Not the Right Stuff

Constance: I know this website, little sister, and what is on it. I know how you clowns think. THAT you can take to the bank. Birchers have fascinated me since I was ten, about 45 years ago.

And btw, nitwit, the fact you are a woman does not "blow my thesis." As a rational grownup, I think statistically, in large numbers. Only a contemporary "conservative" could argue, as you do, that a particular exception to a generalized precept amounts to a refutation. Here in adultland, we think of aggregates in medians and means--and I was just explaining the gender gap as it relates to the right-wing conceit that they are "rational."

It has nothing to do with big words. It has everything to do with discipline of thought. You right-wingers are greatly indulged--which is the reason why your thinking has become so sloppy and stupid over the decades. When I was a kid, much of conservatism was vital and interesting. Today, it is flat and uninspired, like the Bircherite pap I remember that sat at its fringes back in the day.

There are few things as inspired as Truth, Liberty, and Tolerance. Modern Conservatives didn't invent those words, neither did the "Birchers". In the history of mankind, there have always been those who seek to diminish or destroy Truth, Liberty, and Tolerance; Modern Liberals aren't the first.

The battle between Liberty and not-Liberty is part of the human condition. Your attempts to claim that Man's desire to be left alone was "invented" in the 18th Century and that it is outdated, quaint, or illogical further proves that you are completely disconnected from History and the Nature of Man.

Perhaps, but after Obama's behavior at last night's thrilling correspondents' dinner, I would think he deserves the same loathing as Trump. We can surely do better.

Shirker: you are guilty of many things, but witnessing me is not one of them. All you have witnessed over these years is a man who is at odds with your third-rate, media-driven conception of truth. That's not my problem, son--it's yours.

It is funny. You rarely attempt to refute my arguments on the merits. Sometimes you'll come up with an itemized recounting of how Democrats are lowlifes or whatever, but for the most part, my arguments catch you off-guard, as the "conservative liberalism" I articulate simply is not on your media-induced radar. And so, in your vanity, you just assume that I am being deceptive, or whatever. You remind of that Family Guy episode, where there was a guy trailing Peter around shouting insults at him. What can one do? Insults are fun. I hurl them myself. But in the end, they do not clinch an argument. Rationality does that. And as someone once said, to paraphrase, reason cannot lead a person from a position that it did not lead to.

So whatever your stupid yammer about my pathologies, there is one of us who is pathological, and it ain't me, son. Btw, check out Current Biology for a scientific breakdown on the neurology of liberalism vs. conservatism. We are driven by rationality and empathy (the ability to see things from another's POV, regardless of whether or not that POV falls within the ambit of personal experience). You are driven by emotional response and social belonging. So look at the mirror next time you engage in psychobabble, chump.

I would also say, to the rest of you, that American conservatives sometimes think that they are rational and liberalism is emotional because of the gender gap between the Right and the Left. I do believe that men tend to be more quantitative as a rule than women. I think science reflects that we have more grey matter in our brain and they have more white matter--in other words, that we are more mathematical and they are more linguistic.

However, it is important to distinguish how we think in our immediate interpersonal relations and how we think in the abstract, i.e. about macros and aggregates and the big worldview stuff. These are different categories. Most conservatives in America, I have noticed, are perfectly quantitative as an interpersonal matter, but when it comes to the abstract big picture stuff, the rationality breaks down and they become hijacked by their emotions. Women, on the other hand, tend to build rationality as they move towards the broader perspective. It is a discipline of rationality that liberals have and you right-wingers do not. So again, at its base, the excessive emotion in the American body politic comes, not from women, but from men.

Nice rant. Take a prozac.

American conservatives are rational. Liberalism is emotional and based on what feels good and looks good to others. Macros, aggregates, worldview, and all the other big words in your post are not impressive. American conservatives are rational. Liberals are emotional. I am female, and I am conservative. I guess that blows your thesis out of the water then.

Shirker: you do not refute liberalism with insults and blathering about Saul Alinsky (or whomever). Insults and blathering there may be, but try to throw in a little content relative to what I said. I am not the liberal you imagine liberalism to be. You presume this means I am deceptive ("falderal about classic liberalism he portends to play for"). In fact, it only means you are conceited, as though your categories of thought are the final word on the matter. And honestly, son, Fox geezers like you are not the final word on the long arc that is our moral and civic heritage.

