This was another one of those Facebook posts that ran a little long and became a short blog post.  Enjoy, share, and comment.

There’s some posts going around about Papa John’s Pizza’s owner, John Schnatter. I want to reiterate the posts and add a thought of my own. Continue reading →

It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize.

– Theodore Roosevelt, Republican and 26th US President

At least once a week, I hear the anecdote that unions were once great and necessary and they made wonderful progress for the working class and then the job was done and the unions became worthless to society.  The long list of organized labor’s various accomplishments is well-known, including this partial list from Barack Obama: Continue reading →

I wanted to share a very insightful comment from this article from the Guardian on jobs data.  Comments sections are most typically filled with the most vile idiocy to be found anywhere on the internet, so instead of asking you to read through them, I’ll post this wonderful thought from user Newbunkle here: Continue reading →

One of the more interesting fairy tales that I’ve heard over the past several months is that “the US Postal Service is in default, they’re bleeding money.”  The simple fact is that the USPS is completely self-sufficient (and even profitable) and these stories are an extension of a law designed to make the post office appear insolvent.  This bill was crafted not by legislators, but by private postal competitors.

Many people have heard of ALEC in passing but really have no idea what this group is or what it does.  Known officially as the American Legislative Exchange Council, ALEC is a group of corporations that write legislation – yes, corporations that make laws – and is responsible for much of what you see coming out of Washington, D.C. these days.  Almost every piece of legislation is crafted with these wealthy folks in mind, but many are drafted, ratified, and presented directly by the group itself.

UPS and FedEx are members of ALEC.  They donate millions in lobbying to ensure that their interests are protected, and their servants in Congress answer those calls.  Some of the servants are former members of the group itself that have gone through the revolving door to be stooges for the organization.  One such man, ALEC alumnus Rep. John McHugh began working on behalf of UPS and FedEx in 1996 with a goal of tearing down the United States Postal Service.

How would one go about such a task as putting a successful, useful and efficient federal operation out of business?  Many folks use this inexpensive, reliable, ubiquitous and expedient service regularly, spending less than two quarters to shoot a handwritten letter or birthday card or check all the way across the country in a mere few days.  What method would be chosen by these thugs to sway the public opinion of the post office?

ALEC had a great idea, of course.  That idea was to tap into the myth that all government is bad, nationalization is socialism, the US federal government is fiscally irresponsible, and the free market is the answer to all of the “problems” that didn’t really exist.  Ten years and millions in lobbying (bribery) dollars later, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act was passed.

This bill forced, as its primary focus, the USPS to prefund all retirement costs for all postal workers for the next 75 YEARS by 2016, at a rate of ~$5,600,000,000 a year.  Yes, each year, the USPS was required to fund the next 7.5 years of pension.  Typically, of course, you’d expect an organization to fund a year’s worth of retirement every year, but then… that’s not a good way to make a national institution falsely appear to be bankrupt.  No private company, of course, is required to prefund 75 years’ worth of retiring employees, because frankly, it’s fiscally retarded and there was only one possible outcome.

Now, six years into this screwjob, the USPS is “in default.”

They’re six years in and they’ve funded the next 40 years of retirement ahead of schedule, but they’re “in default.”

Perhaps they could take some of that $35,000,000,000 the Republicans and their “friends” at FedEx and UPS have forced them to bank and reallocate it back to their operations, thus demonstrating how profitable they really are, but their hands are tied and nobody is coming to their rescue, because no politician wants to stand up and be the one caught “defending socialism and trying to stifle the free market.”  This illusion of competition and inefficiency in government operations demonstrates just how misled American voters are, because standing up for USPS could very well mean political suicide despite the truth, the  unavoidable fact that the USPS is the best solution for parcel shipment and that private firms are not needed in this field.

Government organizations aren’t designed to be profitable.  They’re designed to provide a service.  That said, how could we tear down an institution that is not only providing that service exceptionally well, but also without costing the taxpayers a dime?  How do we eliminate a nationalized service that is self-sufficient and completely satisfies the needs of the populace and employs tens of thousands of hard-working Americans while costing the population nothing more than the cost of the postage they need to send their packages?

