If you don't know what's happening, let me catch you up real fast. Hillary - who is not currently running for president, but in the last week or two there has been a lot of people talking about her possibly posturing to enter it - was interviewed on a podcast and had something to say about "someone" currently running for the Democratic nomination.

Now, to be fair, Hillary thinks everyone is a Russian agent, so there's that. Every time she talks about someone she doesn't agree with, they're a Russian asset or Russian agent, and the eye rolling around the world is lowering the Earth's temperature. So maybe Hillary is a champion for climate change. 

​Anyway, Tulsi responded.

I just grabbed this screen shot at 11:20 AM Eastern on 10-19-19. As you can see, Tulsi retweeted her own tweets. The originals aren't far down below this, but they are out of order for some reason only Twitter understands. 

This has really been viral for the last day or so, and a lot of people are praising Tulsi for standing up to Hillary. But I have so many questions! So many! 

​According to RealClearPolitics, Tulsi's numbers for the Democratic nomination are super low. 

Hillary is making a claim of a third party run. I could see that. For whatever reason there are libertarians absolutely salivating over Tulsi, which makes no sense at all. Aside from Tulsi standing for less government surveillance and less war, she aligns with the libertarian party not at all. You can see her stance at her website, but she's for super huge government, she's anti-gun, for higher taxes, $15 minimum wage, etc. Other than not being Trump or Bernie, there's not much there that would appeal to a libertarian. 

But with such low polling numbers, why is she even on Hillary's mind? 

Look, I hate to speak out of turn, but this "fight" is benefiting someone. I doubt it will benefit Tulsi or was meant to. Hillary doesn't want to admit that the majority of the votes she received were from one state that doesn't even want to be in the USA anymore and that the vast majority of people who voted for her outside of there voted against Trump, not for her (and yes, and a lot of people voted against her and not for Trump, too. That's every election ever). Most people were done with the 2016 election in 2015. If anything, this fight is being aimed at bringing back the moderate Democrat base.

But there has been a lot of talk in the last week or two. Hillary is on a book tour and she's having astronomically priced dinners for people to hear her speak. There has been a thought process that she's collecting money in this fashion to build a war chest before announcing, because once she announces she can't do these things to raise money anymore. 

At the end of Tulsi's response she challenged Hillary to enter the race. Why? Does Tulsi think she can take Hillary?! I highly doubt it! Trump challenged Hillary to enter the race, too, but he does believe he can take her on again. Tulsi has nothing to back up the challenge. Cory Booker is out polling her! 

I would suspect Hillary will use the call from Trump and now the second call from Tulsi as an excuse to enter the race because "America wants me to run!" No, they really don't. 

But yes, I think this little fight is fake. It's poorly acted, but it's getting a lot of coverage, and the timing seems to be really well placed. Keep your eyes open... I think Hillary is on her way into the race. 

Here's one going around as of late:
​

There is so much happening in this tweet and so much wrong. Let's break it down, shall we?

1. So only blacks live in urban areas? There's no whites, Hispanics, etc. in urban areas? And if they aren't the only ones there, are they the only ones not getting access to education?
2. "Poor" doesn't equal "stupid." Never has. I've seen a lot of really smart folks come out of poor neighborhoods, and I've seen a lot of educated fools. I've heard a lot of awful big words come out of the mouths of folks in poor neighborhoods. There's an awful lot of people with masters degrees living on the streets or in affordable housing, and drop outs making billions of dollars a year. 
3. "Educated" doesn't equal "smart."
4. Instead of trying to convince people to use smaller words because you think an entire race of people is beneath you, how about you take action to improve the quality of education in poor neighborhoods? How about you volunteer as a tutor? Maybe apply for a job as a teacher at one of those schools? Volunteer at or start after school programs for kids in poor neighborhoods? Too much like work? Or are you scared? 

I hate tweets like this. Seriously. Here she is, thinking she's the queen of the virtual signal and she's being benevolent by standing up for the poor blacks in the United States, when the fact is that she just assumed way more than she was entitled to and spewed more racism than anyone can fathom.

It's blindingly obvious she's never spent a hot second in a poor neighborhood. Because if she had, she'd know everything she said there was hateful and racist. There are an awful lot of successful people in our world of all races who came up in a poor neighborhood. There's an awful lot of really smart people with large vocabularies in poor neighborhoods. Most of those people are working their butts off to get themselves out of there, or to give their kids a shot at getting out of there. They may not be getting a formal education in all cases, but a lot of them are getting a better education than you ever will. And most of them are smarter than you, lady. 

If the issue really is the education system, then stop telling everyone else to treat folks from poor neighborhoods like they're stupid, and start working to fix the education system. Maybe stop screaming at the sky because orange man bad for five minutes and start protesting the education system. Apply for a job as a teacher or counselor at one of those schools. Volunteer at or start after school programs and tutoring programs for kids in poor neighborhoods. Do some work to bring about real change. Change isn't convincing all your liberal white friends to treat black people like they're stupid to make yourself feel better. Change is getting stuff done and giving folks in poor neighborhoods a hand up. Up, not out. 

And, most importantly, don't treat anyone as if they are beneath you or too stupid to grasp your oh so advanced vocabulary. Feel free to speak to everyone you meet as your equal, regardless of their race, upbringing, where they live, or economic status. If someone doesn't know what a word means or can't figure it out from the context, they'll ask. 

Want to stop white supremacy? Then stop acting like you're better than anyone else. 

There is so much to unpack here. Basically, what the court says is that these families can sue Remington and it isn't a violation of PLCAA because Remington marketed the guns to civilians for criminal use, a violation of CUTPA. Personally, I want to hear the argument for this when it comes up in court, because I missed the advertising materials being sent out by Remington about how to kill kids with their rifles. 

Obviously, being allowed to sue doesn't guarantee a win. That has to be said. But we need to look at the really big picture here. 

A lot of folks are using the comparison that if this is allowed you should be allowed to sue car manufacturers if you get hit by a drunk driver, and people come out telling us they're two completely different items and shouldn't be compared. Take this exchange from Instagram:

Here's the problem with this entire argument and what everyone misses. It isn't about comparing guns to cars. I could write an entire article about how the argument about guns vs. cars is mute because of people and cars, but we're not going to do that today. 

Today we're going to talk about how a win against Remington would clear the path for you to sue car manufacturers over drunk drivers. No matter how you view the cars vs. guns debate. 