For the rest of you guys, I would divide liberalism into three basic groups: 1) contemporary liberalism, which is the multicultural pluralism of the contemporary left that so many of you find corrosive and threatening. While I am no fan of multiculturalism and think it is a wrong turn, and while I agree that it is corrosive to our civic life, the most threatening element to our civic life at this moment in history comes from the Right. Ungovernable out of power, autocratic while in power, with violence as their subtext and a woeful disregard for the humble admissions of ignorance that must drive a peaceable and orderly body politic, the American Right is transforming our vibrant middle-class country into a banana republic. That said, multiculturalism is stupid, bad, and weak.

2) the second general category of liberalism is classical liberalism. Shirker mentioned this one. Classical liberals basically draw from John Locke, Adam Smith, and the American Founders, without any serious admission of the moral lessons derived from the subsequent 200+ years of historic experience. For instance, they have nothing interesting to say about corporate power and its debilitating impact on republican (small "r") imperatives. Nor have they updated their perspective on the role of government, confusing the Founders railings against monarchy and the divine rights of kings with their own stupid railings against representative authority and government that governs with the consent of the governed. In other words, classical liberals attempt to shoehorn the teachings of the Enlightenment--indispensable teachings, by the way--into contemporary realities, without regard to subsequent historic evolution. I guess their thinking is that the moral truths uncovered by that era are true for all time, but that is not quite the right way to approach it, and so classical liberalism is reduced to confusing mere stubbornness with timeless moral precepts. In fact, what we should take from the Enlightenment is their respect for reason, humanity, science, markets, and representative government, and apply that respect to what we have learned in the years since Adams and Jefferson. What those Whigs knew is not true for all time, but their way of knowing it was. Classical liberalism is quite confused on that point.

3) The third type of liberalism is what I call "conservative liberalism." That is what I am. And that, I think, is what many others are. But again, truth is not a numbers game. Anyhow, i have been posting "conservative liberalism" since I arrived here, five or six years ago. It is one reason I refuse to call you guys "conservative," as your radicalism is too ill-conceived and childish to be worthy of the name.

Anyhow, that's the deal. And before you say it is impossible to be conservative and liberal at the same time, I would agree that, in the contemporary vernacular, how the terms are used on teevee or in talk radio or the like, it is impossible. But in the more precise use of language, where language actually matters, is definable and a vehicle towards objective reality (rather than emotive eyewash), 'conservative' and 'liberal' are not mutually exclusive. Look at England, with the coalition government there. Look at Canada, with the PCs. The Christian Democrats in Germany are something like "conservative liberals." It is only in America, where conservatism has spiraled into a kind of Jacksonian craziness bankrolled by private oligarchic interests, that it is impossible to see conservatism as a force that is capable of moving beyond its fixation with classical liberal truths.

Anyhow, have a lot of work to do right now. Later.

If "conceit" is the child of years-long observations; a witnessing to the year in, year out pedantry, rants, emotive and dramatic narratives you've chosen---I am guilty.
Going back over 5 years to all of the oxygen you sucked up on, Hugh Hewitt's site, I speak from a knowledge that is based on a well established sense of your pathologies.

"Classical liberals basically draw from John Locke, Adam Smith, and the American Founders, without any serious admission of the moral lessons derived from the subsequent 200+ years of historic experience. For instance, they have nothing interesting to say about corporate power and its debilitating impact on republican (small "r") imperatives."

You're just the king of strawmen, aren't you? As a Classic Liberal, I've often said that those who expand the size of government literally PROMOTE crony capitalism because the only reasons anybody lobbys govt is for a piece of private sector taxpayer largess or to get govt off their backs. IF you really cared about stifling the influence of corporations on our public institutions, you'd vote for Constitutional Conservatives, thus minimizing the threat of govt meddling and eliminating the ability to profit from private sector, taxpayer-coerced revenues.

Now, if you find Liberty oppressive or "autocratic", like the Looters and Moochers, and insist on more meddling and control by government to "free you from freedom", then you'll just have to get used to the Corporate Oligarchy. It is, afterall YOUR CHILD.

I see that your baby is crying, better go find some taxpayers to jam into his fat mouth,

http://usdebtclock.org/

Hey, Rahm Emanuel left Washington to rule the city. I don't think Trump matched his language yet.