Have you priced FedEx or UPS lately?  Perhaps if the USPS wasn’t subject to unfairly targeted, privately-created regulations put forth by a Congressman on the corporate payroll, and perhaps if they charged the ridiculous rates of their private counterparts, they could afford some lobbyists of their own to battle this ridiculous attack.

At this point, though, their only defense is the truth, and that defense is only effective if it’s heard.  When you hear someone talking about the waste that is our USPS, that bankrupt, obsolete and socialist institution, combat their talking points with plain, simple truth, because once the post office falls, the private profiteers will be lined up to figure out the next basic public service they can exploit and replace.

And use the USPS.  Your grandma prefers a handwritten letter to an e-mail anyway.

ADDITIONAL INFO:  If you’d like to learn lots (and I mean lots) more about this, visit http://www.vltp.net/alec/aleckoch-cabal-pursuing-privatization-postal-service-ups-fedex

In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.

– Wikipedia entry on Stockholm syndrome

There’s a certain topic of conversation that always grabs my interest on large international message boards like Reddit.  When you get people from different walks of life, different social classes, and different parts of the world talking about their individual societies, the differences between cultures can become stark.  Specifically, when the conversation turns to topics such as vacation time, healthcare, and social safety nets, I typically find American workers insulting other systems for being too generous to the workers.  It doesn’t seem rational on its face yet it happens time and time again.

This post was inspired by a thread in which Reddit user fassaction wrote:

My best friend works for a college as a risk analyst for financials. This poor schmuck works about 70 hours a week. Spends about 20 hours a week in traffic. Goes in in Sundays to “catch up”…….and they wonder why people are fat, miserable, and ready to kill each other.

I’ve heard plenty of Americans speak of the “hard work and dedication” of our workforce.  Our last president, George W. Bush, famously congratulated a single mother of three: “You work three jobs? Uniquely American, isn’t it? I mean, that is fantastic that you’re doing that.”  The crowd cheered for this.  They truly felt that it was an honor to live in a country where working three jobs was considered a valid way of life.  Did any of them know, I wondered, that the workers risked their lives going on strike for such things as a forty hour workweek a century and a half earlier?

Even vacation time itself is considered toxic.  A recent study showed that 70% of Americans did not use all their vacation time and surveys of American workers place the blame on fear of retaliation.  Retaliation… for using a guaranteed company benefit.  What has happened to us?  Why aren’t we taking to the streets like they do in France for something as simple as banning alcoholic beverages while on the clock?

The answer was summed up pretty neatly (and without bias) in the aforementioned Reddit post by user catmoon:

The reason that Americans do not uprise or protest is partly because of financial uncertainty and partly due to complacency.

 

In the protest capitals of the world (France, Canada, UK, etc.) there are far more safeguards and social services that allow people to believe they have financial security even if they make drastic efforts at change. They have more guaranteed time off, they aren’t typically committed to large loans at an early age, and they have socialized healthcare. Becoming unemployed in the US can have serious consequences on basic needs. People here do not tend to upset the apple cart until they are completely desperate.

 

The complacency stems from the fact that Americans enjoy one of the highest standard of living at relatively low costs. Although we work ridiculous hours I’d say that many people here are happy with their 10 annual vacation days. We’re comfortable. Many of us work cushy jobs and sit at desks all day every day.

 

So basically, a huge upheaval would require considerable risk and return little reward.

Paraphrased, the complacency stems from the fact that the capital class could be worse.  As long as we’re not being abused, in our minds, we should defend our captors.  Ten days off is plenty… as a matter of fact, we don’t even need that.  We should just be lucky to have a job.  Or three.  They don’t have three jobs over in socialist Europe… what a bunch of lazy bums!  We’re dedicated workers!

And there’s the rub:  We identify ourselves as workers first and people second.  If someone asked the average American to describe his or herself, that person would likely detail their job right after their name and age.  It’s what we use to identify ourselves because we value that work above our personal time.  It’s the difference between living to work and working to live.  Most of the world does the latter and they’re happier for it.