Our court system is run off of case law, which is basically a lawyer finds a bunch of cases similar to the one he is arguing to figure out if the case is winnable and to argue it in court. I just did this in a class where I argued an appeal for a man convicted of running a chop shop by arguing illegal search and seizure based off of case law of search and seizure cases for illegal marijuana farms. What the people in the cases were convicted of was completely different from what the person I was arguing for was convicted of. But the case law was relevant. 

If these families win against Remington, a crafty lawyer could use that case to argue other lawsuits, and they don't have to be about guns. Meaning...

Let's say your kid is driving home from college one night and is hit and killed by a drunk driver. You, as a grieving parent, decide you want justice, and the charges against the person who killed your kid just aren't enough. You want those deep pockets. So you hire a lawyer who stumbles upon this case in his research. The families accused Remington of marketing their product to the civilian population for criminal purpose, removing protections against that type of lawsuit. 

The guy who killed your kid was driving a privately owned pickup truck. The lawyer could sue the manufacturer for marketing that truck - which was designed as a work vehicle, not a personal mode of transportation - to the civilian population to drive themselves home from bars while drunk. 

The lawyer could sue the manufacturer of the alcohol he was drinking for marketing their product to be consumed for the purpose of getting intoxicated at an establishment other than your home, thus marketing it for criminal purposes when they "encouraged" the driver to drive drunk. 

And the lawyer could sue the bar itself for marketing themselves as an establishment outside the home where you could get drunk, thus encouraging the driver to drive drunk, a violation of the law.

It doesn't matter how ridiculous you think that all is. It doesn't matter if you don't think the two cases have anything to do with each other. It doesn't matter if you think the lawyer couldn't win with this as case law.

A good lawyer could work with it. And they will try. If one gets a win off of it, more case law has been established, thus almost guaranteeing a win for future cases like this. And more lawsuits will follow. Bars. Car manufacturers. Alcoholic beverage makers. And it will go beyond that. Drug companies. Cities. Counties. Anything would become fair game. 

And we have an influx of what would be frivolous lawsuits... but no longer are because of established case law. That's exactly how our court system works. 

So this case has a much larger possible impact than just second amendment issues. This could shake up the court system pretty hard. It could impact our economy as well. I highly suggest following this one as closely as possible, because the impact could be massive. 

Oh, my God, you guys. This article popped up today from the NRA, and just... wow. I get the message behind it, I do. But I want to tweak the points a little, subtract and add if you will. 

It's all about the worst advice given to women in a gun store, and I have a very unique take on this issue. As many of you know, I am a woman. I am not a small, dainty woman. I'm close to 6' tall with a hand that can easily fit around the grip of a Glock 21 without an issue and a shoulder that can handle more recoil than most are willing to try. Still, I've heard some weird things in the gun store, both as a customer and as a sales person. 

My first time in a gun store was when I was 23 years old. I am originally from NJ, I didn't know people actually bought guns in stores, I thought everyone bought them out of the trunks of cars. That's not humor, I'm serious. But I'd taken a job with an armored car company and my first time handling a gun - let alone shooting one - was when I qualified for the state license to carry the gun on the job. How I managed to get the required 80% accuracy - I actually got 93% accuracy for day and 88% for night - is beyond me. 

​But, being unfamiliar with guns beyond this, I thought it best to get familiar with the piece of trash they gave us to carry. Seriously, at one point it had been a Ruger GP100, but it was refurbished, and badly. Some co-workers directed me to a gun store - ironically, three years later I was working for the same store. 

For those who know gun shops, it was typical for a gun shop of it's nature. It was the "aimed at cops, but we love everyone" type of store, not the friendly "sit in a chair and chat, we don't even care if you buy anything" type of store. They immediately knew I was out of my element, and as soon as I spoke they knew why (my accent isn't thick, but it's noticeable). But apparently my experience as a woman in a gun shop was not typical, according to this article. See... they didn't treat me differently from the men there. There wasn't a single woman working there, and none were customers that day, either. But I was treated like any new shooter, and there was nothing odd said to me. 

In this article, the woman claims these are the 3 pieces of "advice" she's heard in a store. 

• “What do you want a gun for? Let your man defend you.”
• The second most common piece of bad advice I’ve gotten in gun stores is the “cute gun.”
• The most common piece of bad advice given to women in gun stores, and it’s one often given with the best of intentions: The lightweight .38 Special or .357 Magnum revolver.

​I have never had anyone in a gun store suggest I let my man defend me. Let's just get that out of the way. The closest I ever came to something like this was while I was working in this gun store, and someone noticed the gun I was carrying on my hip and made the comment, "Real women don't carry guns." It was a woman who said it, and me and everyone else in the store laughed for a solid five minutes after she said it. 

​At no time was I ever directed towards a cute gun. Now, this may be because I made it clear that I was working for an armored car company when I walked in with that piece of crap that day. It might also be because I'm not dainty with 6" long finger nails and hair that never seems to want to stay off my face. I rented a gun that day, too, for the experience, and took what was suggested. They handed me a Springfield Armory 1911 in 45 ACP and I fell in love with it (when the range closed and they sold the rental guns, I actually bought it, and it's still one of the best guns in my collection. Thanks to Springfield Armory for the loving light refurb they did). Actually, at one point, as a joke I carried a pink revolver while working in the gun store, and everyone who came in and saw it was shocked I was touching that thing.

The tiny revolver... yep! I have had that suggestion. And it's not always a bad suggestion. I carry one every single day of my life and wouldn't give it up for anything. 

​The weird advice was usually stuff I overheard, and it was given to women who came in with their men. I had a woman come in wanting a gun for concealed carry. She'd done her research and tested some, and she knew what she wanted. She wanted a small revolver. But she made the mistake of bringing her tactical trunk monkey of a boyfriend with her, and he annoyed her until she left with a Glock 26 that she wasn't at all happy with, but she wanted him to shut up. That was bad advice. Nothing against the Glock 26, it's a great gun. But it wasn't the one she was comfortable with. She won't carry it, she won't shoot it, and it will collect dust in a drawer because it makes her uncomfortable. The best gun for you is the one you feel the most comfortable with. 

Don't buy a revolver, they're out dated and useless. Uh, no. They are constantly innovating with the revolver. It's still a choice weapon for many, including me. I own four revolvers and love all of them. As I stated, I usually have one on me. I love my semi-autos, too. But in a moment of need I want a revolver because it won't jam. Or my Ruger 1911 because it has been an extension of my arm (and has already saved my life once). 

