This Brings New Meaning to "Massive Mistake"

Normally I would consider firing people to be a severe-enough punishment for work-related screwups.......but not in this case.

Here we're talking the stocks....public flogging....or....I've got it....being locked in a soundproof room 24/7 for a week with an endless replay of Ted Kennedy speeches.

Cause and Effect? Never Heard of It

People often ask how someone like myself manages to survive in San Francisco, especially given the hotbed of lunatics that we have in place of real city government.

The answer; it's endlessly amusing.

Take, for example, the major story from Wednesday.

San Francisco supervisors expressed shock Wednesday over a report that parking meters are pulling in just a fraction of the revenue that might be expected in a city where competition for space to tuck away one's car can be cutthroat.

"There's something seriously wrong here," said Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, who called for the hearing. "We've got to get an analysis. We've got to understand what's going on here. It's beyond credulity."

McGoldrick was responding to a report from Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst Harvey Rose that shows San Francisco's roughly 23,000 meters collect on average between $2.61 and $5.59 a day.

Surprisingly, the lowest collection rates were recorded in the core of downtown San Francisco, where drivers run the gantlet to find a legal parking space and where meters cost as much as $3 an hour.

Of course, one wonders what their answer will be when confronted with this.

San Francisco has about 23,000 coin-fed parking meters, while city residents hold about 90,000 permanent and temporary handicap parking placards, issued by the state Department of Motor Vehicles, allowing them to park for free, said Judson True, spokesman for the city's Municipal Transportation Agency.

That's about four placards for every meter.

And, to put a nice bit of icing on the Supervisors's wacky cake:

More than 450 City Hall aides, police officers and others in San Francisco have had passes for free parking in city-owned garages -- a perk that could add up to more than $1 million a year.

And many of those passes may have been distributed in violation of the city's charter and policies to encourage transit use.

True, it does get annoying on occasion. But if there's one thing that the move to San Francisco has taught me, it's that the universe has an enormous self-correcting mechanism when it comes to nitwits.

Good Job; Let Me Beat You For It

This is, to put it nicely, insane.

But in a Senate Banking Committee hearing examining credit card practices this week, one consumer advocate suggested those who pay their balances in full every month (about half of all cardholders) should pay a small annual fee to credit card companies.

And why is that?

Those who carry balances on which they pay interest and fees are subsidizing cardholders with no revolving balance who may even be in rewards programs, said lawyer Michael Donavan of Philadelphia-based Donavan and Searles. He represents those who have unwittingly fallen into many of the sandtrap fees and penalties embedded in hard-to-understand credit card agreements.

Restoring small annual fees on cards used by "non-revolvers" would bolster revenues for card issuers, who then in turn might not make life so expensive for those with revolving balances.

Therefore, those of us who do what you're supposed to do and use our credit cards responsibly should be forced to pay because doing so might lower costs for those who don't.

Or, in other words, those of us who drive carefully and cautiously should have our premiums raised so that insurance for those who don't will cost less.

Does that make sense to anyone who isn't a Democrat?

Think About It

There was an interesting juxtaposition of two articles in today's San Francisco Chronicle.

The first one talked about citrus growers in the Central Valley, who are looking at the potential destruction of their crops due to a prolonged cold snap, and included this point:

Philip LoBue of Lindsay (Tulare County), who has a packing operation and grows citrus on 1,000 acres, said Monday morning that another destructive dose of cold had just struck.........

LoBue said that California's chronic shortage of farmworkers worsened his problems. He wanted to speed up his harvest last week to try to beat the freeze, but no additional field workers were available. He had his own crew of 125 workers but could have used 200, he said.

"We need a guest worker program," LoBue said, referring to a program proposed as immigration reform.

Meanwhile, over in Atlanta, the tune was a bit different.

Against the backdrop of an escalating war in Iraq and increasing economic disparity in the United States, many who spoke during the ceremony used King's pulpit to call for a return to the principles of social justice and nonviolence that defined the civil rights leader's life.