But we can’t do that here…

How would our masters afford that fifth vacation home in the Hamptons if we were sitting around on vacation like a bunch of European slackers?  After all, they deserve it because they were kind enough to give us just enough to get by and all they asked for in return was complete loyalty around the clock.  If anything, we owe them.

“I know they keep calling on my days off, but if you really got to know them, I promise you’d understand how great they are.  They value me.  They respect me.”

Let’s clear up a few misconceptions.

I don’t want to take all your money.  I don’t want to pay lazy people to sit at home, not working or trying to work.  I don’t want to “punish” millionaires for “being successful.”  I don’t want to shut down all private industry.  I don’t want to force you to denounce your religion, completely disarm yourself, let strangers sleep in your house or take away your right to speak freely.

“Socialism” is not the problem.  The problem is that some of you out there will believe anything Beck or Savage or O’Reilly says and take everything else as “left-wing propaganda and conspiracies.”

I posted on my Facebook page recently about a Chicago police officer’s statement to the media that “your First Amendment rights can be terminated,” pretty much at his discretion, because he’s apparently just that important and powerful.  Some time later, an acquaintance pointed out in the comments that “Karl Marx and communism go hand in hand,” an apparent reference to Karl Marx somehow being behind this officer’s breach of press freedoms.  I followed up with Marx’s writings on the importance and necessity of a free press but the comment and many like it have been rolling around in my mind ever since and I can’t seem to shake it.

There are a lot of things that socialism is (or can be; socialism is like capitalism in that there are several schools of thought within the overall ideology).  Socialism by definition is simply the workers controlling the means of production.  In practice, this could be a full co-op at best or even a strong union contract at minimum, but that’s not all there is to it.

It can also be identified by requiring people to work instead of getting welfare checks.  Americans tend to think of socialism as a method for stealing money from the paychecks of hard-working blue collar family men and giving it all to unemployed drug addicts with twelve kids who refuse to get a job.  Interesting, then, that one of the tenets from the pen of Marx was not just “to each according to his need,” but also the important first half:

From each according to his ability

“From each according to his ability; to each according to his need” means that you don’t get free money for the hell of it.  In a socialist society, your wheelchair gets you a desk job, your speech impediment gets you a typing job, your illiteracy gets you a manual labor job, and so on.  Disabilities are part of the list of strengths and weaknesses that help determine how you will most efficiently contribute to society and earn your paycheck.  That’s right!  I said “earn.”  With good central planning, we can make sure that everyone is contributing.

Religion is the opiate of the masses

The full phrase is “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”  Does this place Marx for or against religion as a whole?  In a heartless world, he says, it is the heart.  In soulless conditions, it is the soul.  Without getting too philosophical, the point is that Marx never attempted to wipe out religion nor suggested that it was necessary.  He may (or may not) have held the view that belief in such things was a detriment to the advancement of society, but he never sought to stamp it out of society.

As a matter of fact, Christian socialists not only exist, but present a very compelling case that the teachings of the Christian religion are socialist in nature, and that the apostles lived communally after the resurrection.  Throughout both the old and new testaments, quotes abound about the good of charity and sharing and the ills of greed and hoarding.

When you beat your olive trees, you shall not go over the boughs again…When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it afterward; it shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless and the widow.

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire…Behond, the wages of the labourers who mowed your fields, which you have kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

Is Marxism the refuge of the heathen?  It seems to me that the phrase “Godless Commies” has a few holes in it.  We don’t wish to shut down your church.  Even if we were not for religious freedom, why would we want to shut down an establishment that teaches Marxism?!  Even beyond that, though… religion, much like music and clothing, is something you’re free to pick for yourself in any free society and socialism meshes quite well with democracy, as you will see with democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders.

Could a socialist seek to impose a higher marginal tax rate on incomes above a certain level?  Yes, absolutely!  François Hollande has proposed a marginal tax rate of 75% on income over €1 million, meaning that everything under a million euros would be taxed as normal and everything above it would be taxed at 75%  The question you need to ask yourself is whether hoarding of such large sums of money is good for society or if it places a drain on society.  Many say that a few hundred dollars a month in food stamps for the impoverished drains society, so clearly several million being funneled into the coffers of the richest creates an even bigger drain.  This isn’t an attack on freedom; rather, it’s a measure to help protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all.

