Legal Insurrection has a run-down on the Alabama special election to replace Jeff Sessions in the Senate. The Outsider Trump-like candidate Roy Moore is polling in the lead while the Establishment guy, Luther Strange, is coming up second. Winning the GOP primary is to win the Seat – but to win it outright, one of the candidates has to get 50%…if no one does, the top two go to a runoff. Oddly, Trump endorsed McConnell’s guy, Strange (who was appointed by the governor to fill Sessions’ seat) – and that endorsement was right before Trump started ripping into McConnell a bit over the Obamacare failure. Very odd – some are holding this as a mere Trump mistake in endorsing the Establishment guy and that we True Conservatives should push back and help the Outsider win…which would help Trump in the long run. I’m not so sure – mostly because I’m not so sure that Trump has it in for McConnell while I’m getting more and more convinced that Trump’s best friend on Capitol Hill might be McConnell.
McConnell is a realist – he knows that for better or worse, the fortunes of the GOP go with Trump. Trump wins, GOP wins – Trump loses, GOP loses. For someone like McConnell, it doesn’t matter what you think about Trump: all that matters is how to work Trump for the benefit of the GOP. And, of course, someone like McConnell has an extremely thick skin – he’s not about to go into a fuss about some bull-in-the-china-shop stuff from Trump. Furthermore, the “battle” between McConnell and Trump might be rather contrived – designed to allow Trump to continue to burnish his anti-Establishment street cred at no real cost while Trump and McConnell quietly lay the groundwork for legislative victory in the future…and in that, both McConnell and Trump won’t need ideologically committed warriors, but “party men” who will do what the leadership wants…and, so, Strange would be their guy. We’ll see how it comes out.
Serena Williams opined that she was excited about the prospect of being a mother as it would make her feel like “a real woman”. The left reacted to this as you would expect. I’ll have to defer to mothers out there about just how being a mother makes one feel – but I suspect that a gigantic amount of biology hangs upon the fact of being a mother. The basic characteristic of feminism is to deny what is distinctly feminine – as I noted in a very long quote from Chesterton the other day. There is a gigantic level of absurdity out there in feminism which holds that women can only be happy if they do things that men do…as if being a wife, mother and homemaker is somehow less than being a rent-seeking politician, or some such. Hate to break it to everyone, but being a mother is the absolute most important thing anyone can be – because if we don’t have mothers, we don’t have people.
Hillary was recently videotaped being normal- V the K comments:
…I get that except for a few embarrassingly deranged and obsessed dead-enders like Peter Daou and Lena Dunham, most people recognize that Hillary is over. It’s not about sticking another fork in the old bag, it’s… what … psychologically speaking… is her deal? First it was the ‘spontaneous meeting’ in the woods with a ‘neighbor’ who turned out to be a Hillary 2016 campaign worker. And now, it’s this ‘casual stroll’ in New York City carefully documented by a professional videographer.
First of all, what is the source of this psychological need to present herself as a normal person? Real, normal people don’t obsess over being perceived as real normal people. Second, why is the vehicle for her portraying herself as a normal person… carefully choreographed and stage-managed ‘spontaneous events?’ that are professionally documented and provided to the press…
My guess: she’s laying the groundwork for another run in 2020…yet another re-invention of her persona: in this case, the wise Elder Stateswoman who took her loss with grace and will now bless us with the opportunity of correcting our deplorable error in 2016.
The Nation says that the DNC hack was actually an inside job. One crucial bit of information – which does need to be checked, I don’t have anything like the knowledge to opine on it’s validity – is that the amount of data taken was too much to be done via a remote hack: that it would have to have been done by plugging into the computer in question. Anyone savvy on tech issues is free to advise. But I’ve long suspected it was an inside job – perhaps by some disgruntled Bernie supporters. What I’m really looking for is a way to tie all this together – the hack, the absurd Russia collusion story, that bogus dossier used to smear Trump (and perhaps as justification for a FISA warrant on his team), and Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ bizarre IT guy. We could be sitting on a scandal the likes of which DC has never seen – seriously: make Watergate pale in comparison.
