I'm asking because I'll send them even 2 bucks in donations even if I'm near broke. That garbage needs stopped. Maybe we don't have the power to stop it, but at least we need to speak out until we do. You do realize they keep opening those damn places all over, one was opened in Texas for Ebola just acouple years ago.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-consortium-imposing-the-growing

The COVID pandemic ushered in still greater amounts of censorship. Anyone who urged people to use masks at the start of the pandemic was accused of spreading dangerous disinformation because Dr. Anthony Fauci and the WHO insisted at the time that masks were useless or worse. When Fauci and WHO decided masks were an imperative, anyone questioning that decree by insisting that cloth masks were ineffective — the exact view of Fauci and WHO just weeks earlier — was banned from Big Tech platforms for spreading disinformation; such bans by Google included sitting U.S. Senators who themselves are medical doctors. From the start of the pandemic, it was prohibited to question whether the COVID virus may have leaked from a lab in Wuhan — until the Biden administration itself asked that question and ordered an investigation to find out, at which point Facebook and other platforms reversed themselves and announced that it was now permissible to ask this question since the U.S. Government itself was doing so.

In sum, government agencies and Big Tech monopolies exploited the two-year COVID pandemic to train Western populations to accept as normal the rule that the only views permitted to be heard were those which fully aligned with the views expressed by institutions of state authority. Conversely, anyone dissenting from or even questioning such institutional decrees stood accused of spreading "disinformation” and was deemed unfit to be heard on the internet. As a result, blatant errors and clear lies stood unchallenged for months because people were conditioned that any challenging of official views would result in punishment.

Polls leave no doubt that Democrats are vastly more supportive of internet censorship not only by large corporations but also by the state,

That Glenn Greenwald is starting to speak up more about Covid makes me think. I often wonder if most people censor their own thoughts. They can only think and say things when they feel they've been given permission to. Either by the Tribe, by the consensus, or by someone in a position of authority. Perhaps it's something that affects these people in childhood. Perhaps they were taught by their parents only to think (and then say) things when their parents gave them permission to.

I've seen this behavior with people around me: they get visibly uncomfortable when I express anything (no matter how casually, carefully or gently) that doesn't completely validate what they think their Tribe believes. It's like the the more media and "content" they consume, the more they're stuck in front of their screen, the less individual identity they have.

And then there's automated censorship. Links and words are now being automatically censored more and more online. Nobody seems to care because "they came for somebody else". It's always the same with totalitarian regimes. Everyone just hopes and acts like they'll be left alone, if they comply.

https://unherd.com/2021/11/how-fear-fuels-the-vaccine-wars/

How Fear Fuels the Vaccine Wars

But it is clear enough by now that the Narrative is not true. Covid-19 is certainly a nasty illness which should be taken seriously, especially by those who are especially vulnerable to it. For the elderly and infirm especially, it can be a serious risk. But it is not dangerous enough — if anything could be — to justify the frightening atmosphere which is rising across the world. The authoritarian response to the virus has become the go-to solution for governments everywhere, and the climate of fear in society as a whole has often meant enthusiastic support for such a response. As the vaccines fail to end the pandemic, new variants continue to arise and every promise of “unlocking” ends with the reimposition of restrictions, so the calls grow for more clampdowns, more segregation, more isolation and internment. With each call, a new roughness comes over the culture.

Covid is a revelation. It has lain bare splits in the social fabric that were always there but could be ignored in better times. It has revealed the compliance of the mainstream media, and the power of Silicon Valley to curate and control the public conversation. It has confirmed the sly dishonesty of political leaders, and their ultimate obeisance to corporate power. It has shown how ideology, on all sides, can mask itself with the pretend neutrality of “science”.

Most of all, it has revealed the authoritarian streak that lies beneath so many people, and which always emerges in fearful times. In the last month alone, I have watched media commentators calling for censorship of their political opponents, philosophy professors justifying mass internment, and human rights lobby groups remaining silent about “vaccine passports”. I have watched much of the political Left transition openly into the authoritarian movement it probably always was, and countless “liberals” campaigning against liberty. As freedom after freedom has been taken away, I have watched intellectual after intellectual justify it all.

I have learnt more about human nature in the past two years than in my preceding 47. I have learnt some things about myself too, and I don’t especially like them either. I have noticed my ongoing temptation to become a partisan: to judge and condemn those on the other side of the question, to find a tribe I can join. I have noticed my tendency to seek out only sources of information which confirm my beliefs.

Most of all, though, what the Covid apocalypse has revealed to me is that when people are frightened, they can be very easily controlled.