Help! Help! The Donald is coming! Geez what a bunch of drama Queens!The only guy that will hurt the republican nominee for POTUS will be Ron Paul.If they don't nominate someone that Paul can throw his9-12% for then they will be in trouble.As far as Trump goes the Gop better figure out why he's connecting with the people.

For a President who actually takes his oath of office seriously, and honors it to the letter, I am willing to accept some salty language. I will say this for Trump, he will honor whatever oaths he may be called upon to swear. On the other hand, I'm not sure he understands the Constitution well enough to actually succeed in defending it from all enemies foreign or domestic. November 2012 is still a few weeks away, so we will see what develops.

"he will honor whatever oaths he may be called upon to swear.
'cept for marriage, I guess."

SoCal- "RL, can you get the split of cheating spouse by political affiliation? "

Funny you should mention that...

http://writechic.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/hookers-prefer-republicans/

Hookers in Denver look forward to the upcoming Democratic National Convention and the money that means for the world’s oldest profession. But according to the Rocky Mountain News prostitutes prefer the GOP. More Johns are Republicans.

“We get a lot more business. I don’t know if they’re just frustrated because of the family values agenda,” said Carol Leigh, a San Francisco prostitute “over 50?.

They probably tip better too.

and are cleaner.

I think Obama, being the colossal disaster and worldwide embarassment that he's been, has permanently and forever defined "not the right stuff" for America, in the way of presidents.

We definitely don't want another bombastic, self-promoting, and profane publicity seeker as president - we already have that now.

Obama showed America who was the adult and who are the children.

Now continue with your Time Out.

Yeah, he sure showed us.

homer noble,
I'm not saying that you heat your home with wood burning fireplaces---not sayin' that at all. However, you know the concept. Your idea of feeding the fire is based upon what you believe is a well contained, traditional fire box.
When you put kindling (in the form of queries) to this CLOWN, PL, it is akin to throwing tree trunks on a bonfire of BLATHER. And I do mean BLATHER. This schmoe has amassed a lifetime of nonsense from various, disparate sources; her Liberal uncle-mentor, her gaggle of Liberalized teachers in public education, and her love of, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Barbara Kingsolver, and others. It's percolated, within her, for decades; a soupy concoction of conflated and deluded reality. Hers is the best representation I've witnessed of a, Virtual Reality, if you will.

Now-----not many individuals enjoy philosophical ruminatings moreso than me; simply realize that in this format, too much gets lost, misconstrued, diluted. Not for this bimbo. She slogs on with her painfully nonsensical narratives which mostly possess no value other than her favorite pasttime of navel-gazing with both hands tied behind her back.

Bottom Line: This Bimbo has NEVER maintained any sense of honesty (part of the existence within a Virtual Reality). She has the fundamentally flawed concept of her version of, "Liberalism", believing, rather, that she subscribes to the traditional, classic liberal (small "l") ideology.
NOT SO. By way of only one example, she vehemently argued several months ago that Bill Clinton actually INITIATED, entitlement reform during his administration. Deluded? That's being kind. She would continue to argue that this "reform" continues through today, the torch of which is carried by those democrats in power now. Hers was the position that Clinton ushered in this reform following lessons learned from disasters created by LBJ and others (ignoring that FDR is grandfather for America's, entitlement theory/programs)
She is as tethered to large "L" Liberalism as any other pedestrian Democrat in today's donkey party; embracing every "moral" manifestion emerging from the party of, Nancy Pelosi, Babs Boxer, Obama, Emanuel, Barney Frank, Schumer, and-----not the least of them, Bernie Sanders. The party which invited in those socialists and communists who found themselves, sans party, in the early 80's when their own party dissolved. Those "fringies" who now dictate so much of what democrats represent today. They've embraced----including this CLOWN, every whim and whimsy that has emanated from the socialist ideology. And that-----------------my friend-------------------------is as far removed from small "l" liberalism as one can achieve.Period. Yet----she accepts it all.
So, toss another, yule log, on her bonfire-of-BLATHER. Have at it. But do not be fooled by this falderal about classic liberalism that she portends to play for.

I enjoy reading your consistently insightful comments and posts. Really do. Keep it up. What a mess though, stoking this, BLATHER-QUEEN.
Best of the day to you and yours.