Are they coming after your thousand dollars or less per week?  Of course not.  You’d be receiving subsidized health care, post-secondary education and public transit in addition to  what you already make.  Don’t let the millionaires fool you… when a CEO talks about the evils of unions, he is protecting his bank account at the workers’ expense.  When some right-wing millionaire on Fox News talks about the “evil” socialists, he’s trying to enlist you in the fight for him to afford another mansion… while you live on Ramen because you’re fighting against your own best interests.

Socialism places the power in the hands of the working class instead of the business owners.  When the working class democratically rules the working class, we’re automatically looking out for our own best interests.  It doesn’t get much more free than that.

I was in the Business Class cabin on a flight to Ohio a few days ago.  It wasn’t new territory for me; as a member of my preferred airline’s Elite program, I find myself in these premium seats more often than not.  Often, I’m seated next to businessmen a decade or two my senior dressed in sport coats and ties.  I am often sporting wingtips and an Oxford so as to not be a complete disgrace to the forward cabin, but they’re offset by 5/8″ tunnels in my ears and a lip ring, much to my father’s chagrin.

This trip was no exception.  The gentleman beside me had fifteen years on me and his hair, unlike mine, was clean cut and not dangling in front of his eyes.  He told me he was a business owner with plants in two major cities upon our introduction; I informed him of my position with my employer’s corporate office.  A large part of our conversation centered on social media, oversharing, personal style and appearance, and how those things play into job interviews and even casual introductions such as ours on the airplane.  He admitted he’d never look too hard at a candidate with metal in their face or one who shared their political views too fervently on Facebook.

This is unsurprising, of course, as I often encounter looks of curiosity or downright disgust from newly introduced peers, sometimes even in my own generation.  When I step into the Elite security line at the airport I am often rebuffed with “sir, this line is only for Elites.”  What they’re thinking is “sir, this line is only for self-respecting adults who don’t have childish facial piercings, you mischievous-looking wage slave.”  If only those TSA screeners knew I made two to three times what they do (according to the little bit of Googling I just finished), they wouldn’t be making the same judgments, but my metal (and moreso their personal prejudices) have already done my speaking for me.  I flash my card, smile and accept their apologies.

However, at the end of the day, I’ve made it this far despite my refusal to dress, speak and act as I’m expected to.  I may have been slowed down here and there, but I haven’t been outright stopped.  I consider myself lucky when I see articles about people being removed from public events, fired, or even having their education denied because they had the ludicrous idea that personal expression was acceptable, even encouraged, in America.  Fortunately for my sanity and the relative sensibilities of those around me, I have not been put in a position to have to defend myself against the morality cops.

Sadly, a friend of a friend has brought this conversation much closer to home and now it’s time to share her story.

Lana Massey recently took her eight year old son to Legoland in Texas, a very popular destination for kids his age, to check out the sights and spend some quality time together. They allowed the mother and son to line up, pose for pictures by an employee, pay their admission and spend a few minutes looking around before being asked to quietly step out of the lobby area.  When I asked Lana which tattoo may have caused the disturbance, she had an idea:

I am sure it was the Tinkerbell one. Back story on that one is that it is original artwork from the 50s from the creator of the Tinkerbell character. She is in a traditional pinup pose, nothing vulgar.

She described the conversation with the Legoland employee as such:

When I was approached by Melanie, she said,”Excuse me, ma’am, I need to ask you… Well, I need to give you a refund and have to ask you leave.” I said,”What?” She stated that a guest had “complained about your tattoos.”

Lana was quick to note that she did not make a scene and complied with the requests respectfully.  If only the closed-minded complainant would have had so much respect the entire situation could have been avoided, but it’s pretty clear to me that personal prejudice is more powerful than respect and composure.  What compels someone to register a complaint about another person’s appearance, and what makes them feel that their sensibilities are so important that two paying customers should be forcibly removed just so they don’t have to look at some inoffensive ink?

Who was the victim here?

How do we prevent this type of discrimination?  How do we get the message out about Legoland?  How do we show the complainant that they ruined an eight year old boy’s day and, more importantly, likely created an insecurity about the judgment of others that could follow him for years?

