Giants update

The loss in Cleveland in October was a good loss for the Giants--on the road, against a non-conference opponent, where nothing worked. The offense and defensive lines had been dominant up to that game, and both were terrible in Cleveland.

Since then, the line play as been very good, especially on the offensive side. Today they made the Ravens defensive line look like the Seattle Seahawks or San Francisco 49ers. That is, sad. Another 200+ yard night for the "Earth, Wind, and Fire" running back trio.

To complete the full list of elements, let's call the defense "Water" because no offense catches fire against them. The line is sack-happy and run-stopping, and the secondary is making interceptions. The linebacker corps is the weakest part of the defense, but no one has seriously burned them.

Yes, Eli Manning is not sparkling. Another sub-200 yard performance and a dumb interception. However, when your offense runs for over 200 yards per game, you're not asking your quarterback to light it up. He is managing the game well, using the hard count expertly. At one point, he drew the Ravens off-sides on two consecutive plays, turning a 3rd and 7 into a first down. I would like to see him run for a first down every once in a while to keep the opposing LBs guessing, but I'm not complaining.

The team is now 9-1. With Dallas beating Washington tonight, the Giants need, at most, three more wins to go to the playoffs. People are talking about how tough the Giants schedule is for the rest of the season. Absent major injuries (knock on wood), I see the Giants going 14-2. They may lose either to Dallas or Washington on the road, but not to both.

The worst part of the Sunday football that I saw today was a complete abuse of the replay system in Pittsburgh. On the last play of the game, San Diego tried lateraling to keep the play alive. Palumalu broke up the play and went into the end zone for an apparent touchdown as time expired. Yay! Game over! Time for the 60 Minutes interview with Obama. But no, the officials actually needed to review the play to determine whether the first lateral was actually a forward lateral, which, if called, would have ended the play and negated the touchdown. So the officials keep the players on the sidelines to review the play. After a few minutes of confusion on the field, the officials determined that it was a forward lateral and therefore no touchdown.

The game was over. The players were pissed off. Tomlinson looked like he could have ripped off someone's head. Just let them walk off the field.

Predictions so close!

Rounding to the nearest whole number, I nailed the popular vote percentages. I was off by no more than 3 electoral votes. I thought Ron Paul would get a few extra percentage points in Montana and deliver the state to Obama. Nebraska may give one electoral vote to Obama, so I may be just two off. I did think that Missouri, not Indiana, would go to Obama, but each has 11 electoral votes, so it didn't affect my EV prediction. I would also like to add that I pretty much nailed the 2006 election under my nom de plume Auguste Blanqui.

1. Barack the Community Organizer won this election. A Democratic nominee doesn't win North Carolina, Indiana, and Virginia without a strong grassroots organization. Sarah Palin mocked Obama's experience as a community organizer, but that experience got him to the White House and sent Palin back to whatever hole she came from.

2. McCain was not doomed to fail just because he was a Republican and the economic crisis. According to the national exit polls, when asked whether McCain would continue Bush's policies, 48% of voters said yes and 48% said no. That's not a bad number for a Republican nominee. McCain lost voters in September when his response to the economic crisis was so erratic, confused, etc. I still say he would have been a real maverick and maybe won the election if he blasted the final bailout bill as a gift to special interests. "Barack's bailout," proof he's a tax-and-spend liberal suckered by the special interests--now that could have been a powerful message.

3. There was not a "John McCain of 2000" and a "John McCain of 2008." They are the same person, one without any principles, only ambition. He all but admitted that in his own book! How can you be in the Senate for over 25 years and not have a domestic policy?

4. I have a poodle for the Obama girls. Take my dog, please!

5. Joe the Plumber was the best poster boy for Republican workin' class support since Dicky Flat.

I am hopeful that some things will get done. Bill Clinton didn't get a lot done because he was too sensitive to criticism from within his cabinet, Congress, and the press. He also didn't lay the groundwork for Congressional support for his more visionary proposals. He thought he could dictate to the Democratic Congress. Obama is more strategic in his actions and doesn't seem to be as sensitive as Bill Clinton. I think he'll be a much better party and national leader.

This nonsense that we are a "center-right" nation is just, well, nonsense. We are a mish-mash of a lots of people with lots of different perspectives. Each few years, some of us vote, most of our votes are counted, and one candidate wins. To the extent that you can come up with an average representing the collective will of the people of the United States, it looks pretty left of center right now.