Don't buy a 22LR, they'll just piss off an attacker. Wrong. No, it isn't an optimal defense gun. But I can rationalize anything, so hear me out. The 22LR is a great choice for someone who can't handle anything else. It's better than nothing. What if the person has a handicap and really can't control anything bigger? With a bigger gun they might get one shot off, but that's it. I'd rather that person had a 22LR they could empty than a bigger gun they only get one shot with. Here's a shocker. You know those NAA Mini Revolvers everyone laughs at? I used to sell the tar out of those things. Seriously, we couldn't keep them in once I gave the proper scenario. I own one, it is a terrible gun for self defense. It's hard to load, it sucks trying to shoot it, etc. But it, too, has a purpose. I used to call them kidney poppers. The customers always got their interest peeked when I called them this, and then I gave them this scenario. "Imagine you are walking down the street one day and a guy comes out of an alley and grabs you from behind. He's got his hand over your mouth and is trying to drag you down the alley he just came out of. You manage to get your hand in your pocket and grab your mini revolver. You pull it out, cock it, and twist your arm around. The barrel is now against his side, right about kidney height. You pull the trigger. You probably won't kill him, but that kidney is done for, and he's now more concerned about his kidney than whatever he was about to do to you." 

Just stick the gun in your purse. I hate this. I really do. Purse carry is a terrible way to carry for so many reasons. First of all, what is the biggest crime committed against women? Purse snatching. So now the guy may have thrown you to the ground and you are defenseless. He's also got your drivers license with your address on it, and a gun. Another reason it is bad is because women carry the entire world in their purse. So when someone is running at you with a knife, you now have to fish through 10 lbs. of napkins and tissues, six chapsticks, four hand lotions, eight bottles of medication, 150 lbs. of shop receipts, a pound of hard candy, two pairs of sunglasses, an umbrella, the missing link, fifteen pairs of shoes, the one ring, another purse, an ex-boyfriend who went missing two years ago, and God knows what else just to reach the gun that has worked it's way to the very bottom of the sack you call a purse. I get it. Clothing designers have decided women don't need pockets, so especially in dress pants you'd wear to work there is either no pocket or the pocket is so small even the mini revolver won't fit in there. We also apparently don't need more than three belt loops on our pants. And, of course, some of you paint your clothes on. What is a girl to do? Well, if it has to go in the purse, get a special concealed carry purse. The gun has it's own pocket on the back of the bag and the bag usually sits high up in your arm pit. It gives you a better shot at actually getting the gun out in a reasonable amount of time. Or learn to sew. Add your own belt loops and extend your own pockets. It's a pain in the butt, but it can be done. 

Get this one, you'll never have to clean it. Wrong. If you want a gun you don't have to clean or practice with, just get a dog. And yes, I told a woman this once because she was insistent on a gun she didn't have to practice with or clean. If keeping the gun in working order and getting at least somewhat proficient with it so you don't hurt yourself or shoot like a moron in a moment of need and kill a neighbor, you don't need a gun. There are knives, tasers, stun guns (yes, they are different things), bats, hammers, dogs, etc. Don't buy a gun if you don't want to take care of it. It's not that hard to get the dust out and relube once in a while. It's also not hard to go to the range once or twice a year. 

There's more, but I could write a book. Really, it's 2019. Of course, as a woman, you'll get weird comments here and there. But the fact of the matter is that women are a growing demographic in the shooting sports. Running into bizarre comments like the writer of the above article told us about is rare. Most gun store personnel will listen to you. If you're trying to take a Desert Eagle out as your first ever shooting experience, they may stop you. They may still suggest a small revolver for carry purposes. They might mention the pink guns because, contrary to what store owners and gun manufacturers believe, the pink guns don't sell well and the sales people just want to sell them off. And the men aren't going to carry them. And we're sick of looking at them. But right now, women have no reason to feel uncomfortable in the gun store or at the range. There will be other women there. We're moving right on up and taking our safety into our own hands, so it isn't uncommon anymore. You can find women's shooting leagues. You'll always find male sales people who will sell you whatever you want. You'll even find female sales people if you feel better getting advice from them. The shooting sports are ever evolving and they've evolved beyond this woman's experience. Go into the gun store. Trust me. You won't be disappointed.  

By now, I am sure you have seen the Gillette toxic masculinity ad about 65,000 times, but I will post it here in case you somehow haven't seen the actual ad for yourself. I suggest watching it before moving forward to the article. This is from The Guardian's YouTube channel, as you can tell by their weird branding on the video as if they own it or something. 

So, now that you've seen it, odds are, you have an opinion on it. Either you think this is the greatest ad ever made and everything in it is a solid truth and showcases the issues with toxic masculinity in society that it is beyond time that we highlight and discuss so we can change it, or you stopped reading this article to set fire to anything made by Gillette and are screaming about how not all men are rapists and this advertisement was sexist. 

And... you're both wrong!

​Let me explain. I don't hate the ad, but not for the reasons you are thinking. I actually kind of like it. Not because it is showcasing toxic masculinity, but it is a subtle nod to the beauty of capitalism. As this tweet so eloquently puts it:

And that is exactly what is going on here. Regardless of what you think about the people this ad was meant to entice, this is general thought process of Gillette.

1. Older men are most likely not going to switch brands. They've been using this razor for 20 years, it works, they are going to keep using it. They may never even see the ad. If they do boycott, it will be short lived, because we can do something later this year to make them feel good and come back.
2. The younger generations are still trying to find a razor that works for them, and these kids either shave nothing or everything. 

I've heard all the comments about feminists who don't shave, but the fact of the matter is... the vast majority of women still shave everything from the chin down. Feminist or not. And even if they don't, Gillette sells more than razors. 

Here's the story, though. Right now, we live in a nation that is heavily polarized along the lines of social issues. We're obsessed with them. Some companies, like Ben and Jerry's, are using the sale of their product to fund their activism. We know that. We also see the irony in them using capitalism to fund their desire for socialism. 

They also know that people over a certain age know that boycotts can be fairly useless in the long run and won't take part, because, after all, if you boycott everyone with different opinions from yourself you are left with very little to fill your needs. And, let's face it... most of these companies are giving their money to both sides. The payout goes to who does the most for them. And they pay everyone to get what they want done. Boycotting can be so fickle. They say one thing one day and this side boycotts, and next week they say something else and the boycott stops but now the other side is boycotting... but both sides have no purchased their products regardless. And memories are so short that the boycotts will end on both sides in a few months when they have a fantastic sale.