"Millions can't find jobs, have no health insurance and struggle to make ends meet, working minimum-wage jobs," said Mayor Shirley Franklin of Atlanta. "What's going on?" she asked, invoking the title of the Marvin Gaye song.

Why haven't the twain met?

Simple answer; the growers can't afford to pay what the "millions" want, and the "millions" won't work for what the growers can afford to pay.

What people are continually missing in the immigration debate in this country is that we don't have a worker shortage; we have a disconnect of priorities between the groups involved. Consumers want cheap fruit, growers want cheap labor, and laborers want high pay. But if laborers receive high pay, labor is no longer cheap for the grower, and neither will fruit be for the consumer -- which means consumers, by and large, will either eat less fruit or switch to imported fruits produced by cheaper labor, thus collapsing the grower and putting the laborer out of work.

Thus we see the great unexpected consequence of the immigration debate. If we continue to allow what is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited immigration of labor, our growers can remain competitive with foreign producers, but at the cost of driving down labor rates and taking jobs that Americans theoretically could hold. However, if we tighten the borders and do nothing else, the cost of labor will skyrocket, driving up prices, making our growers uncompetitive in world markets, and forcing them out of existence -- or slapping tariffs on imported fruits and forcing the consumer to pay more.

One area where I differ from classical economic libertarianism is that I do believe there is a place for government intervention in the market -- and resulting higher costs -- when it can be justified from a strategic and defensive standpoint. For instance, we do not allow foreign-owned companies to act as primary contractors on defense projects; even though they could in theory do it more inexpensively, we believe the added risk is not worth the cost savings.

Agriculture is a similar situation. Without food, we cannot survive, period; thus, it makes perfect sense that our government should take proactive steps to protect our capability to grow and harvest our own food.

Towards that end, what I would suggest is that the government set up an internal "guest worker" program for American agriculture. Growers who employ verified, registered American citizens who are part of the program would receive a dollar-for-dollar tax cut reimbursing them for every dollar above the local prevailing wage they pay; in addition, anyone enrolled in the program would be immediately eligible for Federally-funded health insurance.

Yes, it is subsidizing. But it's subsidizing growers who employ Americans and pay them above-average wages -- which ensures not only that growers will survive, but that Americans will be employed, their dollars earned will remain in our economy, and we will have a workforce capable of keeping us in food in the event of an international emergency or incident.

Think First, Act Differently

Not surprisingly, the Dems are starting to fudge and renege on their campaign promises -- such as cutting interest rates for all student loans.

Their proposal, scheduled for a vote next week, would cut interest rates on some student loans in half. However, the college tuition plan has been scaled back since it was first touted on the campaign trail last year.

The interest rate relief would apply only to need-based loans and doesn't help people who take out unsubsidized student loans -- a distinction not made in the campaign literature Democrats handed out before winning control of Congress last fall. The measure also abandons a pledge to reduce rates for parents who take out loans to help with their kids' college costs.

But my favorite is how they intend to pay for what rate reductions they're forcing:

To avoid increasing the deficit, the bill's cost would be offset by trimming subsidies the government gives lenders and reducing the guaranteed return banks get when students default. Banks also would have to pay more in fees.

So banks would have to make loans at cheaper interest rates, but get less in subsidies, less in fees, and less in the very likely event that someone defaults.

What seems most likely is that less banks will choose to make student loans at all -- which ought to do wonders for college accessibility.

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has the right idea; if the government wants to make college more accessible, it should cough up more via Pell Grants (which don't require repayment), rather than forcing private industry to unprofitably subsidize matters. But that makes it impossible for Democrats to even continue to pretend that they can increase spending massively without similarly increasing taxes.

Talk About Your Next-Door Neighbors

The State Armory building at 14th and Mission here in San Francisco can be said at the very least to be striking. It's a massive and glorious pile of brick and stone, columns and arches four stories high, dominating nearly the entire block and area. Perfect for a castle or dungeon -- and that's what its new owners have planned.

Obviously, this is causing more than a bit of chagrin and upset among local residents and businesses. But don't cry for them just yet; as San Francisco Examiner columnist Ken Garcia puts it, they shouldn't complain, since they shot down every other attempt to use it.

