national debt in history, and when I say “history,” I mean the history of the planet. Our debt soared from $9 trillion to $14 trillion on her watch. It swelled by a trillion dollars in just the past seven months.

As for Pay-Go, that ridiculous lie has been debunked so many times that even the press must have been stifling gasps of astonishment. Does the name “Jim Bunning” ring a bell? He’s the senator from Kentucky who was tarred and feathered for suggesting the Democrats stick to their Pay-Go commitments, when they were bleating that extending unemployment benefits was a super-duper emergency that could not be paid for by cutting a single nickel from our titanic federal budget. They said the same thing anyone had the temerity to remind them about Pay-Go.

This is disturbingly different from the usual spin and rally-the-troops flapdoodle a political leader is expected to shovel out. Not even the skewed perspective of a Representative-For-Life from a far-left district can explain it. As John Boehner gently takes the gavel from her hands and backs away slowly, the Democrat minority in the House must face the possibility that their new Minority Leader is insane.

These People Should Not be Trusted With Sharp Objects

Much less governance.

Steny Hoyer thinks that Tea Party protesters just don't want to go home to their families. From the article:

There are a whole lot of people in the Tea Party that I see in these polls who don’t want any compromise. My presumption is they have unhappy families. All of you have been in families: single-parent, two-parents, whatever. Multiple parent and a stepfather. The fact is life is about trying to reach accommodation with one another so we can move forward. That is certainly what democracy is about. So if we are going to move forward compromise is necessary.

Mr. Hoyer also managed to assign all of the blame for the deficits to Reagan and Bush. There is just one problem with his accusation - Congress is the one who appropriates money, and he was in Congress the whole time. The blame may fall at the feet of those who cut taxes, but it also belongs at the feet of people like Steny who spent anyway. If you don't have it, don't spend it.
Otherwise it is known as theft.

Getting Old

As I approach my 55th Winter Solstice, I find that I am liking winter less and less.  In fact, I find myself dreaming of warm Summer afternoons in a baseball park, talking with friends, and waiting for the crack of a bat to direct our attention to a long fly out.
And I don't even like baseball.
Damn, where is Global Warming when you need it?

A Disturbance In The Force

Watching NBC"s Meet The Press,  I see VP Joe Biden in his own unique way claim that the Democrat's electoral losses last month are because the American people want Republicans to work with Democrats.   WTF?? What is the color of the sky in Biden's world?  That kind of rejection of Republican obstructionism could result in their total control of both houses if they keep refusing  to cooperate. That'll teach them.
But Biden's self delusion is not his alone.  If you read Michael Barone's piece about the impact of the bad choices made by Reid and Pelosi, it explains better than Biden's wrong assertion what happened.Those who persist in their failed delusions will become as relevant as the blow up dinosaurs at my grandson's birthday party.  Amusing for a moment, and quickly forgotten.
This kind of delusion cannot exist in a vacuum.  I think the reason it has lasted as long as it has is that they don't see where the power really lies.  If you think that our Senators and Representatives are our "leaders," you are confused as to what the heck is going on.  Basically, you are confronted with the notion that the peasants are revolting in spite of all the wonderful things that you wanted to do..
Let me posit another view that they are not grasping - Those in Congress have the wherewithal to realize they are in deep shit.  Especially Republicans. who used to represent Utah as Senator or the hand picked choices of the so called elites in Deleware who lost to a witch.  Not to mention the choices in Nevada and Kentucky.  The folks sitting in office can see the picture that the partisans can't.  The true power is no longer on K Street, or J Street, or any of the usual places.  If you are going to be up for election in 2012, you have to consider that if you are a Democrat you are already in deep trouble.  And if you are a Republican, you had better pay attention to the Tea Party issues or you could be primaried successfully.
Lobbyists have less power in the present Congress than angry letter writers from back home.  In the past, a  politician could make enough off of campaign donations from special interests (like Big Pharma, BP, Labor Unions) to offset the disjointed anger of the electorate.They used the money to barrage the uncaring and uninformed with advertisements to overwhelm their opposition to the politician.  Plus the politician could bring home enough in earmarks to tout what a wonderful job they are doing.
No longer.
The rules have changed, and if politicians can't figure it out, they will quickly discover they are expendable.  Just consult with Congressmen Oberstar and Obey for an example.  And all of this is taking place with a disorganized and disjointed group of Tea Partiers who are only going to get stronger at the current rate.