Don Surber notes that last year’s election was the 9/11 of our Progressives – they’ll never get over it. And probably never cease to be rather insane about it.
Blogs For Victory 
I notice that most, if not all, of the “feminists” out there are urban types. Yet rural women have been doing what men do for centuries, with no fuss and no fanfare. I grew up in a world where women did “womanly” things—bore children, fixed meals, acted as homemakers—-and also drove tractors and big trucks, handled livestock, etc. It’s just the way things are on a farm or ranch.
When I hear that a little girl “identifies” as a boy, I wonder if she really just wants to be able to do what boys do, if she is just rebelling against the societal concept of “what girls do”. But in a world where people just do what has to be done, without regard to what is in their pants, there doesn’t seem to be as much gender confusion or angst. In a world where a girl can, and often does, not only can peaches and bake cakes but also rope cows and hunt elk, as well as being a mother, there isn’t any need to choose a gender to be able to choose activities that are rewarding.
I just wonder if most, if not all, of this newly discovered “gender identity” isn’t due to artificial gender roles established by (mostly) urban society. It is possible, and at least in much of the West quite common, for a woman to work all day on a big backhoe, digging boulders out of a pasture, and then clean up and put on makeup and a pretty dress and go to a cocktail party. I know—that has been my life.
So when I hear that a little girl “wants to be a boy” my question would be “why?” I think if her parents would drill down a little to find out what it is about being a boy that she identifies with, and make those elements a part of her life, she and they would be a lot better off than if they start calling her Fred and announcing that she is really a boy. She should be taught that she can learn to rebuild an engine, drive a truck, or do whatever appeals to her, and still be a girl and then a woman. That’s what good parenting is. And if little George says he is really a girl, it seems prudent to find out what it is about girlness that makes him feel better than boyness. It might be as simple as being intimidated by things expected of boys, such as sports or even growing up to have the responsibilities of fatherhood. It isn’t necessary to start calling him Nancy and pumping him full of hormones while planning to mutilate his body.
I grew up as a true feminist—that is, as a woman who did not think it necessary to be limited by societal restrictions on what women could do. That did not involve hating men, or engaging in strident screeching displays of rage. What is so funny to me now is the fact that most if not all of those restrictions are now gone—women drive big over-the-road semis, fly fighter jets, become engineers, shoot guns, etc. Yet the numbers of militant “feminists” seem to be growing, and their rage seems to be escalating, which tells me it doesn’t really have much to do with gender roles and has a lot more to do with personality disorders.
An interesting article on Public Discourse, comparing the arguments for slavery in the 19th Century with arguments for abortion in the 21st:
Like slavery, abortion has become in the leftist mind the central political issue, on which the economic and social liberties of the modern United States all hang.
……………………
On some level, Calhoun and other pro-slavery ideologues recognized that any “right” to slavery would be destroyed the moment the United States recognized that nature’s law affirmed the liberty of enslaved African Americans. Lindy West similarly holds that the human and civil rights of women would be undermined if the rights of the unborn were recognized. Even to question the right to abortion is “to be, at best, indifferent to the disenfranchisement, suffering and possibly even the death of women. At worst it is to revel in those things, to believe them fundamental to the natural order.” For West, abortion is the key to women’s economic, political, and social rights in the United States. If abortion were to be shown to be inconsistent with the natural order, then Lindy believes every freedom gained for women would evaporate.
……………………………..
It should be entirely unsurprising that another form of human bondage, even more immediate and grotesque in its finality, has been identified by progressives as the source of economic liberty. Slavery transformed from tragedy, to positive good, to the indispensable freedom of slaveholders. Abortion has likewise transmogrified from regrettable necessity (“safe, legal, and rare”), to positive good, to the essential liberty of the progressive left. As Lindy West declared without subtlety: “Abortion is not a fringe issue. Abortion is liberty.”