Obama won a mandate (whatever the heck that means). He earned some political capital in this election, and if he doesn't spend it now, the political bank is going to go bust and Obama will find that his account isn't FDIC-insured. Obama and Congressional Democrats will be better off fulfilling campaign promises than "moderating" their agenda.

Predictions

Obama, 53%, 367 electoral votes.
McCain, 46%, 171 EVs.

I anticipate voting lines in important areas to resemble South Africa, 1994. And not just full of black people. I mean just long.

I am also expecting the Obama GOTV effort to swing some toss up states (FL, NC, MO, MT) and keep small leads in other battleground states (OH and PA). I see IN as just too red. I don't want to be greedy.

The state polls are close, but McCain practically has to win them all. Anyhow, that's my fear. Good luck everyone! To you in Virginia, a little rain never hurt anyone.

Slicing the pie

I've been obsessed with the McCain's campaign to slice-and-dice the American people into good groups characterized as "pro-American" and bad groups characterized as "anti-American." "Real Virginia," "pro-American parts of the country," etc. Meanwhile Obama has a unifying vision, which generally does better in Presidential elections.

The slice-and-dice view of the country has been out there for a long time. It's sometimes called the "paranoid style" of American politics. This view see conspiracies everywhere. It has often been directed to Jews, but now it's characterized by Islamophobia. Are Muslims the new Jews?

George W. Bush's November 6, 2001 address to a joint session of Congress rekindled this spirit and set the Republican Party on a self-destructive path when disagreement over Iraq or other issues is tantamount to treason. Actually, not tantamount to treason, but actual treason. In Bush's 2001 speech, he declared: "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.)"

At the time, I assumed that he meant that other countries had to decide whether they were with us or against us. The Republican Party and the right wing applied it to the United States as well. To them, Americans, too, are either for or against "us."

Now the Democrats look like they're on the verge of controlling Congress and the White House. The hysteria we see is the wingnut freak out that a black socialist terrorist Muslim liberal elitist, all of which are disqualifications for being one of "us," may actually become President. According to the logic of the "with us or against us" crowd, the President will be against us.

What the hell do these folks do if Obama wins?

Debate thoughts before going to bed

1. McCain tried to capture his magic of 2000. Didn't happen. His jokes were received with crickets.

2. At all campaign stops near nuclear power plans, and maybe at every campaign stop, Obama and Biden should bring up this quote from McCain: "Nuclear power. Senator Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that." Ummm, yeah.

McCain doesn't just want to de-regulate the nuclear energy industry, he wants nuclear plants to be unsafe? It's unclear whether Obama didn't catch it or didn't want to raise it during the debate and give McCain an opportunity to clarify his remarks. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, there are 9 in Pennsylvania, 5 in Florida, 5 in North Carolina, 4 plants in Virginia, 3 in Michigan, 3 in Wisconsin, and 2 in Ohio.

3. "Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran!" McCain walked into that one. Obama used it at the first debate, so I don't know what McCain thought he was doing focusing on judgment. McCain's response: weak references to his military experience, "I was joking with an old veteran friend who joked with me about Iran." Really, here's the joke. Doesn't sound like a casual conversation with an old veteran friend:



4. I also don't understand questioning Obama's Pakistan position. I think it's pretty clear that we will kill terrorists, let alone bin Laden wherever they are, period. By uttering the words "We will kill bin Laden" helps Obama. Do even Republicans understand McCain's position?

5. Speaking of Pakistan, I have noticed that Obama pronounces Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran correctly. "Nuclear," too. And yet he's winning? (Update: tip jar!)

6. McCain's closing remarks weren't explicit, but he was making an appeal based on his experience as a POW. According to CNN's "Uncommitted Ohio Voters," there was no reaction. Either they didn't understand that he was referring to his POW years or they just didn't care.

Hobgoblins out in force

If the American public wanted conformity to all previously held positions, it would be Kucinich vs. Paul.

I can't take another minute of blathering about this flip-flop or that flip-flop. Public finance, off-shore drilling, tax cuts, etc. Politicians lie. Even George Bush lies. As Jamie Lee Curtis pointed out in A Fish Called Wanda, even Margaret Thatcher lies!