I Do So Laugh

It's always more than a bit amusing when two people who were all buddy-buddy when it came to banning you use the same sort of accusations as reason to turn their guns on each other.

Almost makes me think I should provoke another battle, just to give them a target before they tear each other apart.

Naaah.

A Tale of Two Psychologies

There is hope for the gay community yet.

It almost makes up for the constant reminders of why it's needed.

All of the reasons for why gays continue to have rates of sexually-transmitted diseases that would do the Third World proud are in that second article. Men are quite obviously having sex in public places, writing it off as part of being gay, and all the authority figures can do is worry about being called "sex-negative", or explain it away as, "well, straight men probably screw in the steam room too".

Perhaps a push for introspection and evaluation of gay mens' values, as in the first story, can set us on the road to eliminating the second.

I certainly hope so.

UPDATE: The ever-eloquent Jamie at I Must Be Dreaming saw the same article -- and has a most linkworthy response.

Veddy, Veddy Interesting

Malcontent links, via Andrew Sullivan, to a quiz from 1994 that rates you on where you stand on the political-ideological spectrum from liberal to conservative. Wholly liberal is 0, wholly conservative is 40.

I scored a 25.

Not quite what people expect, I wager.

In a Fit of New Year's Optimism....

I went ahead and commented on Malcontent, on a post regarding smoking bans.

Whoever did so can take pride in the fact that they are well on their way to matching the world speed record for erasing my posts, as previously set by John Aravosis.

And that's with a post that agreed with one of them.

Like I said.....they.

Democrats We Love

Meet Ross Lajeunesse.

He's brainy, as he showed in his previous position as Chief of Staff and Chief Deputy Controller for the state of California.

He's got impeccable credentials, having worked for Democrats like Susan Kennedy and Steve Westly.

And he's now in a seat of enviable power, having accepted the role of Deputy Chief of Staff for newly-reelected Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

What makes this writer gush over him the most, though, is his statement in last week's Bay Area Reporter:

Same-sex marriage advocates should not count on LaJeunesse trying to convince the governor to sign a pro-gay marriage bill into law next year. He said he agrees with the position Schwarzenegger took in vetoing the bill in 2005, and besides, he is focused on other legislation.

"What I personally believe isn't that relevant," he said. "On the marriage issue he has clearly stated while he supports domestic partner rights and will defend those if need be, the people by referendum decided gay marriage is something that is not going to happen in California. Since the people have spoken in California that is the way it is."

LaJeunesse pointed out that the governor favors seeing either the courts rule on the matter or voters overturn the state's antigay marriage laws at the ballot box.

Either choice, he said, "makes a lot of sense legally and is correct as far as I am concerned."

That, my friends, takes guts on the level of telling Rosie O'Donnell to sit down and shut up.

And to it, I say, "Amen".

It is gays like Lajeunesse, current Schwarzenegger Chief of Staff Susan Kennedy, California Assembly candidates Steve Sion, Mark Patrosso, Brenda Green, Ralph Denny, and William Chan, that will help make and maintain progress in this state. Bravo to them all.

And for those of you out there looking for someone....Ross is single.....and those nights in Sacramento can be more than a little bit chilly.....

Really, It IS Simpler Than It Looks

Chris Crain, the former editor for the Washington Blade, has on his blog a piece discussing the impending retirement of Republican House member Jim Kolbe and the issues on which Chris feels Kolbe should speak out more.

By and by, it's fairly even-handed; however, there's one thing that caught my attention.

Ironically, Kolbe complains later in the interview that the Human Rights Campaign hasn't devoted more energy to extending Social Security survivor benefits to gay couples — a move that would require repealing the half of DOMA that goes unmentioned in the article.

Actually, that's not quite the case.

DOMA, as Chris correctly points out, prevents the Federal government from recognizing anything that isn't a man-woman coupling as a spouse or married.

However, that only causes a problem if Social Security conditions survivor's benefits on spousal or marital status.