​The younger folks are so wrapped in what they believe that it consumes their lives. Therefore, shave or not, they are going to go out and buy the heck out of their products to counter act the boycott from the people who didn't like the ad and to show support for their beliefs being justified by a corporation. 

Do you see something missing from this thought process? No?

What's missing is the actual giving a crap. These corporations are selling a product. They don't give a rat's patoot about social issues. You can tell the ones who do - like the aforementioned Ben and Jerry's who doesn't care if their brand goes down the toilet as long as they can ironically fight for socialism for a little while with the profits - but 99% of them don't.

The ad is too long to run on TV, at least in it's entirety. They put this ad up online. And now... everyone is talking about it. It doesn't need to go on TV. Mission accomplished. They've already made back the money the spent making the ad with all this free advertising. It's been discussed on the news. It's all over YouTube. It was trending on Facebook and Twitter. And every time someone mentions it they call it "the Gillette ad." Their name is out there. And they didn't have to spend money on advertising.

It's the latest marketing ploy. Make an ad that is politically charged and everyone will talk about it for weeks, everyone will play the ad all over the place, there will be boycotts and runs alike on the product, etc. This is big, hot news!

This is capitalism, baby!

Sure, the message wasn't great since it demonizes men and plays into a narrative that is dangerous. But that's the point! If it didn't, it wouldn't be getting talked about endlessly! And the topic has to be polarizing but not hideous. This marketing strategy wouldn't work if they, say, made an ad ridiculing various races or religions. That's something the left and the right would get behind in boycotting. No, they have to play the sides against each other, because the sides have been getting played against each other in the political sphere something hard for a decade or more now. NOW they can make money on it. 

So yes, these corporations are going to pretend - and they are pretending - to give a crap about these issues to cause the endless analysis, social media trending, buying frenzy to counter act boycotts, etc., because it does cause people to go out and aim right for their product. And since it was an issue the left cares about... the right will boycott and the left will over buy in support to make up for that boycott. Plus, aiming to please the left works better since the left tends more towards hard boycotts, violent protests, or complete buying frenzies than the right is. We wouldn't want Antifa burning down the factory now, would we? No. But we do want them going out and buying everything they see with the Gillette brand on it, which they will, especially if they are under 25. So they're pretending to care about this issue to capitalize off of socialists who don't make the connection that they are proving capitalism works... because this is pure capitalistic marketing and they don't see it. Now, in a few months, Gillette will probably do something that supports the troops or something like that, because that will bring the right back off their boycott and they'll buy because Gillette supports the troops. It will spark a small boycott by the left, but not one big enough to notice. And that's how you create a profit in 2019!

So Elizabeth Warren has presented us with a DNA test that proves she is, in fact, of Native American heritage (said this way because she obviously does not have official membership in a tribe) that goes back "6 to 10 generations." And I have questions.

I did a little research because of the claim that she was an affirmative action hire at Harvard and I have to say... I still can't tell if that's true or not. According to this, the Dean says she was an affirmative action hire, but for being a woman. Elizabeth Warren claims Harvard was not aware of her heritage when she applied, although claims are that she "checked the box" for her heritage. I assume this is that little bit at the end of job applications where they ask your gender, race, disability status, etc. that you aren't required to fill out. This one claims they were only made aware after she was employed. Oddly, this article also claims she is 1/32 Cherokee, pending a cheek swab test... back in 2012. This one claims she did try to benefit, and once told a story that her parents eloped because of discrimination suffered by her part Cherokee mother. 

The bottom line is, without seeing the actual application she filled out, I can't verify if she "checked the box," and I can't verify if she was an affirmative action hire for anything. But it does seem her history with this claim is a little shady. And it is leaning towards she at least tried to benefit from it. 

As stated, there was a "pending" cheek swab test at least as early as 2012. It appears that never happened. Trump offered her $1 million to take the DNA test. She declined. All of a sudden she releases a DNA test from a doctor that proves her claims out of the blue?

I would like to know why this is such a big deal with her. She's so little Cherokee (and the DNA test most likely can't confirm Cherokee) that it really doesn't matter for anything. I've had a DNA test that proves I am 4 different races. At no point have I ever claimed to be any of those races. My great grandmother was Native American - Delaware - and I have seen a photograph of her as well as know her name. I don't claim to be Native American. I don't feel I have enough in my blood to claim that. I can also claim African and Middle Eastern. Again, at such small levels I would never dream of actually claiming minority status because of this. Truthfully, I can also claim "Asian" but the test isn't specific enough to say where in Asia and it might overlap with the Middle Eastern part. 

Elizabeth Warren is so little Cherokee that it doesn't even need mentioning. At no point should any boxes have been checked, and it didn't need to be mentioned to an employer unless it was casual conversation about family history or something. It certainly shouldn't be this big of news. Ever. At any point. 

​So something must have happened for her tiny heritage to be this kind of news for at least six years. Yes, since before Trump. And no, Trump wasn't the first to call her Pocahontas, either. 

Now, as I stated, I have also had a DNA test. I did mine through ancestry.com. When I got the results back they were vague at best. I know a lot of my family history, enough to know that my dad had grandparents who were from Germany and Austria. His grandfather was German and his grandmother was from Austria. She emigrated to Germany where she met and married her husband, then together they came to the USA.  

Now, if I look at my DNA results, they don't say Germany and Austria. They give me a map with huge circles and say I am 18% Germanic Europe and 7% Eastern Europe and Russia, which includes, just barely, Austria. It also includes Hungary, which my father's side of the family claims relations from as well. 

My mom's side of the family is heavily Irish and English. Actually, when my mom did her DNA, it said she was 83% Irish. My DNA results say I am 43% "Ireland and Scotland." I assume it is all Ireland in reality, because we have no record of anyone in our family coming from Scotland, but who knows. I am also 29% "England, Wales, and Northwestern Europe." So by that, I could be Irish or Welsh... maybe I'm French, who the heck knows. 