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/08/19869
Look at the overheated demagogic rhetoric of this ardent and strident pro-abortion advocate: Even to question the right to abortion is “to be, at best, indifferent to the disenfranchisement, suffering and possibly even the death of women. At worst it is to revel in those things, to believe them fundamental to the natural order.” The pro-abortion movement has moved beyond the pious murmuring of merely advocating CHOICE to finally admitting its true heart, which is to advocate the death of the unborn. And this creature, Lindy West, actually claims that people who want to protect those innocent lives revel in the “…suffering and possibly even the death of women..” Yet she does not acknowledge the obvious fact that she, herself, revels in the suffering and death of infants tortured in the womb, dismembered and sold off for parts as they are destroyed. Her glee at the prospect of millions of such deaths is palpable.
There’s a lot going on lately that is cause for concern, but I think the most insidious and eventually damaging thing is the absolute utter stupidity of the Right. I can just see the Left snickering at the ease with which they have us spouting their own rhetoric, as damaging as it is to the Right. It’s like the old sibling game where big brother uses little brother’s own hand to hit him and then gloats “you’re hitting yourself”. But in this grown-up, 21st Century malignant version the Left doesn’t even have to physically hold the hand of the Right to get it to slap itself silly. The Left just tosses out a word, or a phrase, one that creates an ugly perception of the Right, and then the Right picks it up and bludgeons itself with it.
Case in point: Judge Jeannie’s show last night. She was so hung up on the invented term “alt-right” she couldn’t wait to insert it into practically every sentence she said. She also managed to quote the terrorists’ claim of wanting to “unite the Right”. Gee, thanks a bunch, Judge Jeannie—–nothing like an alleged conservative with a national platform spreading the concept that these thugs have anything at ALL to do with the Right.
It comes back to the failure of the Right to define itself, allowing the term to be haphazardly applied to all sorts of social issues instead of insisting that it reflect only a political philosophy based on commitment to constitutional government. The Right may not have as many politically ignorant and illiterate members as the Left, but we have enough to poison the well by loudly insisting that being a conservative means being against abortion, or not liking homosexuality, etc. When the Right allowed a political term to be hijacked, without protestation, and then be applied as a definition to all sorts of non-political beliefs, it set itself up.
And the canny Left, always light years ahead of the Right when it comes to understanding how to manipulate emotions and perceptions, naturally took advantage of this and jumped on the invented term “alt-right” and assigned it to some very ugly and very volatile concepts. It’s possible that, like “neocon”, its origins were mild and benign, in this case a shorthand for conservatives who didn’t like Trump, who were an “alternative” to the Right that elected him. But, like “neocon”, it was a catchy phrase and so had great appeal to the propagandists of the Left, who started to use it as an official name for crackpots in general and lately for violent white supremacists. The only reason that worked is because so many on the real Right blindly and stupidly picked up the phrase and used it, even as it morphed into the atrocities we saw in Charlottesville. They knew we would carry their water for them, once they fed us a catchphrase. And some on the Right have done just that.
And so we had Dipshit Jeannie, in that fingernails-on-a-blackboard voice of hers, stridently associating the word “right” with the violent rioters —over and over and over again, nonstop. Except when she repeated the claim that the rioters had the goal of “uniting the Right”.
If she had half the IQ she thinks she has, she would have started off with a disclaimer, that the term “alt-right” is deceptive and has nothing at all to do with the Right in any way, shape or form, that it is being used to smear the Right and actually refers to anarchists and domestic terrorists. And then she would never have used their own term again. She would have touched on the claim of wanting to “unite the Right” and pointed out that they have nothing in common with the Right, and that this is a statement designed to imply that their toxic and virulent views are somehow related to the Right, when they are in fact firmly in the territory of the Left and its dependence on mobs and riots. And then neither phrase or comment would have been given air time by her in the rest of the show, and she would have sharply corrected any guest who used them.
But no, she and so many others are quite happily trudging along pulling the wagon for the Left, using its own derogatory terminology and dragging the Right deeper into the muck with every ignorant word.