What an amazing stream of utter delusion and neurosis.

You've really outdone yourself to day.

I'm going to make this quick because I have to go to work. Trump, for all the good he is doing in exposing obama and company's weaknesses and outright evil, is not presidential material. He is not presidential material, not because he is prone to using profanity in his speech, though that is not "presidential." He is not because, like Gingrich, he is not politically or morally stable. He has no stable values. They have changed their political and other views more times than most men change socks. For that and their own immoral lives, neither Trump nor Gingrich are "the right stuff."

Who has the right stuff? I honestly don't know at this point. It is so much easier, sometime, to see who doesn't than to see who does. Hopefully, before the elections come, the right candidate will be made manifest. One other thing I'm sure of, Obama and company don't have it either.

Trump's suits made in CHINA!

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/china-critic-trump-has-his-donald-j-trump-signature-collection-suits-made-in-china/

Ignoble: you would agree that civilization exists? you would also agree that some orders of civilization are better than others? In other words, on the whole and in the average, it is better to live in Sweden than in Rwanda. Would you agree to that? That there is an objective scale of value that makes Sweden better than Rwanda.

Furthermore, would you agree that this scale can be known, using our rational faculties. We see examples of the cultures of men all around us. Some are savage. Some are humane. Most are some combination therein. In other words, there is an objective moral standard, the evidence of which is in the physical world around us, in the varied civic cultures of man.

As for the equivalence of physical and economic, I was simply saying that the moral space is quantifiable and objective. So it is not a matter of proportionalizing the subjective component from the objective component. Rather, it is a matter of recognizing that morality comes from civics and that civics is a normative discipline that exists in the physical world. By "civics," I do not mean anthropology, or a particular culture, or whatever. I mean that classical field of knowledge (the Founders called it natural law or moral science) that addresses the precepts informing the rights and obligations of men.

Now, those principles can be rationally known, albeit imperfectly. We liberals put stock in rationality when it comes to uncovering moral precepts, but there is also, given human fallibility, an admission of fundamental moral ignorance. In that way, Socrates was the wisest of men, even as he acknowledged that he did not know. So moral knowledge is acquired by souls with a unique combination of humility and education--a hard sweetspot to find, as the humble are often uneducated and the educated often lack humility. But, yes, it flows out of men. What is morally true for men is also morally true for God, after all. That which obliges us also obliges Him. To think otherwise is to deny the divine spark of his wisdom. Or, to paraphrase that great liberal Kant, morality does not come from God, God comes from morality. I would add that both come from civics.

Now, I would argue that morality is evolutionary because it facilitates surviving and thriving. We certainly see knowledge being derived from historic experience, where men shudder at the slaughter bench that is history and try to learn. At the same time, I will concede that men are base and nasty creatures whose veneer of civilized behavior is easily abandoned. I always say that civilization takes centuries to build, but can be lost in years and even months. That makes me the true conservative around here. You radicals take civilization for granted--which is why you come up with such ridiculous ideas like "government is evil" and "the market is freedom."

In any event, I think I have answered your challenges, if not in the manner you demand. If something is true, it is true from the level of universal principle down to the granular particulars of the street. Which is why your moral "precepts" fail. You clowns confuse principle with stubbornness, as if principle were simply a matter of holding to fixed and unwavering ideas. As if. I wish it were that simple, but it is not. Moral wisdom requires more work than that. Which is why I say that ordinary liberalism is the crowning achievement of man.

And now, I am going to go watch my gifted southpaw nephew pitch a few innings. Answer me, if you can, even as I answered you. Because if you whine about the length of the post, or think you are disposing of me by ridiculing me, you are just reflecting your deep ineptitude. I may be wrong, even fundamentally wrong, but not simply on your dismissive say so.

PatLib, I previously posted the below... can I change my vote? I go for 'Trite and Juvenile", please put your teenager back online.

socalcon Wrote:
Apr 27, 2011 7:04 PM

Pat Lib,
In the past, your posts have been well thought out and articulate (though slanted and arrogant). Lately, they seem trite and juvenile. Has your teenager taken over the keyboard?

i know...you're a deeply confused soul. adding to the confusion is the mismatch between what you think you know and what you really know.