Here's an interesting fact. According to my DNA test results... I am 0% Native American! Odd, considering I have documented evidence that my great grandmother was, in fact, Native American. And we are blood related. I never met her, she died very young (26). But I got the picture and information from her son... my grandfather. Now, before anyone gets off on a tangent about him telling tall tales, remember the time period he grew up in. At this point in time, being of mixed heritage was not a plus. My family kept it very quiet, even my father. It wasn't something they discussed in mixed company, and even getting the information out of anyone was tough and had to be done in private, one on one. Even with evidence, though, I do not claim Native American status in any capacity. I certainly have never tried to use it for affirmative action. 

Why did I tell you all of this? The point of it all is that the DNA results cannot tell her she is Cherokee. They aren't that specific. It can't even break down exactly where in Europe my family comes from, so they are certainly not going to be tribe specific. 

Also, my DNA results list a ton of other places I come from, but there is so little in my DNA they aren't worth listing. They do, but I have to click a separate link to look at all of those. All of them are 1% or less. At 1% or less, they don't really matter to my genetic makeup enough to be considered. Which means claiming them as part of my heritage would be factual but useless. Any minority listed therein couldn't be claimed for minority status. 

At best, Warren is 1/64th Native American and at worst, 1/1,024 Native American. However, the study was also not based off of Native American DNA from in the USA. So she might actually be Mexican, Peruvian, or Colombian. Again, at such a small level she couldn't claim minority status. It's literally so small a percentage that it isn't worth mentioning. I could tell people all day long that I'm Russian. I wouldn't be wrong according to my DNA results that claim the general region, but it is 7% or less for me. It's meaninglessly small.  I'm Irish and English predominantly. Plain and simple. 

So Elizabeth, you're a white chick. Deal with it. 

​

If you followed along at the home page section of the site, you saw the lead up to the event I attended yesterday. It began with a simple daily email from a job board. In that email was a listing for "activist." I was so taken aback by this that I did a video showing off the add and the page to request information. Jokingly, I said I should attend. Well... my YouTube viewers thought that was a great idea, and I started to think it was, too. So I began the steps, went through the interview, and jumped though a couple of hoops. Then yesterday morning I found myself sitting in a very bougie room with a bunch of women and a few men.

Now, my intention was not to disrupt. I intended to go in, pretend to be a liberal feminist, make it through the day, and leave without them being any wiser. Trolling is not my style. I made it through the event exactly as planned, although I did leave about two hours early. 

Basic Run Down

What I attended was the HER Summit. There were about 50 attendees and Rep. David Price (D-NC) was the key note speaker. Everything was done in 45 minute increments, with breaks in between. It began with everyone breaking off into groups to introduce ourselves, declare our pronouns (pronouns were very important, they were even on our name tags), give our experience, and tell everyone our first concert... which is a lot of fun when you are middle aged. LOL! No, I wasn't the oldest person there by a long shot, but I was in the top ten.

After that we had a speaker who gave us the break down of how many women on Earth are going to die if the USA doesn't fund their abortions and present abortion as a first option to these women, a lot of anti-Trump ra-raing, and making fun of right wingers. After that, we had a young woman address us about petitioning the public, at which point we broke off into groups to roll play asking people to sign petitions against the Trump gag rule (link opens up Planned Parenthood's website. Also read these links here and here). 

Lunch was followed by the key note address by Rep. David Price, and if you'd like to know what he thinks of you, you can watch his speech below. I will give him credit... some of the things he said were dead on, especially in the Q and A portion at the end. But a lot of his speech was what you would expect. Now, before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, this video is mostly unedited. The only editing that was done was when my phone's video cut out because of the length of the speech and I had to start a new video and then splice everything together. I think I missed about two sentences of his speech. The video is almost 48 minutes long, just so you know ahead of time. 

​Make sure to turn the audio on in the video.

After this was the workshops. 

We were given three options, of which we could attend two. The options were:

1. Using the Power of the Vote
2. Strength in Voice: Protest & Letter Writing
3. How to Advocate for Reproductive Justice

Obviously, the second one appealed to me, but I declined due to it being very hands on training wise, and I wasn't sure I could pull that off without losing it. So I decided to attended the one about voting and the reproductive justice one.

I didn't make it past the first workshop. 

No, I wasn't kicked out. I opted to slip out and make a run for it towards the end of that workshop, because they decided to hand out a paper that requested us to give them the information of 15 - 30 friends and family members. This was names, addresses, emails, phone numbers, and age range. They weren't good about taking no for an answer, I didn't want to argue with them and draw attention to myself, and there was absolutely no way on God's green Earth that I was going to hand out the information of anyone I know, unsolicited, to a group at a summit those friends chose not to attend. I have a line, and that was it. I also wanted to get out early before they began trying to get me to sign up to volunteer to protest or get people to sign a petition I myself wasn't going to sign. 

Why Did I Do This?

Actually, I had several reasons. Due to the nature of how I found out about the event, my inner reporter got so curious the only way to quiet it down was to give in. But I had questions I wanted answers to. 

The original questions:

1. Why was this posted on a job board instead of an event page? Why does it require an interview to attend? Is this a paid position? Are they paying people to protest? And if so, who is paying for it? That's a bunch of questions, and they only got partly answered. No, this was not paid activism. That was a big question, and probably the biggest one I wanted answered. I promised to be honest about this event, and I am doing so. All activist positions were on a volunteer basis only, although the organizations had some paid job openings. They were legit jobs, though. Sorry if that busted anyone's bubble.

I never got an answer as to why "activist" was specifically posted as the job title, or why it was listed on a job board instead of an event page. I assume they wanted a smaller turn out for the event, which they got. However, David Price eluded to being surprised that so many actually came, and a big part of the petition signing process was getting people to agree to volunteer and/or attend a future summit. So I don't know. 

The interview portion opened up a can of worms. This event was super secretive. I had no information until a few days before the event. All I knew was the city it was being held in, but not the actual venue. Due to the city, I assumed it was a college campus. I was partially right. It was held in a hotel on the college campus. Parking was scarce. The hotel staff didn't know what the summit was about and when numerous attendees asked for "where is the feminist summit being held in the building" they had no idea what they were talking about. 

Staff didn't answer many questions, but other attendees were as curious as I was about the secretive nature of it all. A few others came through the same job board as I did, a few came after signing the petition and being talked into attending, some were recruited on the college campus, and others weren't specific with me. No one was willing to speculate aside from one woman, who assumed it was to deter "right wing protest." I would assume the same, honestly. With the way the extreme left acts whenever someone they don't agree with assembles, I would assume they'd expect it from the right as well. And who knows, maybe they would have showed up. After all, one of our representatives was there to speak and it was supposedly about abortion (it was, mostly. But the workshop I went to was about voter ID laws and several other democrat issues).  