The End of Sen. Tester's Run

Byron York has a piece about how our junior Senator has managed to alienate the very people who got him elected.  Markos Moulitas of the Daily Kos has just declared Tester an a-hole and is not going to support Tester for re-election.  So if you take the Daily Kos crew out of the picture, who does Tester have left as a base?
The problem that Tester has is that he was elected under a false assumption that Montana was becoming more Democratic in politics.  That is the result of entirely too much drinking, and Bush fatigue.  By 2012, we will have all sobered up, and be asking George who? and what does he have to do with this guy who claims to be a Montanan?
Karl Rove used to work under the theory that you get out your base and you win, since most people don't care.  That is way out of date now, as there are Tea Partys and an aroused Independent bloc who reject the Democrat excesses of the last two years.  Tester doesn't even have a base, and the Independents are associating him with Obama and Pelosi no matter what he does. 
He should have stayed with the ones who brought him.  The rest of us don't care.

Solving DUI Problems

Gregg at ECW has a piece about the defense of an accused drunk driver that he was able to rescue from the jaws of pre-trial conviction and return his client to normal citizen status.  DUI is the new crie de couer for the obsessively over controlling of our society.  In one way, it is way too easy.  Mothers Against Drunk Driving doesn't have a version on the other side.  No one is going to advocate for drunk driving but in our search for witches to burn (otherwise known as drivers) in our new crusade, we also catch up people who are innocent and force them to prove that innocence.  Usually we do this by binding them up and throwing them in a pond.  Because water is pure, if they are guilty the water will reject them, and if they are innocent they drown.  Okay, maybe it is slightly more technical, but that is only if you believe the government.
So, here are my solutions to reducing the drunk driving rates in Montana.  First, we lead the country in DUIs per mile traveled.  Let's take the third Saturday of every month and require everyone to drive to a police station where a breath test will be administered and if you are clean, you then have to drive 500 miles that day.  This has the advantage of increasing the numerator so that we won't be leading the country any longer.
Next, I propose that we cut DUIs in half by giving all the cops in the state Saturday off.  No cops means no arrests.  Ordinary citizens would be instructed not to drive on Saturday night because we surrendered the streets to drunks. But, just like in the '70s when we quit picking up hitchhikers because they all seemed to be serial killers, and people quit hitchhiking because the only people who picked them up were serial killers, eventually with only drunk drivers on the road on Saturday night they will only kill each other.  Win-win, and no costs for incarceration or treatment.
Lastly, you need to understand that drinking and driving is not necessarily such a bad thing.  For instance, Montana has found that one out of three highway fatalities has alcohol involved.  Not necessarily under the influence, as for example the driver who is texting, runs a red light and kills a driver of another car who had two drinks.  If you think about it, this means that you are twice as likely to die if you and the other driver are both stone cold sober, than if one of you has a drink.  Therefore, in the same spirit of you should always bring a bomb on board any plane you fly, because what are the chances that there are two bombs, we should all have a drink or two and go for a drive.
This solution to a vexing problem is offered gratis as a public service.

With Apologies to Pogie

Earlier, Pogie had accused me of Limbaugh economics, if I remember right.  Of course, since I work, I don't get to listen to Limbaugh, but the accusation is always thrown around as an attempt to preemptively discredit someone by guilty through association even if there is not association.  And while I am sure that Pogie is smarter than me, I just had to marvel at this fun exchange:

Chickens Coming Home to Roost

I had written a piece about my objections to earmarks earlier, in response to Tester and Baucus' support of them. Now we have the ultimate earmark: $48 Billion to

funnel money into the inner cities to give money to the poor and thereby produce a much larger consumer class to buy the goods and services produced in this country.

Why try any of those anti-poverty programs that have been around for 45 years? They apparently take too long. Sure there aren't any specifics on how to do all this, but it's an earmark people. We do it all the time. Although why it took this long before some enterprising politician figured out the power of earmarks is the question of the day.
While we're at it, let's use the power of earmarks to eliminate Iran's nuclear capability for all time. Jon could get in on this and pump up his foreign relations cred points.

Budgetary Kabuki

Color me confused at the moment. After the House Democrats freaked out about allowing the top tax bracket to remain as it is, rather than jumping the tax on the so called wealthy, Democrats in the Senate decided that millionaires need unemployment insurance. The measure to eliminate millionaire benefits was brought as a small token to pay for the continuation of the tax cuts and the extension of unemployment benefits. And it was small, very small, saving an estimated $100 million over the next ten years. Was it purely theater, absolutely. But it is fun to see Democrats now standing up for millionaires.
Also note that Jon Tester voted with the Republicans against the measure. I am beginning to think that Jon needs to get a name change. After all, for the next two years he is going to be called "endangered Democrat" Tester. But after 2012 he can go back to just plain Jon.
Or "the former Senator."

Lies and Lying Liars

I had posted about the absolute hatred the Left has for the so called "rich,"  and asked the question

Why is it that the extension of the middle class tax cuts is supposed to be stimulative, but they claim research shows that tax cuts for the wealthy is not? Is the money of the rich marked differently than that of the middle class? Does the size of the cut matter if you have enough to go to McDonalds one more night a month than before, versus somebody who buys a car and all the workers that helped manufacture the care?

to which Pogie offered

I think the only reason you haven't seen an answer about why tax cuts have more stimulative value for the middle class is because you haven't looked. Try Google. I hear it provides information with just some typing and a few clicks.