JJR: "moral universe" is the space that creates civilization and the civilized order. It is partly between the ears, but its consequences are definitely and deeply physical--or economic, if you prefer. The moral spectrum ranges from savage through barbarian to civilized. It can be rationally known, both inductively and deductively, through historic experience and logic. But it flows out of our humanity and is even a function of evolution. That is what i mean by "moral universe."

pondscum: good to see you, old boy. was getting a little concerned that my fellow Pacific Southwesterner was not doing well. How 'bout them Dodgers, eh? Outside the lines, an embarrassing disgrace. Just frigging disgraceful. And now we have to choose between two of baseball's biggest s***heads--Selig and McCourt. Between the lines, are you checking out Ethier's hitting streak (knock wood)? Do you remember Willie Davis' streak? Man, I sure do. That fellow could play baseball!!

A "space" that creates civilization? How can a void be creative?

What part is not "between the ears?" What is the ratio between what is "between the ears" and not between the ears?

Explain how the "physical" and the "economic" are equivalents?

If the "moral universe" is a space, i.e, a void, how can the "moral spectrum" be "rationally known" in the manner in which you state? Provide some examples.

Demonstrate how this "moral universe" of yours has flowed out of "our humanity" and provide specific examples demonstrating how it is a "function of evolution." When did it become a function of evolution? Two examples of each will suffice.

Homer, it almost sounds like Aristotle's 'Politica' on LSD.

"If he gets retreads like Romneycare, Hucksterbee, and Yawnplenty to actually commit to something and get off dead center I applaud him."

Romney and Huckabee trail Obama by only single digits.. They are actually PLAUSIBLE. (Actually, I think Huck is. I think Romney will be sunk when people actually start talking about the crazy stuff you need to get before they issue you the Magic Underwear.)

Trump and Palin trail Obama by 17-20%.

How long would we keep a DISTRICT ATTORNEY who told a child killer, if you move to canada we will forget your murders, its the same, just that your kind of leaders seem to relish in the GAME of diplomacy, it makes them feel important, smart, and powerful, but all it is in reality is an IDIOTS GAME OF DELUSION, at others cost and loss. Great keaders we have ,and maybe Trump will be what we need to end this foolishness and insanity we call OUR GOVERNMENT, its no wonder we are hated, our LEADERS are insane power hungry IDIOTS, TRUMPS RIGHT they are STUPID AT EVERY LEVEL, from OBAMA to REID, to MCCAIN to every senator and congressman who aspouses to these policies and votes or spews the nonsense we hear daily from washington.

Carol, just what is the RIGHT stuff anyway? We have LEADERS who cant seem to do ANYTHING . They OPINE how to deal with murderers and have IDIOTIC IDEAS AND ANSWERS, Libia, we shouldnt talk to that aminal, WE SHOULD say loud and clear, YOUR GOING TO THE FIRING SQUAD IN THE HAGUE, but to all that surround him, you caneither arrest him or shoot him OR JOIN HIM ON THE GALLOWS, the choice is yours, and the next sound will be hundreds of choppers carring tanks and men to surround you compound and capture ALL or KILL all , the same for every despot who murders innocent UNARMED civilians in the streets, NO LEAVING TO LIVE IN A DESPOTS COUNTRY, you do this you go to your death either on the end of a rope, or under a bomb through your roof, and EVERY DINGLE ONE who joins , assist aides you will be WITH YOU ,thats how you end this garbage, you stop being political IDIOTS and handle them with an iron unyeilding hand with absolutely no DOUBT in anyn ones mind, you murder civilians in your streets, WE WILL HANG YOU , no more deals.

The problem with Trump's appeal is that he is playing to the anti-Obama crowd right now.

This isn't about the Birth Certificate, it's about a section of the population that hates Obama with every fiber of their being. The adults in the GOP aren't playing to this crowd, because they know that they just make them look bad.

Trump, of course, isn't actually running for anything but another season of The Apprentice, which used to be an interesting show when it was actual wannabe corporate bloodsuckers, but when he just changed it to washed up celebrities, it became kind of boring.

The fact is axe you just admitted to watching Trumps show and so do other millions of Hussein toilet water drinkers.Like you they are influenced by this type of programing which is why Trump is connecting so well with the public.The sheep are being herded in multiple directions and are very confused. If I were you I would stay glued to the boob tube until it tells you what to do next.