2. Some of the things on the website were a little questionable, so I'd like clarification on some of their stances. I got the clarification I wanted to a point. Their big issue was the supposed "Trump Gag Rule" that "every republican has put in place, but Trump has expanded on." I provided three links above, two news articles and Planned Parenthood's piece on it, in case you want to know what that's about. The focus at this summit didn't appear to be mostly the domestic side, but the international side. There are audio links at the bottom of this article if you want to hear what was said. I honestly can't see what the huge issue is, but I may not be understanding the issue completely. Abortion isn't a big issue to me, I don't pay it much mind. I know that may bother some of you, but it isn't in my top issues. So many groups on both sides are all over that issue that I chose to take on others. It sounds to me like they are bothered that referrals aren't given for abortions and it isn't presented as a top option or an option at all (although it doesn't outlaw the act). I honestly don't see the issue and how this is killing women. Everyone knows abortion exists. And abortion shouldn't be handed out as a first option. Anything involving death should be a last resort. And even my mom agrees... and she's a big time democrat feminist. Again, though, like I said, I might be missing something. I'm currently doing research on the topic and not having much luck finding non-biased sources on it. I don't feel comfortable giving a solid opinion on it until I know everything I can find on it. So count me as neutral on the topic for now. 

3. I am interested in a first hand view of the "other side," instead of just getting hearsay. Yes, I plan to go in with an open mind and hear people out. I am, and always have been, the type to let people state their case. Obviously, I have my own opinions and I have my own inner circles. I think the best way to sure up your own opinions is to understand the opinion of your opposition. How do you have an honest conversation if you really don't know their thoughts on topics and the reasoning behind it? Besides, we get told all the time how insane the other side is - and they are told how insane we are - so I thought it a good idea to go in to the belly of the beast and see for myself. For example, voter ID. I don't agree with their stance or their reasoning, and I support voter ID laws. But I now have a better understanding of how they view it and why they seem to think it is racist. You'll hear that below in the audio. 

The Major Take Aways

So, what did I take away from all of this?

1. The left is just as paranoid as the right. No, really. The things the far right think about the far left is exactly what the far left thinks of the far right. A lot of topics were exaggerated. A lot of emotions were running heavy. There was a lot of time spent discussing how insane the right is. There was a lot of complete garbage about Trump. And local republicans, too. But a lot of what I heard them saying about the right was exactly what I hear the right saying about the left. A lot of their complaints about Trump mirrored the right's complaints about Obama.  

2. The actual people I interacted with at this event... were really nice people. There was, obviously, the occasional nut job militant feminist. There were a few there who very obviously hadn't formed solid opinions and were looking for people to latch onto and follow. But my general interactions with these folks were good ones. They were immediately engaging with people around them, even me, and I wasn't exactly... approaching anyone, at least at first. I was playing it cautious because I was alone and didn't know anyone there. Not all of them were foaming at the mouth Trump haters. While none of them were jumping on the Trump train, the overwhelming sentiment was that he's the president and they had to make due with it, getting out to vote and hoping to change the outcome next time... that raging and being horrible and screaming at the sky weren't going to change things. A lot of them kept steering the conversation away from Trump. I can respect all of that. You don't have to be happy about it, but accept it and move on. Instead of whining, they were planning for the next election. Cool. I respect people like that. 

3. Reaching across the isle was a foreign concept. While they were willing to move on from the election, they weren't willing to compromise, which is something the left keeps telling the right they have to do. 

4. Rep. Price doesn't see people. I've had interactions with him in short bursts before, but nothing like this. He entered the building while we were on lunch break. I spent my lunch in a rocking chair on the front porch of the hotel. He walked right by me and made no indication that he saw me. Inside, he spoke to his aid and some of the people who worked for the campaign, but not many others. Once on the mic, he seemed open and friendly and answered questions. As soon as his time was up, he reverted. He sat out front with his aid in the rocking chairs, and a lot of the attendees were around. He interacted with none of them. Didn't even look or indicate he saw anyone else was outside. 

5. Rep. Price has some fan girls. They were fan girling bad. So keep that in mind the next time someone comments about anyone who is a Trump fan. These girls were squealing like he was in the Backstreet Boys or something. 

6. They put huge emphasis on pronouns, but almost no one there identified as a gender other than male or female. There was a guy there that may have been transgender, but I'm not 100% sure (female to male). The organizer of the event apparently uses she/they pronouns, which I've never seen before, so I don't know what that means. Everyone else seemed to identify as what they were born as. Otherwise, the LGBT community was not really brought up. 

7. Their view of age was bizarre. That happens a lot. Believe me, I'm 38 years old, and people on both sides of the isle make me feel like a grandma, and somehow I'm less relevant because I'm over 25. Yes, both sides. But yesterday was weird. As I said earlier, I was not the oldest person there. I was probably in the top ten, though, although there was a major gap between me and those older than me. There were several ladies there of retirement age, and the first speaker was probably in his 50s or so. Even the feminists, however, treated him as more relevant than the ladies over 30. Something they might want to focus on! Anyway, I found myself in several strange interactions with other attendees, with one almost interviewing me. At one point, she asked me about my opinion on how far feminism has come since I've witnessed so much of it. Actually, I haven't. I didn't say that, but I'm only 38 years old! I've never been kept from voting, the issues they are passionate about were never withheld from me, I've never been paid less for equal work to a man, I have been in jobs where my qualifications and promotions landed me on a higher pay scale than a lot of men, and I have usually worked in male dominated fields where I wasn't treated as less than the men (including armored transport, where I was not questioned about my physical strength in comparison to the men). I grew up without an awareness that some people treated women differently than men. I wasn't always treated equally, but it didn't happen enough for me to think everyone was out to get me! I honestly didn't know how to answer her questions without blowing my cover. 

7a. Women need to speak the heck up. I'm not making fun, but these women are supposedly strong, empowered, independent women. Talk like it. Far too many of them speak in almost a whisper at all times, and even in small groups it was hard hearing them. Now, full disclosure, I'm partially deaf in my left ear. Even still, my right ear is fine and my left ear has some hearing left. In those small groups and small spaces, I should have been able to hear. But several women I saw their mouths move but heard nothing. Ladies, speak up. Especially if you are trying to be an activist. 