All successful politicians lie, but the key is what they lie about.

I don't see Obama's supposed flip-flop on public financing of his campaign to be a matter of principle. His position that his army of small donors is another form of public finance is overstated, but he does not take lobbyist, PAC, or Federal contractor money. That's more than any other successful candidate has done to eliminate the appearance of influence by special interests. I won't begrudge Obama's decision to forgo public money. Circumstances--his ability to raise vast amounts of money--changed. He wants to win. Well, duh! Some of stated that it would be political malpractice for Obama to take public financing.

Same goes for McCain on off-shore drilling. The blowhards have barely mentioned the "maverick" John McCain's reversal on off-shore drilling. Drilling off Florida won't do much to lower gas prices, but there's no overriding matter of principle at stake. It's not like he's ever been an environmentalist. His initial position against off-shore drilling was probably to get votes in Florida in 2000. McCain wants votes!

So what do these episodes tell us? Obama wants to win and McCain wants votes. Shocking in an election year.

The blowhards on TV have said that Obama's change contradicts his "new politics" meme. I've been listening to Obama pretty closely, and unyielding commitment to principle hasn't been his calling card. If anything, he has indicated a flexible approach in contrast to Bush's stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality when it flies in the face of ideology. In November, no one except the stuck-in-mud Public Citizen-types will give a damn whether Obama took public money or not. In fact, if you asked the typical low-information voter whether Obama should fund his campaign with contributions or taxpayer money, the likely answer would be contributions with the question, "taxpayer money goes to these guys???"

The only downside to a $500+ million contribution-funded campaign is that the airwaves will be so saturated with Obama ads that the people will turn against him.

Why Hillary Lost

Major media outlets are running "why Hillary lost" pieces every day, sometimes several per day. She didn't run in caucuses. She didn't take Obama seriously. She didn't have a single message. Sniper fire in Bosnia. Bill losing his marbles. Racial divisions. Blah blah blah. The media has been consumed by the horse race by months, so that's where the media looks.

The real answer is Iraq. If Hillary Clinton had voted against the war, she would be the nominee. She did not vote for it because she believed in it. It was part of her campaign to suck up to the militarists. If she had been the "I told you so" candidate, Obama's campaign wouldn't have had so much oxygen. John Edwards also voted for the way, but he had the decency to admit error. Clinton tried to defend her vote until it was too late.

Obama and Clinton play chess

Bad weather interfered with my satellite signal, so I didn't watch Clinton's speech, but it seems Clinton gave an extremely ungracious non-concession speech. Can she do more to sabotage Obama's chance in 2008) so she could run in 2012)? The next week will show a lot, but Obama has a real chess match on his hands.

If she forces Obama to ask her to be the VP, she could decline it and make him look like a fool. McCain will then say, "if you can't handle Hillary Clinton, how are you going to handle Ahmadinejad in these direct negotiations of yours?"

If she does accept the offer, the McCain line is just as valid, and then he's got dis-loyalists in his campaign and, hopefully, Administration. She wouldn't be accepting of a ceremonial role--she's be like Cheney with her minions spread throughout the Executive Branch. Yuck!

Finally, if he doesn't offer her the VP position, she could knee-cap him throughout the campaign.

Did you hear that it was reported by Fineman of MSNBC that the Clinton campaign is demanding that if she isn't offered the VP slot, then no woman should?

I am no longer on the Webb for VP bandwagon. I think he's got a lot of baggage, especially on women's rights. Not the sort of signal to send right now. I am thinking that Clark may be a good choice. Since he's allied with the Clintons, he may be acceptable to her.

First move goes to white.

Democracy in the Democratic Party

I'm glad the Michigan and Florida delegate issue seems to be resolved. Just as umpires and referees shouldn't make game-changing decisions with bad or ticky-tack calls, the DNC shouldn't make similar decisions this far into the primary season.

From within Hillaryland and from without, there is a lot of hand-wringing about the dis/enfranchisement, democracy, one-person-one-vote (of a fraction thereof), etc. etc. etc. The fact of the matter is that the primary and caucus system is inherently undemocratic.

First all of, no voting process that takes over 5 months can be said to be democratic. Iowa voted over 5 months before Montana and South Dakota. If states like New Jersey and California were to vote on Tuesday, the results would be very different than their earlier returns.