What will it take for us to finally start having a little respect for each other’s differences?

UPDATE:

Lana received this note from Legoland’s management:

Dear Miss Massey

Thank you for taking the time to e-mail us regarding your visit.

With regards to your e-mail, you were asked to leave due to customer complaints received about a visible offensive tattoo located on your lower leg. As a family attraction geared to children three to 10 years old, our entrance policy guidelines allow our staff the absolute direction to refuse admission to guests wearing clothing or images on their person that are offensive in nature.

The Duty Manager onsite acted in accordance to this policy, and offered the you a refund or tickets to return another day with the graphic tattoo covered. Our offer to return to the attraction with complimentary tickets still stands with the understanding of our policy.

Kind regards

Phil Royle

Head of Operations

LEGOLAND Discovery Center & SEA LIFE Grapevine Grapevine Mills Mall

3000 Grapevine Mills Parkway

Grapevine Texas 76051

In the interest of full disclosure, I am working to determine whether I can share with you the picture of the tattoo in question along with the full story behind it from the tattoo artist.  I will update the article when I have more.

UPDATE 2:

What a difference a few days make.  We have links to the picture in the comments (and you can go click those links if you’d like, but I wouldn’t click them at work or around children to be entirely honest).  I can own up to disagreeing with someone’s definitions of words like vulgar or inappropriate, and while I’m on the fence about “vulgar,” I’ve come to the conclusion that what we’ve seen is indeed outside of what society considers appropriate in a park for children.  My site, my opinions… I am an honest person and I don’t compromise my honesty for friends, family or anyone, so I’m here to follow up.

I don’t believe that naked female tattoos are inappropriate.  With the violence we see every day on television, nudity is the least of our society’s concerns and I think we’d benefit from less of the Puritanical modesty that allows us to kill cops and hookers in the Grand Theft Auto series but flips out as soon as you bring in the nudity.  If this had been a topless Tinkerbell, I’d have continued to stand for the rights of the accused and I have no reservations about saying that.

At the end of the day, my assumption is that the complaint, while not specified directly by the (potentially flustered) worker, was related to the strong sexual nature of the picture, which appears to depict Tinkerbell using a lightswitch to violate herself and a facial expression that suggests she’s quite enjoying herself.  It’s the penetration, rather than the nudity, that makes this inappropriate for kids in their single digits.  Of course, this is just the opinion of myself and, judging by the comments here and at the Dallas Observer, a vast majority of commenters; we all have the right to teach our kids about sex (both with another person and with oneself) at whatever age we personally deem appropriate.  That said, other parents also have the right to shield their children from overt sexual content and private businesses also have the right to ask patrons to leave if they deem that response appropriate for the situation.

I will happily defend Lana’s right to have the tattoo, and I argue strongly that we have a duty first to be as inclusive and open-minded as possible to allow each other to coexist without violating each other’s rights.  However, it’s just as much within a citizen’s right to complain out loud about a tattoo as it is to get one in the first place… both sides have free speech.  At the end of the day, it is placed in the hands of the private property’s owners and management to determine whether a complaint is valid enough to warrant intervention.

I can’t say whether they made the right call, but we’re always asked to consider “community standards” in cases where art is deemed offensive or inappropriate.  The community is speaking loudly here and elsewhere and they seem to be agreeing with Legoland’s management team upon considering all the circumstances.

I’d like to hear from a few people who continue to feel that the company was wrong to remove Lana after seeing the tattoo in question.  Please leave your messages in the comments or tweet @AlanRadio.  We’ll pick up some of the responses and turn it into a follow-up article in a week or two.

(This started out as a Facebook post, but it was three paragraphs deep before I realized it needed to be a blog entry.  I’ve been making this mistake a lot lately… long Facebook posts that should be here on the blog.  I’ll work on making the distinction more clear in the future.)

Imagine this for a moment.. you’ve just inherited leadership of a country that desperately needs a boost.  Your dad was a bit odd and more than a little corrupt, and you might be too but who isn’t?  Plato said “those who seek power are not worthy of that power.”  It is what it is.  So where do you start?