Many private pension and retirement plans do not; they allow an employee to designate beneficiaries, who may or may not be related or married to them, to receive their accrued benefit upon their death. This process was made even easier and simpler by the past year's pension reform bill, which allowed such transfers to take place without an immediate tax hit regardless of the individual's relationship to the beneficiary.

Congress is more than capable of changing Social Security to match that; instead of requiring "spouse", they could with perfect right institute a beneficiary system in which you designate someone to receive your survivor benefits from Social Security regardless of their relationship or other status. Since you would no longer need to be a "spouse" to receive these benefits, DOMA would not be violated.

However, it kind of begs the question.......why bother?

To explain why, one need only take a look at what would happen under Social Security if my partner and I were married and I died. First off, because he isn't old enough or disabled, my partner would not have immediate access to my survivor's benefits in the first place; he would only be able to claim them if he were of a certain age and/or disability status. Second, even if he were of age or status, any amount that he could collect would be reduced relative to his income if he continued to work. If he begins to collect Social Security -- or is already collecting Social Security -- he gets the better of his direct benefits or what he can collect of my survivor's benefits, not both of them; in either case, he must take them as a cash distribution and be taxed accordingly. Finally, if he were to remarry, the government could with perfect right immediately terminate any survivor's benefits he was receiving.

In contrast, if I were to die, my private retirement plans would immediately pay out my accrued benefit to him as my beneficiary as he preferred, either as a taxable cash distribution or as a tax-free transfer into his own retirement account, there for him to invest as he sees fit and use when he needs it. He doesn't have to choose between his own retirement funds and mine; he gets both. Furthermore, he gets to keep both regardless of whether he remarries or not with no dimunition in their value.

This convoluted mess is why we found straight couples arguing for domestic partnerships in last year's battle over the Arizona marriage amendment; they're trying to dodge the fact that, if they get married, their Social Security payouts drop, either by the negation of survivor's benefits or the fact that the Social Security limit on payouts to their household is lower than the combined value of their benefits if considered separately.

In short, until meaningful reform to Social Security takes place, the argument over gay couples needing marriage to get Social Security benefits is pointless AND contradicted by the fact that straight couples are avoiding marriage so as not to lose Social Security benefits by getting married.

And the chances of a Democratic lapdog group like HRC advocating for meaningful changes to Social Security are about the same as that of Perez Hilton advocating for restraint in journalism.

A Lovely Little Conundrum

Once you get past the article headline, I can see only one problem with this research; the potential reduction of the gay dating pool.

Others aren't quite so easygoing.

The research, at Oregon State University in the city of Corvallis and at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, has caused an outcry. Martina Navratilova, the lesbian tennis player who won Wimbledon nine times, and scientists and gay rights campaigners in Britain have called for the project to be abandoned.

Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay. She said: “How can it be that in the year 2006 a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments?” She said gay men and lesbians would be “deeply offended” by the social implications of the tests.

The irony here, of course, is that this research goes a long way towards the Holy Grail of gaydom; proving once and for all that, "it's not our fault, we were born this way". What Martina and crew evidently forgot is that, once you know the cause, the next logical action is to figure out various ways to sidestep the effect.

For me, this research is a dream come true; I finally get to see what happens when it becomes possible to identify gay babies in utero. It should be interesting to watch the Martinas of the world try to argue that a baby that can be merrily cut, folded, spindled, mutilated, vacuumed, and harvested for parts without a word of protest from them suddenly has rights, as well as seeing the rabidly-homophobic contort what little morality they have to justify aborting the demon-spawn that they previously argued was "life" and "sacrosanct".

Hat tip: Rhymes With Right

Muslims 1, Uninformed 0

This gives a whole new meaning to "defense-related pork spending".

The best line is this one:

Earlier this month, Baker conceded that the Muslims probably aren't after his land, but he said he had to go through with the pig races because "I would be like a total idiot if I didn't. I'd be the laughingstock now because I've gone too far."

It reminds one of the old Western adage......a lot of wrecks begin as a matter of principle.