​8. The biggest take away from the entire thing, and if you read nothing else in this article, I hope you stop and read this. The left is organized and they are organizing. What I witnessed yesterday was a legit training on how to get strangers to sign a petition, to volunteer for their cause, how to encourage others to vote, how to talk about issues with loved ones and strangers alike, a solid laying out of the issues they saw as important (even if some of it was exaggerated or complete manure). I saw a woman with a theater degree get her act together and organize this on her own. I saw them get a major politician so far on their side he was the key note speaker at an event that had little turn out and no real benefit to himself. I saw them present historic facts. I saw them lay out an action plan that was spreadable by the people there, and spreading it was the goal. The right (and everyone else) doesn't do this. The right holds rallies and butts heads with Antifa. The right says, "We have jobs!" These people all had jobs, too. That's why they spent 8 hours on a Saturday doing this. The libertarians, the moderates, the right wing... they could all learn something from what I attended yesterday. If you want to stop socialism from sounding good to more and more people, and if you want the left to remain out of power, everyone else has to organize like this. They have to spend their Saturdays out and about learning real world tactics. They have to get offline and stop thinking memes are enough. Issues need to be clearly laid out, make sure everyone in your camp knows them, and make sure they know how to talk to those who might not. Everyone outside of the left has to become visible and interact with people who disagree with us, otherwise their crap opinion and lines about us become what is believed by the ill informed. That's how you fall out of the mainstream. 

​I would highly recommend to anyone reading this to do what I did. Don't walk in with the mindset of disrupting... go in with an open mind. Observe. Learn. Absorb. Then go back to your libertarian, moderate, right wing, etc. camp and organize. Get things together. Get politicians on our side. Get people excited and fired up. Don't take on the entire world in 8 hours; take on two to three key issues and leave two to three to another group. Don't go in with the thought of fighting, go in with the thought of energizing. Seriously, go to these things on the left and take notes. Then let's all start doing the same thing. All of the non-left groups need to organize and embolden their bases, too. This is how you normalize and get front and center. Memes only go so far. 

The Summit

This is audio from the summit itself so you can experience it. Now, I cut out a lot of things like the group interactions. Also, there's some obvious noise. I used an external microphone and it was rubbing on my bag. 

If you want to hear Rep. Price speak, please go to the above video.

This is about two hours, and is audio only. Enjoy!

Make sure to turn the audio on in the video.

​Update: The graphic has actually been removed. 

The image began making the rounds yesterday. It started out as just an image, then it became a meme, then people started posting the information for the gallery itself - address, phone number, name, etc. Here's what we're looking at:

As I have often said, you can be as crazy as you want and get away with it if you label it "art," which is why the art world is hardly worth our time anymore. 

​I didn't have much to say on it, but did point out that Facebook chose to allow this to remain visible while a video I had posted the day before was covered for our protection. 

The video was a description of types of government with some history in it. There was no foul language, no graphic violence, no nudity, etc. It was actually pretty benign (I was going to embed the video, but apparently they won't let me because it's so offensive). (Update: after some people mentioned it, Facebook did start covering the Trump graphic later on this afternoon after this article was written)

Anyway, it didn't take long for the image to take over most of the pages I visit, and the comments began pouring in. The most common sentiment was that maybe someone should throw a brick through the window. Second was that the secret service needed to be contacted. 

And here I am just thinking it was an unoriginal way of getting free advertising. Kathy Griffin already did it, try something new. 

Let's face it... most of this trash is just that... an attention grab. 

It is well documented that when something like this happens, the right wing tends to talk about it non-stop. Like so many other things, it won't be allowed to fade into obscurity as it should. It gets talked about. Calls start coming in. Protesters show up. Threats of more protests roll in. The graphic gets shared all over social media, usually with all the information for the place. And while the right is outraged, those who aren't so outraged just learned about a new place they didn't know existed. 

How many of you knew the Red Hen existed before Sarah Huckabee Sanders got kicked out? Heck, how many of you knew Kathy Griffin was let out of the nut house for more than New Year's every year?! 

Take a look at the long list of Hollywood folks who have come out and made absolutely bizarre comments about Trump and, in lesser cases, other members of the GOP. How many of those folks are actually currently active? Seriously, most of the people making the biggest stink are people who haven't been in any movies or cut any albums in a good long time. But the minute they come out and say something bizarre about Trump, everyone suddenly knows who they are again, and these long forgotten "stars" are reborn, if only briefly. 

For businesses, it brings media attention, and if nothing else, it gets their info passed around. They know the outrage won't last long, but they've reached a lot of folks who didn't know about them before, and it didn't cost them a dime. 

It's all marketing. And it works, while obviously being cost effective. Of course, in order for it to continue to work, the stunts have to get more and more bizarre. The run for this type of marketing, for now, will pretty much expire in 2020. If Trump loses, the topic has to change or go away completely if the winner is someone they like. If he wins, they may have to admit the bulk of the country likes Trump and this might not be worth it anymore (of course for some, I wouldn't hold my breath). 

Keep this in mind when the next one pops up. I'm not saying to not share it. Just keep it in mind. It's a marketing tactic, and sharing that info is helping them out. And maybe, just laugh at it instead of getting all outraged. They know the outrage won't last long, but the free advertising is forever. 

Gun control isn't the big story right now, because the media is now telling us to be outraged about Trump's visit to the UK, his meeting with Putin, and the illegal alien issue at the southern border. But truth be told, our favorite laundry detergent eating line readers are still out in the public eye and fighting for every last grasp of attention they can get. Politicians are still whining about how we could have a pure Utopia if we could just ban the rifles that are responsible for about 1% of all gun crime. And the fight isn't going anywhere.

​And we're still not giving an inch. 

But why, you might ask. Well, let's discuss. Let's use an old article to discuss this. This article is from CBS and is from 2014. It is a brief story about a shootout in California that left the suspect dead and an officer injured. 

Why is this four year old article relevant? Because it highlights one of the reasons we aren't willing to give an inch... the fact that when you give an inch they take a mile. If you read all the way through to the bottom, you'll notice this paragraph:

"But Whiskey, they say revolver twice. It was probably a typo!" And I'm sure it would have been corrected at some point in the last four years if it were. I'd also be more inclined to believe that if we hadn't heard about "assault pistols" as well. 