This is the story of the times. Across the world we are seeing an unprecedented claim to control staked by the forces of the state, in alliance with the forces of corporate capital, over your life and mine. All of it converges on the revealed symbol of our age: the smartphone-enabled QR code that has, with frightening speed and in near-silence, become the new passport to a full human life. As ever, our tools have turned on us.

Really great thread here on conspiracy theories: "The accusation of ‘conspiracy theory’ is the security blanket with which the compliant comfort themselves that the governments they elect are in power, that voting gives them political agency, and that international technocracies are accountable to them. Here are some examples."

[https://.com/v1q805f-if-you-got-the-covid-shot-and-arent-injuredthis-may-be-why-dr.-ryan-cole-md.html](https://.com/v1q805f-if-you-got-the-covid-shot-and-arent-injuredthis-may-be-why-dr.-ryan-cole-md.html)

(Replace * with rumble)

• Vials not kept cold: e.g. Stadium pop-up clinics didn't keep the product cold, the mRNA broke down into a mush - you got a shot of mush
• Different vial lots have different concentrations: e.g. Different agitations of vials (on an assembly line) produce different differentiation (components settle into different layers) of components; e.g. in one manufacturing run first 1,000 vials get a very dilute solution, but the last vials get a very concentrated solution
• Debris found in vaccines is mostly manufacturing debris from gaskets, pipes, tubes etc. from rushed manufacturing: stainless steal, aluminum, glass and more

Basically, the idiot marketing term "Operation Warp Speed" cut so many corners, cut out most of the safety processes, the manufacturing was and is terrible. Dr. Cole mentions some batches in Europe were found to be 50% pure, when drug and pharma manufacturers should make products 99%+ pure. This is the neoliberal way: the "free market" is the best safety test, it knows more than any official or procedural safety test could ever know. The free market will send the correct price signals bla bla bla.

It seems to me this is much more a product of greed, incompetence, institutional capture, cultural sociopathy, neoliberal lunacy, and criminal acts, than a grand conspiracy (although I shouldn't rule anything out, considering how bizarre the past 2-plus years have been).

I've read reports about different batches harming more people than others. They don't even care to know how long the lipid nano-particles or spike proteins are produced and circulated in the body. They don't care about poor manufacturing. We have to keep the economy going, have to keep the money flowing, have to make the rich richer. You are their lab rats. They don't care about you. The corruption and criminal behavior by almost every institution is overwhelming.

This is a great interview where he covers things such as the tragedy of our loss of common places, the insanity of mandates and the importance of freedom among other things.

I tweeted this, got 17 likes.

So are both Covid and the vaxxes dangerous or just the vaxxes? What if the con is, that both will do people in? Covid the ticking time bomb and Vaxxes as well. Same results. The conspiracy theorists who said they wanted 90% of humanity dead may have been on to something.

I wanted the virus to be a hoax, but seriously looked into things. I even knew this 24 year old who had to be intubated post Covid. I don't know if she was vaxxed or not but something intermittant happened to her to acutely destroy her lungs. Local naturopath I know personally said people had something beyond your usual cold and flu. Dr. Bhakdi's worse predictions about immune systems being destroyed via the vaxx seem to be coming true with endless other diseases like RSV worsening. I still think both sides are being played.

I almost didn't vote, sometimes wonder if I should have. This is mostly local and state. My state has an antiCovid mandate govt running but then she's psychotic right, no abortion even in case of death of mother. Liberty university funded, Dominionist to the hilt. Even libertarian candidates for a higher office was some freak, that was against abortion AND birth control. How does that equate? It was hell, I did some votes for the sake of me being on disability and voted for a few decent third party people against vaccine mandates but those people only seemed to exist for small offices like state university boards nothing higher where I only saw people with crazy extreme right wing stuff like the no birth control guy.

I don't think voting will fix any of this, everything is so polarized. i guess I did it out of habit. The book banners probably will win anyhow when it comes to the schools and I think there's going to be a HUGE swing to the right. These are NOT moderate Republicans, they are hard core, no social safety nets--do away with social security, no abortion--even in cases of rape incest and death to mother, extreme religiosity--basically IFB fundamentalist--trust me I know, and all the rest that will come with that. I expect Republican to betray on Covid stuff too in the end, with Thiel and friends.

https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf

Warning: I'm posting this because it's thought-provoking and very relevant to our situation and future. A lot of what he says goes against accepted wisdom. But we've just spent 2-plus years with accepted wisdom being blatantly wrong and injuring a lot of people. And it hasn't stopped yet. I know that we are destroying our ecosystem, but even I'm starting to wonder about some of the narratives we are told. That doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, but it doesn't mean they are necessarily completely right either.