I also wonder how the Right can maintain that the Bush tax cuts stimulated the economy, given the evidence of the past 8 years. What did they do exactly?

My response to Pogie was perhaps unfair, in that I argued that he was relying on Democrat talking points, and that I wouldn't do that. So, lo and behold, we have Reason's Hit and Run by Nick Gillespie showing that the Bush tax cuts (although it was really the Bush tax rate cuts) actually provided more revenue to the treasury.
Well, how can that be, we have been told for the last ten years that only the "rich benefited from the tax cuts. Lie! If you look at the tables provided by Nick, you see that

In 2000, for instance, the top 1 percent of income earners paid 37.42 percent of all income taxes collected. In 2008, they paid 38.02 percent. That's down a bit from the peak of 2007 and reflects the recession hitting. The bottom 50 percent of filers saw their share of the income tax burden fall from 3.91 percent to 2.7 percent. Two groups in the upper half of the income distribution made out, it seems: Folks coming in between between 10 percent and 25 percent of income and those between 25 percent and 50 percent. Each saw their share of total tax collected decline a bit (like the share of taxes paid, this reflects the recession).

Now, the Left at this point will usually say that this is due to the accumulation of wealth by the top earners. Okay, so what? It is not a zero sum game. Everyone can get rich, and some can get richer than others. But that is not the same argument as the rich don't help the economy.

The Recovery is Coming, The Recovery is Coming!!!

The only good thing about the Great Recession is that there has been a significant reduction in all of those junk mail credit card applications.  Apparently, that is about to end. 
It makes sense since companies have been hoarding cash in anticipation of a more favorable business climate once the Democrats were finally restrained.  With a Republican House, which is where all the spending bills originate, the hopes being that Republicans will stick to their promises about deficit reduction.  The Republicans should take note, because if they don't, the blood bath from last election will look like a burbling fountain in comparison.

Hatred is an Ugly Thing

House Democrats are throwing a hissy fit over the extension of the Bush tax cuts that they had excoriated for so long as only benefiting the wealthy.  But their rhetoric is running smack dab into reality with the coming expiration.  When that happens, the middle class is going to be creamed in a way that they will understand what the real effect is of those tax cuts.
But the Looney Left would rather see the rates rise on the Middle Class than to extend them to the so called "wealthy,"  Think about that for a minute.  The Democrats would deny an extension of unemployment benefits to people out of work in order to punish their nemesis "the rich."  Hatred of this sort is honestly refreshing, in that they are no longer even pretending to be on the side of the "little guy,"  Nope, this is all about social engineering..
But I do have one question that I just have not seen answered, and I really wish someone could explain it to me.  Why is it that the extension of the middle class tax cuts is supposed to be stimulative, but they claim research shows that tax cuts for the wealthy is not?  Is the money of the rich marked differently than that of the middle class?  Does the size of the cut matter if you have enough to go to McDonalds one more night a month than before, versus somebody who buys a car and all the workers that helped manufacture the care?
The absolute dishonesty of the Democrats is only matched by the Republicans who think that the agreement with the President is a good deal.  What in the world do wind subsidies or money for ethanol or Nascar have to do with tax cuts?  The fact that they couldn't keep those out show the Republicans are either not serious, or they are easily rolled.

Letter to the Editor

I sent this off to the Missoulian, and figured I might as well post it here as well since blogging has been slow.

The guest columns of Sen. Tester and Sen. Baucus explaining why earmarks are good have clarified what the problem is.  The problem is us.  We are the enablers of a dysfunctional set of elected officials.

Like any addict, they are quick and quite clever in validating their source of addiction while at the same time blaming the enabler for allowing the addict to keep using.   “If only you loved me more, I would quit using alcohol/meth/heroin/earmarks.  It’s all your fault that I haven’t been able to give them up.”  And don’t we love our addicts when they are happily using?  Isn’t it easier to deal with them when they are high, than when they are scrambling around trying to find a fix?

But eventually the money runs out, having been consumed by the addiction.  And boy has the money ran out in regards to earmarks.  The two Senators argue that if they don’t allocate the money via an earmark, some faceless bureaucrat will allocate the money inappropriately (might go to New York City or somewhere in California rather than here).  Well here is a novel thought – Don’t allocate money that is not specifically in the whole bill.  That is, if it isn’t important enough for the whole Senate to consider the allocation, then it isn’t important enough to be spent.  The net result will be less appropriations, and yes, less skate parks, or improved parking lots, but that isn’t such a bad thing when we are basically a hair’s breadth away from bankruptcy.