Second, the delegate system is weighted in favor of certain voters based on local democratic voting strength. It's unclear whether this apportionment system has had the effect of helping Obama or Clinton. Nevertheless, some votes are designed to be worth more than others.

Then there's the superdelegates. 'nuff said. They may be elected officials in many case, but they were not elected to select the presidential nominee. Since all Senators and representatives are superdelegates, they artificially inflate the importance of small states.

The U.S. electoral system only approximates democracy, so perhaps that's the best we can hope from the national party nomination process. By any measure, there is no palpable "will of the voters" favoring Obama over Clinton. The difference between pledged delegates is negligible. Even when you view the popular vote in any fair manner, it is basically a tie. Obama will be the nominee because he played the game better. The name of the game is delegates, and Obama has nearly enough already. The system may be flawed, but that's life.

I hope the Obama campaign's strategic mastery shows who is more ready to be President. We will not experience an Obama Administration unless the Clinton supporters come home. They need to recognize the flaws inherent in the system, get over their frustrations, and come home. She may have moderate white women; Obama may have African-Americans and urban liberals--the Democratic Party in a nutshell.

Obama's in better shape than Bill Clinton was

About 16 years ago, Bill Clinton had trouble closing the deal with Democrats. People kept on voting for the weird Jerry Brown. Brown even won the March Connecticut primary and then came close in Wisconsin. Clinton's victory in New York pretty much sealed the nomination, but two months later, my home state of New Jersey, one of the last states to vote in the primaries, showed no enthusiasm for the presumptive nominee. I remember one family friend, a strong Democrat, describing her vote this way, "Well, I guess I should vote for Clinton (sigh)."

Things looked bleak. Clinton was not well-liked by Democrats. He was seen by independents as an elitist, draft-dodging, cheating, Slick Willie. Ross Perot was energizing people, but Clinton was flailing, hoping for coverage as he pandered, pandered, pandered and felt pain all across America.

In June 1992, the Clinton campaign finally showed signs of life, and the convention re-introduced America to the Clinton family. So I'm not worried about Obama's problems with Eastern whites right now. He's got time to make up the ground. He's still relative newcomer to politics, and I think the convention will successfully introduce him to the American public. Unless, of course, Hillary Clinton ruins it.

I am still shocked that Bill Clinton's wife, the candidate's wife who didn't want to stay home and bake cookies, has become a working-class hero. That's got to be a media creation. To some extent, especially in Appalachia, it's because she's the white candidate. Yes, folks, there's racism in Appalachia. A shocker, I know. If 21% of the voters of Kentucky say race was important to their vote, there's another 21% of voters who didn't admit it.

Just deplorable

I didn't want to start an anti-Hillary Clinton blog, but you blog about the candidates you have, not the candidate you want. Speaking of horrendous paraphrases, this is just the worst:

“They came for the steel companies and nobody said anything. They came for the auto companies and nobody said anything. They came for the office companies, people who did white-collar service jobs, and no one said anything. And they came for the professional jobs that could be outsourced, and nobody said anything.”

Hillary Clinton is now comparing the plight of industrial workers in the US to Holocaust victims. This society hypes up every small gaffe into a major frickin' deal, but this is the most deplorable thing I have ever heard a candidate say in the last 20 years. There is no comparison between the Holocaust and the economic struggles of Indiana. Not a literal connection. There is not even a touch of truth. Even Jeremiah Wright knows better.

Hillary apparently made this comment on April 28th. You know it would have been all over the place if the other candidate had made this remark.

Keep on truckin'

I haven't had much time for blogging lately. In order to clear my basement of stuff so that a contractor can finish it, I've been reviewing the evidence of the excess consumerism in my life. Shoot, I haven't played my XBox since I met my wife, so it's got to go. Goodbye DVD and CD cases, but I'm keeping the liner notes for Jethro Tull's "Crest of a Knave"--it's classic. Bye-bye wife's 4S green skis. The Fort Totten Waste Transfer Station--sometimes called the DC dump--will give you a good home.

Speaking of the DC dump, I tried to dispose of certain items in an environmentally responsible way, but failed. Twice a year, the DC government has a household hazardous waste disposal and recycling day. After dropping off non-hazwaste at the dump, we drove out to the special area for the hazwaste disposal, but the street was like a parking lot for about a mile.