Rest in Peace, Dear Friend

In memoriam of occasional commentor and blog-buddy Blewsdawg's sad news about the passing of his companion Snickers, I offer George Graham Vest's moving Eulogy on the Dog.

The best friend a man has in this world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter that he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name, may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has, he may lose. It flies away from him, perhaps when he needs it most.

A man's reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its clouds upon our heads. The one absolutely unselfish friend that a man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him and the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous is his dog.

A man's dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. She will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only she may be near his master's side.

She will kiss the hand that has no food to offer. She will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounters with the roughness of the world. She guards the sleep of her pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, she remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces, she is as constant in her love as the sun in its journey through the heavens.

If fortune drives the master forth an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him to guard against danger, to fight against his enemies, and when the last scene of all comes and death takes the master in its embrace and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, her head between her paws, her eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even to death.

Those of us who share our lives with a canine companion -- or companions -- know well your pain, Blews......and offer our deepest, deepest sympathies.

If You Think This Is Funny....

you may have spent way too much time in the tech industry.

1. There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

2.If at first you don't succeed; call it version 1.0.

3. Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips."

4. My pokemon bring all the nerds to the yard, and they're like you wanna trade cards? Darn right, I wanna trade cards, I'll trade this but not my charizard.

5. 1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d.

6. I'm not anti-social; I'm just not user friendly.

7. I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.

8. Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning.

9. A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history, with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila.

10. My software never has bugs. It just develops random features.

And by the way, I thought it was hilarious.

Hat tip: The Tech Chronicles

Daily Small Ironic Pleasure #2584

Seeing that the truck that neglected the niceties of turn signals and just cut you off in traffic is pulling a trailer.....emblazoned with "PUTZMEISTER".

(Hint: Think Yiddish)

Post-Christmas Bits and Pieces

First bit of advice: when asked to choose among five different desserts at Christmas dinner, the correct answer is not "One of each."

Second order of business: the reasonable question of commentor John, in regards to my returning fire to Malcontent.

Isn't this all just a bit silly?

If Antonio Villaraigosa, Gavin Newsom, and Arnold Schwarzenegger can learn to get along (those three have been very buddy-buddy lately, what with all the friendly joint press conferences on global warming, homeland security, schools, etc.) -- so can Gay Republican Bloggers!

One, I think Michael, Matt, and Robbie would be somewhat perturbed by you referring to them as "Republicans". I personally don't mind, but a better descriptor under political party for me would be "pissy".

Second, and more to the issue, my comments are open to them, they are free to link me, they are welcome to email me, and they are, as several of my posts show, copiously linked on my blog, with deserved kudos showered upon them when they make a good point.

If they want to get along, my door is quite open, as it always has been and always will be. But the key word in that is they.

And finally, for those of you who haven't found it yet, there is a great dialogue going on in the comments between regular Pat and new guest DayTrader. Thanks to both these individuals for being willing to share their thoughts and insights in a most-refreshing fashion.

Now, back to the leftovers.......

Pax Terra

Today I want to wish you all a very simple sentiment: Merry, blessed Christmas.

Those simple words seem to have brought an enormous amount of heat and smoke to the world, agitating the secular and the "pious" to actions which are not only unbecoming behavior, but in several ways, spit in the face of what Christmas truly represents. This is appalling on so many levels, but enough of it has been said that to do more would be a distraction to what this day is.

To me, the best representation of Christmas comes from Martin Luther in his sermon on the Nativity (emphasis mine).

How unobstrusively and simply do those events take place on earth that are so heralded in heaven!

On earth it happened in this wise: There was a poor young wife, Mary of Nazareth, among the meanest dwellers of the town, so little esteemed that none noticed the great wonder that she carried. She was silent, did not vaunt herself, but served her husband, who had no man or maid. They simply left the house. Perhaps they had a donkey for Mary to ride upon, though the Gospels say nothing about it, and we may well believe that she went on foot. The journey was certainly more than a day from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem, which lies on the farther side of Jerusalem.