No, actually, I don't watch his show. I do watch "The Soup" on E every week, and they give us "best of clips" where these people make fools of themselves.

"Hey, I'm going to do a show where I make Gary Busey represent a fake company. His brain is totally fried, so it'll be funny". Do you really want him to run the country that way? Make Gary Busey the Ambassador to China. That'd be good for laughs.

The sad part is, when Trump goes back to his show, you guys are going to be stuck with Palin and Pawlenty and Romney, all of whom trail Obama badly.

Um, Carol? Have you taken a look at the White House recently? The current occupant is a bombastic, self-promoting, profane publicity seeker. And I don't use "profane" lightly, in spite of the fact that the current example of edifying dignity limits his use of four-letter words in public.

Steven, Obama has delegated the verbal profanity to Biden. In trumps one speech, he cut the f----er gap to Biden in half. and, Biden was, in 2007, one of the Lefts darlings for the WH.

Surely you two jest?
Ballerina Wonder-boy, Rahm Emanuel, only had two words in his vocabulary, and they were not, "Merry Christmas".
It is suspected that because he is so confused about his sexuality, he adopted this tough-guy talk to counter his, well, feminine side.
So----Obama indeed, "delegated", the verbal profanity to several around him.

The Donald is inside Obama and his toilet water drinkers heads add some fearful ole boy GOPers to the mix and you have stew of everything that is wrong with America.Trump is laughing and they are crying like a bunch of middle school girls that just got dumped for the first time.As soon as the right conservative comes to the forefront and learns from the Donald why he is so effective Trump will fade away.

Ummm, Sloan, buddy, you guys aren't going to win with just the Obama-haters.

You guys need to get some of the people who voted for Obama last time to change their minds this time.

Umm...

>>>
You guys need to get some of the people who voted for Obama last time to change their minds this time.
<<<

I can imagine that would be ALL of them except for the nutcases who are stuck on stupid which suck into the latest Leftist Liberal racist rants, the voters who are deceased, the voters who are not citizens, or the profiteers of the tax grabs.

In other words, most Americans. Be ready for another democrat wash out in '12 "roman". White House, Senate, House, local seats and toss in some governors just for hoots.

Leaving out the 8 years of Bush's "unpresidential presidential behavior" makesvthis screed of Carol's simply laughable. I mean, is this woman for real, or is she just being paid to carry the sewage of the Republican Party? If so, let's hope the poor, dotty old sot is drunk most of the time, otherwise how would she possibly stand herself?

saint, so, fill me in, is Obama content to campaign against Bush... Yet again? You would think the 'empty suit' would have a record by now.

The Donald is a pompous clown. Usually the LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEE idots are Demotwits. Donald is looking for more ratings, sucking up attention, filling his NEED cavern and disrespecting just about everything. When--IF--he begins a 'real run', his smarmy deals for decades will be under thousands of eager microscopes. NOT gonna be a viable candidate, Trump-O.

With our VP saying signing the healthcare law was a big fing deal, but that aside, Trump is right, THEY ARE IDIOTS, and anyone who votes them into office is as well. YOU DONT GET IT, its not the mf thats whats important its the STUPID, so I will HELP. Would you take a 5 million dollar mortage out on your 300,000 home just so you could wire it from Omaha to SanDeigo and give it to an Illegal for rent and a new car? Thats what your LEADERS have been doing and even worse, so Trumps RIGHT and bravo for him saying it I hope he keeps going, and if he adds a mf here and there, WELL BLEEP IT OUT, as for the ignidnation which seems to abound, WELL at least we know he says it, and he doesnt act like he was TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT when its done, and after all, THEY ALL SAY IT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, the same closed doors where they also SELL YOUR FUTURE AND STEAL YOUR PRESENT, maybe its better out in the open, TRANSPARANCY OF REAL TEETH SO TO SAY.

D Trump...the role model for American youth

Trump/Palin 2012!

And Speaker Of The House will share a table with the Birther at the Press Correspondents Dinner!

GOP: The Reality Show Party

It's "The Vast Graphic Arts Conspiracy" christian!

Must stop all these terrible photoshop exposés now before the true believers fall away.

Actually, my respect for Trump just went up a bit...

He's still a clown, but at least he's a clown that gets it.