"The worst thing would be that, out of frustration, people put this stuff in the regular waste stream."

We did the worst thing. We made a quick u-turn and headed for the dump. Yes, I threw away my copper speaker wires in the normal waste chain. Thankfully, a salvager took it and hauled it away. That is true recycling! We didn't leave anything truly hazardous--like paint--at the dump, so don't be too hard on us.

I am glad that the Mayor is taking remedial action and is making plans for hazwaste drop-offs on the weekends. That's what I like about the Mayor. A problem is identified, potential solutions are identified, and action is taken. When Marion Barry was mayor, problems were identified, no one in government would take responsibility, and nothing would change. Mayor Williams was definitely better, but I don't think he would really care about an issue with such small monetary implications. Mayor Fenty, you are doing a great job. Now improve those schools and fix up Eastern Market and you will become the new Mayor-for-Life.

Speaking of the ill-fated hazwaste drop off, some people waited on line for so long that they almost ran out of gas. Unfortunately, that didn't happen to any of the truckers who protested high gas prices by driving around downtown Washington and Capitol Hill. Of all the protests in DC that I have seen, this was by far the lamest. Okay, gas prices are high, supply is low, demand is high, the dollar is low. So you protest to waste gallons and gallons of it and pollute myneighborhood? I'll remember this, truckers!

This is the trucker platform:

The truckers said they want Congress to issue an immediate cap on gasoline, diesel and heating oil prices. They are demanding a $2 a gallon cap on all of the fuels.

That's workable. While Congress unilaterally caps prices of a global commodity, it might was well move the West Coast closer to the East Coast to make it cheaper to drive cross-country.

Then there's the McCain-Clinton plan to eliminate the gas tax for the summer. Gas taxes pay for roads and transit. Without those taxes, either construction or maintenance stops or we borrow more money from the Chinese to pay for it. Good for Obama for calling out his opponents on this. As an Obama supporter, I would be embarrassed if he took the McCain-Clinton position. Are the Clinton supporters capable of embarrassment at this point? She went on O'Reilly. O'Reilly!

Updated:

"I find it frankly a little offensive that people who don't have to worry about filling up their gas tank or what they buy when they go to the supermarket, think that it's somehow illegitimate to provide relief for the millions and millions of Americans who are on the brink of losing their jobs, unable to keep up with their daily expenses," she said.

Later, in Jeffersonville, Indiana, Clinton said she wanted to put her tax proposal before Congress.

"I believe it would be important to get every member of Congress on record. Do they stand with the hard-pressed Americans who are trying to pay their gas bills at the gas station or do they once again stand with the oil companies?," Clinton asked.

That's our only choice? Ye Gods! This has Bill Clinton's fingerprints all over it. It is reminiscent of Bill Clinton's demagogery over Paul Tsongas's proposal for 50 cent gas tax increase over 10 years in 1992. I was embarrassed, but still drank the aid. My standards have apparently gotten higher, but the Clintons' have not.

Hillary is no longer a female candidate

Gov. Bill Richardson endorsed Barack Obama yesterday. I know, 'cuz I watched it live on CNN.

I had a feeling--which I should have shared on this blog to prove that I had this feeling--that Richardson wasn't going to endorse Hillary. Just look at Bill's face here. Does he look like he's having fun during the most exciting sports event ever?

I referred to Senator Hillary Clinton as "Hillary" in the preceding paragraph deliberatively. Her campaign has thrilled lots of people--men and women--by being the most successful female candidate for President. Until now, I was willing to accept the concept that she was really a female candidate, and as a liberal Dem, I thought that was pretty cool.

But the reaction of the Clinton campaign to Richardson's endorsement shows that she is not the first female candidate. She is from a long line of candidates who have run on the coattails of relatives who had been President or prominent in other ways.

Per the New York Times, James Carville has compared Bill Richardson to Judas (imagine the uproar if Richardson were also Jewish!). The idea that Richardson owes Hillary Clinton is ludicrous. Pray tell, James, what has Hillary Clinton ever done for Bill Richardson? Did she appointment him Secretary of Energy? Did she appoint him Ambassador to the United Nations?