Perhaps you can start working on launching a weather satellite.. that’s a technical achievement that could set things on the right path.  So you put things together and you get a stern warning that this weather satellite launch is a “hostile activity.”  The warning is coming from one of the most violent countries in the world, one that’s already attacking several other countries and has more nukes than anyone in the world.

Naturally, you ignore this aggressor and push forward.  Your first experiment fails, but more importantly, international observers condemn you for TRYING TO LAUNCH A SATELLITE, something that wouldn’t cause an eyelash to be batted in almost any other country in the world.  Food supply to your already hungry population is interrupted by the offended superpower.  You step back for a moment and consider your short time in power.. you’ve made no provocative moves or statements to this country yet.  You may harbor some ill will but why are you being prodded when you were just trying to launch a satellite?

More importantly, why are you being prodded by the country with the most launched satellites, the most missiles, the most nukes, the most weapons, the most military bases, involvement in the most foreign countries in acts of war or “police action”?  How does a country with such a large amount of weapons and bases and actions tell another country they can’t even launch a satellite?  They’re clearly well-armed and ready; perhaps they should mind their own business.

What do you do?  Ignore it this time and next time and the time after that?  Issue a provocative statement of your own to match the tone of their rhetoric?  Plan on strong defense in case of an attack?  Plan your own pre-emptive strike, a preferred method of the country trying to provoke you in their earlier endeavors?

What it comes down to in the end is that the provocateur is creating and escalating a conflict and it is expected that you will defend your country.  Start researching weapons capabilities.  Forget the satellite; you’re under attack.. build some nukes.  Create some propaganda to rally your citizens and troops.

That other country will just call them all terrorists, but when the bombs are landing on your soil, will your citizens see it that way?

Such is the nature of war provoked by a bully.  Nobody wins.

A cut of more than twenty percent from the minimum wage.  The layoff of fifteen thousand public sector employees (one in every five).  Immediate ends to collective bargaining and rent subsidization.  Mass privatization of public interests.

When over 100,000 Greek citizens took to the streets yesterday, launching Molotov cocktails at police and engulfing buildings in flames, many Americans (and indeed, the whole of the American media empire) portrayed the event as out-of-control citizens destroying their country.  They did, in fact, set ablaze some quite historic buildings, so a case could be made that they were doing just that.

However, let’s take a step back and remove the emotion from the argument.  These battles consisted of the people versus the police in the streets and the people versus the government in matters of policy.  When you think about who the police and the government are and what they’re intended to do, you may realize that the police are there to protect the people and the government is there to represent the people.  (While many Americans think that only the United States has a representative government, this is typically the furthest from the truth due to our “first past the pole” and Electoral College systems, but I digress.)  The point is it’s the people, not the police or the government, that are really supposed to run society.

When the people are in the streets battling the police and fighting against government policy decisions, the police and the government have two choices.  They can stand down and do the will of the people or they can become an enemy combatant, abandoning the will of the people and attempting to flip the power structure so that the people work for them instead of the other way around.  When the government of Greece passed austerity measures yesterday, people were already in the streets making their voices heard, so the government did indeed turn on the people.  As the police beat, detained and arrested protesters, they became an enemy of the people, requiring the people to defend their power.  It’s unfortunate that officers were injured, but each one had the ability to stand down and join the people as is part of their duty.

Today, in response, the president of Greece has announced elections in less than two months, despite the mandate he has for keeping the current administration in power for two more years.  This is a step in the right direction.  It is unfortunate that the administration signed these awful papers prior to leaving office, but it is now up to the people to elect a government that will maintain their will, including a fair living wage and nationalized public services.  The people know that, as Communist Party spokesman Thanassis Pafilis said, “You are not trying to save Greece, but a handful of industrialists.”

Pafilis went on to say, “You disgracefully blame the struggling people who created the wealth we have. You are trying to send them back to the Middle Ages. We will not allow it.”

With elections mere weeks away and the Greek people clearly ready to stand up for their rights, we’ll soon know who the workers trust.  The small but growing handful of Americans who see the same neoliberal pro-austerity slant in the Republican-heavy Congress will have to wait a bit longer.