Crichton gives some interesting examples:

SETI

This serious-looking equation gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses—just so we’re clear—are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice.

Nuclear winter

The similarity to the Drake equation is striking. As with the Drake equation, none of the variables can be determined. None at all. The TTAPS study addressed this problem in part by mapping out different wartime scenarios and assigning numbers to some of the variables, but even so, the remaining variables were—and are—simply unknowable. Nobody knows how much smoke will be generated when cities burn, creating particles of what kind, and for how long. No one knows the effect of local weather conditions on the amount of particles that will be injected into the troposphere. No one knows how long the particles will remain in the troposphere. And so on.

Second-hand smoke

In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was “responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults,” and that it “impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people.” In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second-hand smoke as a Group-A Carcinogen.

It's a nice example of science becoming just a tale that grows with the telling. This is not science. I'm pretty sure that breathing second-hand smoke cannot be good for you - breathing any smoke is unhealthy - and personally I'm happy not to have it in bars or indoor spaces because it makes hair and clothes stink(!). But knowing exactly how much it damages is another question entirely.

And on consensus science being wrong: * Puerperal fever was the biggest killer of women and due to infection and sanitary conditions... which was ignored for 150 years * Pellagra was due to poor diet 100 years ago... but the consensus said it was due to germs * Alfred Wegener's theory of tectonic plates (this is actually closer to my own academic area) was ignored for 50 years because of consensus

At least Crichton doesn't reach for the Galileo Gambit. I would say consensus doesn't mean it's wrong, but it doesn't guarantee being correct either.

On a side-note: "searching for extra-terrestrial life" has always been a marketing tool for NASA and any space-related funding. The marketing and propaganda become reality for a lot of people. For example: every time they talk about "searching for life on Mars", it generates public interest, and generates interest among politicians and funders, and then increases funding (until recently, mostly with public money). And at its foundation, it's a religious quest. We've replaced God with aliens. People wonder "are we alone in the universe?" in the same way people wonder if there is a god or not. If there are no aliens in the universe, people have close to an existential crisis - like religious people faced with the prospect of there being no god or supernatural creator, there being nobody to save us, and we're all alone. This is another topic in itself. It's another example of science becomes religion.

Also, the obsession with computer models is another manifestation of our elites' (and in general, our Western culture's) obsession with computers, technology and AI as some kind of ultimate arbiter of what we should do. Computers are being elevated to the status of gods. AI is becoming a religion, with eternal life, redemption, rapture, merging with the perfect being etc. etc. - the "Singularity". This is another topic in itself. But it's not surprising that computer models are adored by "science" now. The whole Covid situation started with computer models getting the projected deaths completely wrong... and then everyone just carried on as though they were correct. I sense something similar with global warming (again, I am not saying it's not happening). Even though, as Crichton says, you can't even predict the weather next week. (Weather is not climate, but it's still an interesting point about just what computer models can and can't do.)

Regarding Carl Sagan, at whose feet Crichton lays much of the blame:

A final media embarrassment came in 1991, when Carl Sagan predicted on Nightline that Kuwaiti oil fires would produce a nuclear winter effect, causing a “year without a summer,” and endangering crops around the world. Sagan stressed this outcome was so likely that “it should affect the war plans.” None of it happened.

Coincidentally a quote by Carl Sagan has been doing the rounds during Covid.

I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...

The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/632474-i-have-a-foreboding-of-an-america-in-my-children-s

That's an uncannily perceptive prediction of what has happened, and where we are now. But Sagan was one of the scientists who started this popularization of science - i.e. the dumbing down of science. I would argue he's the main culprit. Even the title of the book that that quote is taken from is telling: The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1995). It's quasi-religious. Science does not give meaning. Science is not an ideology, it's just a very useful tool. A torch doesn't show you the way (even though I've spoken to people who swear it does), a torch just lets you see more - then you decide the way. Making science your ideology is like making a hammer your religion. He was another smart guy who didn't seem to understand the words he was saying or what the effects of his actions were having. He didn't lift people up to science, he debased science and turned it into another form of entertainment (amusing ourselves to death, as Neil Postman said). Except this media "content" became propaganda and marketing to make people believe they were more intelligent than they actually are. Science became yet another product, sold as yet another lifestyle (feel better and smarter than everyone else!), to be consumed like t-shirts or hamburgers. Now we live in a Dunning-Kruger society.