Richardson owes nothing to Senator Hillary Clinton just because her husband appointed him to high government positions. If she is a candidate running on her own merits, she and her campaign should not take for granted the support of anyone who served under Bill.

The airwaves and blogs are awash with debate over the effect of the Richardson endorsement. Votes, superdelegates, Latino voters, etc. Maybe he just saw which way the wind was blowing. Maybe Obama's speech on race truly inspired him. Here's an attempt to add value to the debate with some wild speculation.

Richardson thought Hillary would ask him to be her Vice Presidential nominee. If he said yes, he's be marginalized for 4-8 years. If he said no, he's be out of the Administration.

In contrast, there's no way that Obama would go all brown on the ticket. (My best guess for VP: Jim Webb of Virginia.) Richardson, however, is a natural choice as Secretary of State in an Obama Administration. If you want a foreign policy that includes talking to dictators, Richardson is your man.

While we're on the subject of the Clintons, Bill is a major reason why I think Obama should not even ask Hillary Clinton to be the VP nominee. He has damaged Obama with biting comments about his record, race, and patriotism. Clinton has used race as a wedge issue in 1992. Not that I think that Hillary would accept the VP slot, but Bill is also just too unpredictable and scandal-prone. Why invite a financial or sex scandal into your White House?

First road race

I just ran a St. Patrick's Day 8k, my first road race. I finished between a 9 and 10-mile pace. Thanks to Gotta Run in Arlington for equipping me with the right sneaks and having a 40% sale on winter running clothes.

Here's the course map (approximately):



Race-time temperature at 9 AM: 32 degrees and windy. To give you an example of the wind, this is what the wind did last night:



Extenuating circumstances: The first "spring forward" daylight savings morning, so it was extra hard to get up this morning. Thanks to the local coffee shop (not the one seized by the DC tax authorities) for a good 12-oz cup on the way to the Metro.

Post-race report: My left ankle/Achilles is a little sore from not wearing the right sneakers for a few weeks. I hope to continue running for the...

Next race: the April 6th Cherry Blossom 10-miler.

Now I am back home and actually enjoyed Meet the Press this morning. Thank God, no Carville/Matalin garbage-fest.

The topic was the on-going Democratic circular firing squad. I am afraid this nomination fight isn't going to end well for Democrats. Neither one can get a majority of delegates without the superdelegates.

The final result needs to fair in fact and appearance. This Florida and Michigan delegate clusterfuck really need to be sorted out, one way or another. It's hard to see women, blacks, and younger voters coming together behind one candidate in the summer and fall unless both candidates are on the ticket.

I doubt Hillary would accept the VP position given her intimate familiarity with the powerlessness of the position and her age. Is it up to Obama to yield, even if he is leading in elected delegates and/or total votes and the polls?

One last comment before I publish this puppy....what foreign policy experience does Hillary have that makes her so damned qualified to run the armed forces? She has claimed to have played important roles in Northern Ireland and the Balkans. I suppose it is a media conspiracy that the '90s went by and we never heard a peep about Hillary's foreign policy successes. The Clintonites speak of her service on the armed services committee. Taking votes and mocking Rumsfeld for a few hours has very little to do with leadership. Look at the list of full committee members. Some are more than qualified to be the CiC of the armed forces (i.e., Warner, Webb). Some are not.

Her track record is voting for the war, the most reckless vote of this decade. Bring this up, and she says, well, I wasn't voting for the war, I was voting for giving diplomacy and inspectors a chance. I am not a member of the armed services committee, so I can't possibly compete with her foreign policy creds, but it was pretty clear to me that Bush was intent on war irrespective of diplomacy, inspectors, and everything else. If you are suckered by Bush--the most transparent leader on Earth--how are you going to match up with Putin?

CNN's Ballot Bowl Sucks

I've had CNN's "Ballot Bowl" show on all afternoon. So much time, so little insight. I've learned nothing. My wife has fled the room.

Here's a sample.

4:46 PM. Hillary Clinton says she's been creating jobs for years in upstate New York. How many district offices does she have? (Answer, 9 total, 5 of which I could would consider upstate. Thanks, Hillary, for your job creation for upstate New York.)

4:48 PM. Barack Obama says Hillary Clinton voted for the war, like John McCain.

4:50 PM. Commercial break.

Ye Gods!