“We have met the enemy and it is us.” Pogo
So now the question I have is, was this clash an intended situation by McAuliffe and others on the left to create obstruction and distraction for Trump, particularly since the police were seemingly told to stand down? Will this be the start of many more such confrontations? Will these confrontations lead to civil war? I get the sense the puppet masters are hard a work pulling the strings on the unsuspecting sheeple to create situations where they can cast blame on their enemy for all the problems and demand they be put in charge to “fix” the problem. Who knows where this will go. I doubt those puppet masters have a real grasp of the extent the fire will spread and how it will ultimately affect them or anyone else.
Indeed – of course, I do smell a bit of a set-up in Charlottesville. It was a demonstration by a couple hundred racist nitwits…and yet a very large contingent of Leftist counter-protestors were there and the MSM some how had cameras all ready to go. The allegation that the cops were ordered to stand down – thus ensuring there would be violence – just tends to confirm my view of a set-up. The idea would be get white racists in a ruckus; blame Trump and all his supporters; make the GOP disavow them in a blanket way; party divisions for a busted GOP in 2020; Democrats back in power.
Personally, I don’t think it’ll work out that way: I think people can pretty easily see, even through the MSM fog, that the racist nitwits only speak for themselves. Trump got a lot of flack for his “all sides” condemnation of violence, but in the long run that was exactly the way to put it: we have to put the left on the defensive on this. They are going to try to paint us all as closet racists just waiting for our chance so we have to push back and make them out to be violent Communist revolutionaries waiting for their chance…mainly in order to eventually either force the Democrats to condemn or embrace the antifa types…and either course of action would be deadly for the Democrats (they don’t dare disavow BLM and the rest because that makes up at least 25% of their vote – disavow them, and there will be a far left Third Party candidate sucking up at least 10% of the vote in 2020).
How the Liberal Media Created Charlottesville
Interesting piece that fits with what I suspect was a well planned “disaster” created by the left.
Last link didn’t seem to work – hopefully this does.
Sorry for the invalid link – one more try
The Nation may be anti-Trump but it supports the theory that even a blind pig can find an acorn, sometimes. I think this is an important article, which addresses not only the falsehood that Russia hacked the DNC but also how the false clues were planted to lead to an assumption of Russian involvement.
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
From the article: The emphasis here is in the article.
Forensicator’s first decisive findings, made public in the paper dated July 9, concerned the volume of the supposedly hacked material and what is called the transfer rate—the time a remote hack would require. The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.
These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed. Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania, which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds.
Time stamps in the metadata indicate the download occurred somewhere on the East Coast of the United States—not Russia, Romania, or anywhere else outside the EDT zone.
What is the maximum achievable speed? Forensicator recently ran a test download of a comparable data volume (and using a server speed not available in 2016) 40 miles from his computer via a server 20 miles away and came up with a speed of 11.8 megabytes per second—half what the DNC operation would need were it a hack. Other investigators have built on this finding. Folden and Edward Loomis say a survey published August 3, 2016, by http://www.speedtest.net/reports is highly reliable and use it as their thumbnail index. It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively. Peak speeds at higher rates were recorded intermittently but still did not reach the required 22.7 megabytes per second.
“A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer,” Folden said. “Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible.”
If Mueller and his group spends even half their time looking into the real facts as opposed to of the claims made by the democrats about Russia and the DNC server compromise, they’d likely prosecute dozens of individuals, mostly on the left. It will be interesting to see how he makes public his findings and what he brings to light. Though he has a powerful position, if he misuses that power and decides to push for prosecution where it doesn’t fit and it’s later found out things that his team didn’t expose (almost certain to happen at some point in the near future), he may be in as much hot water as anyone he tries to bring down.
The fact that Trump is our best option speaks volumes to the corruption, dysfunction, and incompetence that has infected our government and why not, it’s an easy gig. Pay is great, benefits are awesome, and there is no accountability. Just get donors and special interests lined up behind you and win an election every 2 or 6 years. Once you’ve won one or two, the rest get easier.
Term limits is the only way we can at least guarantee that we change out the idiots every now and then and hopefully limit the corruption.
“One crucial bit of information – which does need to be checked, I don’t have anything like the knowledge to opine on it’s validity – is that the amount of data taken was too much to be done via a remote hack: that it would have to have been done by plugging into the computer in question.”