Joseph had thought, “When we get to Bethlehem, we shall be among relative and can borrow everything.” A fine idea that was! Bad enough that a young bride married only a year could not have had her baby at Nazareth in her own house instead of making all that journey of three days when heavy with child! How much worse that when she arrived there was no room for her! The inn was full. No one would release a room to this pregnant woman. She had to go to a cow stall and there bring forth the Maker of all creatures because nobody would give way.

Shame on you, wretched Bethlehem! The inn ought to have been burned with brimstone, for even though Mary had been a beggar maid or unwed, anybody at such a time should have been glad to give her a hand.

There are many of you in this congregation who think to yourselves: “If only I had been there! How quick I would have been to help the Baby! I would have washed his linen. How happy I would have been to go with the shepherds to see the Lord lying in the manger!” Yes, you would! You say that because you know how great Christ is, but if you had been there at that time you would have done no better than the people of Bethlehem. Childish and silly thoughts are these! Why don’t you do it now? You have Christ your neighbor. You ought to serve him, for what you do to your neighbor in need you do to the Lord Christ himself.

The birth was still more pitiable. No one regarded this young wife bringing forth her first-born. No one took her condition to heart. No one noticed that in a strange place she had not the very least thing needful in childbirth. There she was without preparation: no light, no fire, in the dead of night, in thick darkness. No one came to give the customary assistance. The guests swarming in the inn were carousing, and no one attended to this woman. I think myself if Joseph and Mary had realized that her time was so close she might perhaps have been left in Nazareth. And now think what she could use for swaddling clothes – some garment she could spare, perhaps her veil - certainly not Joseph’s breeches, which are now on exhibition at Aachen.

Think, women, there was no one there to bathe the Baby. No warm water, nor even cold. No fire, no light. The mother was herself midwife and the maid. The cold manger was the bed and the bathtub. Who showed the poor girl what to do? She had never had a baby before. I am amazed that the little one did not freeze. Do not make of Mary a stone. For the higher people are in the favor of God, the more tender are they.

Let us, then, meditate upon the Nativity just as we see it happening in our own babies. Behold Christ lying in the lap of this young mother. What can be sweeter than the Babe, what more lovely than the mother! What fairer than her youth! What more gracious than her virginity! Look at the Child, knowing nothing. Yet all that is belongs to him, that your conscience should not fear but take comfort in him. Doubt nothing.

To me there is no greater consolation given to mankind than this, that Christ became man, a child, a babe, playing in the lap and at the breasts of his most gracious mother. Who is there whom this sight would not comfort? Now is overcome the power of sin, death, hell, conscience, and guilt, if you come to this gurgling Babe and believe that he is come, not to judge you, but to save.

And that, my friends, is what it's all about.

With love from me and my family to yours,

Dan (North Dallas Thirty)

Return Fire

I always debate bringing comment catfights out into the public view, but hey, it's Monday, I'm home sick with the flu, and it's about time for my annual channeling of Saint Joan (of Crawford, for those of you not familiar with the gay list of holies).

To whit, Matt of the Malcontent has responded to my previous post about his invoking my name in discussion -- and it ain't pretty.

There was no one precipitating event, per se, that got you banned, even though there was indeed a "last straw" that led me to believe your antagonism against gay people and gay people's interests goes beyond anything I've seen in someone who is himself putatively gay.

Right. I hate gay people and gay peoples' interests so much, I only spent the better part of a year working my ass off, outside my own job, to raise thousands of dollars for them.

What makes this funnier is that Matt -- or his co-blogger Robbie, for that matter -- knows about what I've been doing -- because I've sent him emails about it. He knew before our falling-out, he knew during it, and I continued to send him information about it afterwards. Furthermore, knowing that he knew, how he can describe me using the words "putatively gay", or, stated differently, "thought, alleged, or assumed to be gay" is completely beyond me.

Then again, it's not; after all, since I wasn't publicizing the fact, Matt could say pretty much what he wanted; it would be my word against his, and heaven knows, gay people aren't likely to believe anything, much less whether a person is gay or not, from someone who breaks so many rules of gay behavior.

Somehow, though, I'm not betting even this will convince people otherwise.