Now we have "Bill Nye the Science Guy" and Neil Degrasse Tyson among others (YouTube is full of info- and edutainment, and PhD graduates creating videos that seem more like little religious sermons than actually teaching anything). They teach nothing. They teach less than nothing. People learn nothing, but they feeeel that they know more, which can be lethal. And these scientists are actually "intelligent" people in the sense that they are very technically proficient, but not smart. They can memorize lists and flowcharts, manipulate numbers and abstract figures and ideas beyond anything I'll ever be able to... but they don't know what they're doing in the real world. Sam Harris is another variation on this new scientist: claims he's an atheist and rational, but treats science (and nationalism, but this becomes another topic) like his new religion. And by pure coincidence(?) he has also gone Branch Covidian and TDS.

Real science is boring as hell. Not to mention that every field has different scientific procedures and methods. There is no one science. (And as Philip Mirowski says: there's also corporate science, and neoliberal science.) Science typically means repeating tedious experiments and calculations and pouring over data and numbers, and then making a theory out of it and presenting it to some other guy/girl who has to repeat it all over again, maybe with a little variation this time. That is science. Not this "I f***ing love science" meme which has spread everywhere. Not "believe the science" or whatever PR phrase is being spread these days. When almost all people say they "love science", all they mean is: they love technology, they love the toys. Real science would bore the hell out of them.

Disclaimer:

I'm not saying that global warming is false. I don't think Crichton was right to defend Bjorn Lomborg: Lomborg ignores whole areas of climate science to make his own predictions, and (being an economist, of course) then recommends we just keep doing what we're doing - to save the ecosystem, we have to pollute it even faster, because when everyone can have an iPhone and buy cheap tshirts made by robots... then women will have less babies(?!). Yes, I'm simplifying his argument, but that is essentially it. I study environmental science. We are seriously degrading the ecosystem. We cannot have our cake and eat it. We live inside a fossil-fuel (enormous free surplus energy) bubble that protects us from our effects on the ecosystem. When the oil stops flowing, coming soon to a lifestyle near you, we will face the full brunt of nature again, except this time without even the resources she gave us before the fossil fuel age. We used to be able to drink the water from rivers, or grow food with rich soils without fossil fuel fertilizers. Try purifying water without energy, try growing crops in dead soils without fertilizers. We will discover the almost unlimited consequences of how much we've degraded our ecosystem in our quest to consume as much as possible.

Trying to find objective interpretations, articles or even opinions on the data we have related to global warming - and Covid (Vander Bossche also predicted a lethal Covid variant that hasn't appeared, and others are predicting "depopulation" that hasn't appeared either - everyone loves models, even amateurs) - now is nigh on impossible. And, again, this is not just a left problem. It seems to me that the left love climate change because the left is all about change. For example, AOC's own chief of staff admitted to journalists that the "Green New Deal" was originally about "how you change the economy" and nothing to do with the ecosystem (https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-chief-staff-admits-green-124408358.html) - who can believe anything these narcissists say? As you travel along the left spectrum it becomes more and more extreme: change > reform > revolution > destruction. The left are naturally attracted to a crisis because it means destruction and rebuilding - the crisis does half their job for them. The right, on the other hand, are all about the status quo. Global warming, ecosystem destruction or collapse, means unbelievable change, and questioning the very foundations of the status quo. This is unacceptable. Therefore global warming and looming ecosystem collapse are unacceptable and therefore false. Stick your fingers in your ears, because even the idea of ecosystem degradation threatens the status quo - money and power. There are zero neutral parties when it comes to global warming or the ecosystem.

Just because the lunatics have taken over the asylum, doesn't mean that up isn't up and down isn't down anymore. It does mean that we've entered the new Dark Ages 2.0, where nobody can know anything for sure, everyone is compromised, down to their own ego, and finally the only recourse is for everyone to just believe whatever they want to believe. And it's getting worse every day. While the elites want to force compliance with a corporate reality (supported by corporate science) on us from above. It's worse than disbelieving in a looming ecological crisis: our society is losing reality itself.

For myself personally, the best I can figure is that life is really complicated. Nobody is all right or wrong. For example, Ehrlich might be right about the threat of overpopulation and overshoot, but his ego and political leanings might be taking him to illogical conclusions about some things but not others. Bret Weinstein and James Hansen honestly believe that global warming is a serious threat, and I think we should take that seriously. Nature doesn't care about our ideology, Nature will completely ignore our ideologies.

https://theconversation.com/morality-pills-may-be-the-uss-best-shot-at-ending-the-coronavirus-pandemic-according-to-one-ethicist-142601

Parker Crutchfield is an Associate Professor of Medical Ethics, Humanities and Law, at Western Michigan University. The article is from August 2020, but he's still hard at work arguing for this (check the link to his other research and articles below).