Professional technology person here. The specific assertion in The Nation is that:
“On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.
These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed.”
That’s just plain ridiculous. 22.7 megabytes per second put into terms as per how ISPs generally sell services is just 180 megabit. Residential services have been sold as fast as a Gigabit (1000 megabit) since well before mid-2016. Commercial lines have been available at those speeds for decades. Heck, if your phone has LTE, it comes just shy of being able to download that quickly (LTE is rated at up to 173 megabit).
And that’s if you’re transmitting it raw. It turns out that natural language text can be compressed usually on the order of 10x, and almost any file transfer software will do that compression automatically. Assuming that the data in question was primarily text, you’d only need about an 18 megabit connection to transfer that much data.
I just went to look, and the worst internet plan my two available broadband providers would collectively offer to sell me was 50 megabit.
For even more bonus points, if a hacker wanted to steal those emails and all he had was a dialup modem, he STILL could manage to download 2 gigs in less than 87 seconds. All he’d have to is rent a server in a data center someplace and use his modem to dial into it and then transfer the file to the rented server. The server is going to be sitting in a data center someplace sitting basically on the backbone of the internet, so speed wouldn’t be an issue there, and then he could just transfer it from the data center to his personal computer (or to wikileaks) at his leisure. The download would still take “87 seconds” as far as the length of the break in was concerned.
The TLDR is that The Nation is hilariously wrong. I’ll leave it to you to decide whether it is due to incompetence or intentional predation of ignorant readers.
I can’t dispute your facts, because I just don’t have enough knowledge. But one question does come to mind: a hack has to break in, right? The amount of time would be from start of break-in to completion of transfer. Enough time for that?
I actually had to go track down what they were using as a source to answer the question of whether the 87 seconds was a complete timeframe for the hack or just the file transfer time. It turns out it is actually neither.
The assumed transfer rate is actually based on last modified timestamps on files in the archive. There’s no ledger for that sort of thing, so it literally would have been just the timestamps that were written last on any system, including a variety of different file operations that could have taken place on the creator of the dump’s system well after the hack took place. In other words, even the idea that there is proof that the download happened in 87 seconds is a farce. The download could have happened over many hours, and then the files could have been copied from one place to another on the hacker’s system using the bog standard linux utility for moving files (cp) and the timestamps in question would be overwritten, obliterating any evidence of what happened during the hack itself.
But assuming for a second the 87 seconds has any validity at all, it was never even claimed to be the total time of the break-in, just the reverse-engineering duration of the actual file transfer itself.
Here’s the blog post that The Nation is using as a “source” if you are interested:
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
So what’s your point? Is it that Russia really did hack the DNC (and that all the evidence that this did not happen is bogus) or is it just a general objection to the process described in the article?
Keep in mind that this report does not stand alone in its repudiation of the claim that the DNC was not only “hacked” but that the Russians did it. The only source of that claim is the DNC, while Assange, who received data from the DNC files, insists that a DNC insider took the info and handed it off, physically, to someone who got it to Assange. The person who received the data says the same thing, saying it was physically handed to him in a park meeting. (A disaffected DNC employee was murdered in a “botched robbery”—-so “botched” that no effort was made to actually, you know, ROB him, soon after the revelation of sensitive DNC info.) The DNC refused to let the FBI have access to its system, at least not till it had been gone over by its own operatives, who were then the source of the claims of both hacking and Russian participation.
An early FBI report commented that while other hacking that had actually been traced to Russia was very sophisticated, leaving very little in the way of clues or footprints, this pointed to Russia in such a blatant and clumsy way it was suspect. That is explained in the article, where it discusses the cut-and-paste of data into a template based on the Russian language.