Apparently, if you add "assault" to the front of something it becomes a lot more frightening. So now, instead of just "assault rifles," we have "assault revolvers," "assault pistols," and "assault shotguns." That covers just about everything, right? And if it is an "assault" weapon, you obviously can't use it for defense because the Marines are using it or something! 

It's our old friend the slippery slope. Your scary black rifle has to go because the military uses "assault rifles." But now... all these other "assault" things are weapons of war, too. After all of that is gone, your deer rifle will be a sniper rifle and we'll have to do away with that, too. 

Yeah, I still remember back in the day when having a scope on your rifle was considered unsportsmanlike. Does anyone else remember that? If you hunted with anything other than iron sights, you were cheating. No one needs a rifle with a scope on it. If you were really interested in the sport of hunting, you'd use iron sights. A scope just proves you just want to kill things, because a scope makes it almost impossible to miss. Any rifle with a scope is much more dangerous, and there's something wrong with the person who owns it. 

Remember that paragraph the next time you doubt your deer rifle would ever be called a sniper rifle. It already has been. 

See, here's the thing. We're not stupid. We know you think we are, but we aren't. The goal of the left is to do away with the second amendment and end all private gun ownership. We know that. We also know it can only be achieved in bits and pieces because the American people, in general, don't want an all out gun ban. It's been a big loser for politicians trying to get elected for as long as we can remember. It's why so many post photos of themselves shooting guns. 

And the best way to get people to go along is to condition them. We're not being conditioned anymore. We're tired of the horse manure. 

In the past week or so, a viral video has taken the internet by storm. Millions of people have viewed the video, the man in the video has been doing a tour of shows on TV, and it's been an extremely hot topic on every social media platform you can think of. 

But what does it mean for the USA? 

Well, as I said millions of people have seen the video. It has apparently made enough of an impact that a lot of liberals and liberal media outlets are now calling it a fake campaign by Russian bots. Once you are labelled a Russian bot in this day, you know you've made an impact. As of this writing, there are 89.316 members of the Facebook group, and that number is ever growing (by the time I hit publish on this article there will be hundreds more members). 

If you take into consideration that some of those people aren't walking away from anything and are just there to support the people who are, you can assume about 3/4 of the people, give or take, are people who are actually walking away. There are women, transgenders, homosexuals, African Americans, Hispanics, etc. all joining this thing and leaving their stories as to why they decided to walk away. 

​Still, the about 90,000 members isn't really a huge swath of people considering it is a political movement. So why is there such an impact? Why are people getting scared of this enough to start accusing the group of being run by Russian bots? 

​I think we need to walk back a little bit toward Kanye West. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not taking away credit for this movement and giving it to Kanye. But if you think back towards that whole debacle, you'll remember the outrage over Kanye saying pro-Trump things and all his Hollywood elite friends were unfriending him and stuff... and he didn't apologize. He moved forward unapologetically. The heat cooled down eventually and he's really not in the news anymore. But he got away with "being a free thinker" without his career going down the drain. 

After that, the approval ratings for Trump among African Americans began to rise. Now, there's this growing movement being led by a gay man who is now all over TV and seemingly overnight became a very recognizable face. It is packed full of people the left thought they had a monopoly on. These are people they have been telling for years that the right despises and wants destroyed, people they tell that Trump was elected to rid us of. 

The movement is getting so much attention because it is challenging the minority monopoly. 

​A common theme I am reading in these testimonials - and I admit, I've read hundreds of them - is that these people were taught to believe that only the left cared about them and everyone else hated them, but now they are seeing that this isn't true. They are watching the left talk a lot without any action. They are watching non-citizens and criminals getting preferential treatment. Many had long time good friends who cut ties with them when they began to question the left. I am seeing a lot of those stories, many of them are heartbreaking. Decades long friendships ended immediately because of one questioning moment. They are watching the reactions to that one questioning moment and realizing in seconds a group of people who claim to be tolerant and supportive of them are suddenly not so much when they question anything... while the side who was supposed to hate them is answering their questions and not really caring who they are. 

Right now, Americans are tired of the division. Everything is racist. Everything is sexist. And it's getting tiring. I watched a news story tonight about a woman who was questioned while entering the pool of a housing development, and I listened as she and the reporters - both local and national - immediately decided it was because she was black and compared it to other incidents that have happened. Seriously, the local news reporter actually began the story by saying, "There's been a recent rise in the amount of white people calling the police on black people while they do every day things." I watched the video, and my response was "I need more information." I didn't pass off their claims of it being racially motivated, but I refused to immediately call the man racist. My complex has a pool. I don't use it much, but when I did, there were times I was asked for ID to prove I was a resident. Once I was actually escorted out because I hadn't brought my ID. So yes, I need more information.

But we don't do that anymore. The news is a race to report first, and apparently making sure you have the correct reports isn't necessary. Everything is motivated by hatred and there is no more supply of evidence or allowing the other person to have a side of the story. 

White people are constantly admonished for being racist, while also being told that we're born racist. OK, so you mean it can't be fixed? Then why are we trying? Trump has a supreme court pick coming up, and everyone is clutching their pearls because obviously abortion is going to be completely outlawed immediately and gay marriage rights are going to be taken away, leaving gay marriages non-valid. Anyone who wasn't born in the USA is obviously going to be deported immediately. Everything is a massive crisis, the world is constantly coming to an end, and only about .0000002% of things being reported are actually things that are true and/or are of major concern. 

We're watching as groups of "marginalized people" are lifting themselves up by tearing everyone else down. Women have to tear down men. Blacks have to tear down whites. Immigrants have to tear down birth citizens. Gays have to tear down straights. Transgenders have to tear down cis genders. No, we don't! You don't have to tear anyone down to lift yourself up! You gain actual equality by raising yourself and your community up, not by tearing everyone else down. And when you raise yourself up, the country is better for it. When you tear others down, we're more divided and less of a nation. 

90,000 people have realized this and are sick of it. 90,000 people aren't going to cause a revolution. They aren't going to cause a wave in elections. But they are a start. They are proof that we as Americans can come together and be just that - Americans. We need to get past labeling each other to death and just be one people. We need to learn about each other and stop taking someone else's word for it when they tell you what someone else is like. 90,000 people were a little surprised to find out that people who don't identify as left wing didn't hate them. Those 90,000 people are going to be the voices that let others know. And that scares the extreme left, because it threatens their monopoly. It creates free thinkers who don't need them to tell them how to feel about things anymore. And I hope it grows. This is the first sign of real 'hope and change" that I've seen in years.