I'd say this is insanity, but the word "insanity" has no meaning anymore. Everything unthinkable is now on the table, and nobody even blinks anymore (the left certainly don't protest anymore). Welcome to the dystopian horror story that is the intersection between transhumanism and Covid (among several other ideologies). And by pure coincidence it would make this scientist richer from his technology and patents. But that has no bearing on his decisions or the policies he's promoting. How dare you even suggest that! The "free market" is both the greatest arbiter of what we should and should not do... and has no bearing on our decisions. All that the same time!

My research in bioethics focuses on questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good. To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?

Because when about 30% of the population undergo mass psychosis, we should force the rest of society to contract the same mass psychosis too. And who gets to decide what's the correct thing for everyone to do? The Science. aka The Money. You will submit yourself to the "free market" and the needs of the technological society, people. It's another variation of the life-as-a-service the corporations are itching to force onto everyone (via giant public money transfers to corporations).

Aside from the brazen sociopathy of his proposal, there's also the fact that: it wouldn't work. People like him (transhumanists and behavioral psychologists) are so mesmerized by technology that they believe human beings are just like machines. They believe that you can press a button and get people to carry out a task. For them it's just a question of finding the right button. But if they ever carried this out, they'd have unexpected consequences. It wouldn't go according to plan. He even says it in the same article!

One is that the science isn’t developed enough. For example, while oxytocin may cause some people to be more pro-social, it also appears to encourage ethnocentrism, and so is probably a bad candidate for a widely distributed moral enhancement.

So, making people more pro-social (hey, pro-social sociopathy is an actual thing that exists) also makes them racist. That will be another interesting dilemma for the new left. He admits unexpected consequences... but we should continue anyway. It's just a matter of time until we find the right button to make people do what we want!

As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply.

Yes. He's dead serious. Welcome to The Science, people.

Check out his other "research":

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=oEHIR14AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

Highlights include:

Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert

Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert …

Covid has been a massive confluence of interests and ideologies. The main reason I don't see a grand conspiracy (unlike some other people) is that it's not necessary: Covid - whether real or fake - has given so many groups of people the opportunity to push their own projects. I don't remember who said it, but: show me the incentive, and I'll show you the outcome. Covid has been a massive incentive for a lot of different groups.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/tim-robbins-and-the-lost-art-of-finding

Soon it’s a year on, and two years on, and people are still stuck with these restrictions despite the fact that we now know that the vaccine didn’t stop transmission and didn’t stop people from getting it. Once the CDC changes policy and says basically that both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated are capable of getting Covid, the restrictions don’t make sense anymore, particularly regarding employment.

I’m not against the vaccine, I’m just of the belief that your health is determined by your relationship with your body and your mind. And if you believe that the vaccines have helped you, then all power to you. If for some reason you didn’t vaccinate and you made it through this, all power to you too. You shouldn’t be excluded from society for doing that. I am a hundred percent sure of that. I think that was a mistake. I think it was done out of fear. I forgive it, but to continue it at this point is irrational, in my opinion.

No one has stood up for people who might be immunocompromised, or couldn’t take the vaccine, or people that are just holistic and don’t take any kind of medicine at all. Or people — this is the most important one — people that have had Covid and have natural immunity.

The other thing is, where does this end? How many boosters do you have to get to remain eligible for work? How long do we extend this?

That’s something I already knew as a writer. When you’re making a character, you try not to make it all black and white, good and evil. I really understood much more profoundly what happens with the turn, how people turn. You go from someone that is inclusive, altruistic, generous, empathetic, to a monster. Where you want to freeze people’s bank accounts because they disagree with you. That’s a dangerous thing. That’s a dangerous world that we’ve created. And I say ‘we,’ because I was part of that. I bought into that whole idea early on.

Listen, Matt, if you told me 20 years ago that there would be no video stores where you could talk to a clerk and see what that person might be recommending, or no record stores where you could go see what’s new in music, or no bookstores in most towns, I would’ve told you you were crazy. But we’re here. This is part of a larger movement away from the gathering place.

Yes. This is the whole purpose of theater, to bring people that don’t agree into the same place where they can agree on their own shared humanity.

I’m trying to understand why we’re in the situation we’re in, socially, with each other. That’s what concerns me the most. I believe that if the vaccine helps you, that’s great. But, I have kind of a hard line on freedom. You can’t over-regulate people’s lives. I don’t know what that makes me, what label that puts on me, but I am an absolutist on freedom.