Try, you address the speed issue, and only that, as an alleged “professional technology person”. I’m not sure what that is, in your case, as it’s a wildly broad and vague description of pretty much anyone who might be involved in “tech”. Given your oft-proved bias and self-alignment with a movement that depends on lies and misdirection, and given my lack of similar experience with The Nation, at this point I tend to give more credence to the article than to your disclaimer. I’m not even sure why you are writing—-are you defending the claim of hacking, defending the claim of Russian hacking, or just taking issue with the article’s claims about timing? You seem to be buying into the assertion that Wikileaks got its information from a hack. Also, you seem to be asserting that the reference “Folden and Edward Loomis say a survey published August 3, 2016, by http://www.speedtest.net/reports is highly reliable and use it as their thumbnail index” is less meaningful than your anecdotal stories of your personal experiences. The article cites specific sources for its conclusions, not just advertising from internet providers promising high speed connections. Have you ever measured the speed of your connections? How? In a way that contradicts the actual findings of actual measurements by speedtest.net ?
As I said, I’m not a Nation reader or follower, but the web site shows a strong anti-Trump sentiment, so it is hard to figure out why it would go to so much trouble and print an article that, according to you, is so easily disproved it has no credibility, when that article debunks the Left’s claim of Russian hacking to influence the election. “Intentional predation” is a hallmark of the Left in its unceasing efforts to undermine constitutional American government, efforts based most recently on efforts to destroy the Trump administration by any means possible, so it doesn’t quite track that something that supports the Trump administration assertion, and the Russian assertion, that there was no Russian hacking of the DNC would be “intentional predation of ignorant readers”. I’ll need to see the article debunked by someone with more credibility than you have to question it.
Shouldn’t we EXPECT Russia and other nefarious countries to try and hack and influence our elections? Safe guards and fire walls should have been in place years and years ago. There is also that little annoying fact that not one vote was altered, so again, I don’t understand why the lefts panties are so wadded up. After all, the Obama administration went as far as donating money and sending over campaign staff to help influence Israel’s election, so where is the outrage there?
This is as much merit to this Russia story as there is to climate change.
All of these gasps of horror and outrage and surprise at the very THOUGHT that Russia might want to penetrate the supposedly secret files of the DNC, the RNC, the State Department and so on are just silly. Of course they spy on us. Duh. And we spy on them. Spying on other countries has only been going on since mankind developed nations. Smart countries, or smart people in those countries, take reasonable steps to try to prevent spying. It just so happens that Democrats don’t.
Now the stunned Left is convinced that this never ever happened until 2016, and then only because of some malignant desire to prevent poor beloved Saint Hillary from achieving her rightful role as leader of the free world.
Nations are run by people, and as I pointed out a few weeks ago, Putin had more than ample reason to hate Hillary and Bill and to enjoy a chance to jab at them a little, make them uncomfortable and maybe even deprive them of a victory. Maybe. After all, they screwed him so many times, it was no surprise that he might have gotten a kick out of a little payback. But as you point out, there is not the slightest hint of evidence that Russia went beyond merely making some unpleasant Clinton facts public—and the fact that that data even existed is fully on the heads of the Clintons. What hurt Hillary was the truth about her and her antics and failures. IF Russia played a hand in exposing those acts of stupidity and/or greed and/or incompetence, and that is still an IF, Russia did not create those acts. Russia did not invent false stories about those acts. All Russia did, IF Russia did anything, was let them be known.
We also need to be aware of the efforts on the part of the Left to conflate what is probably actual hacking, of the State Department server, with the non-hacking exposure of some DNC documents. Just look at the purposeful intermingling of words in accounts from the Left—now it is “emails” from the DNC, when before it was records that included emails. There is a concerted effort to do two things simultaneously. One is to downplay the significance of whatever was taken or discovered, either through hacking of State Department records or theft of DNC records, the effort to cast them as mere “emails”. Not so. And one is to conflate the actual hacking of State Department servers with the theft of DNC records. Both of these efforts to confuse and mislead include large amounts of inference that Russia did it all, which is implied to mean Trump was behind it.
It’s a massive disinformation/misinformation effort, and of course the poor befuddled Right can’t keep track of it all and gets suckered into responding to the Left’s current incarnation of “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
Watching the Left getting the Right spinning in circles and not knowing what even happened, much less what to do about it, always reminds me of the Key and Peele sketch “Fronthand Backhand”—-and it is the Right getting slapped silly because we can’t figure out what is happening. We are Tyrell.