Bill Whittle says he thinks Twitter killed Andrew Breitbart because it let so many toxic people send their poison his way and he took them on directly.

I was worried about just that problem for Andrew and spoke to him about it at CPAC 2010. Re-tweeting tweets that are especially toxic or looney does nothing to stop their senders because they do not feel shame or remorse about their actions — instead they feel a gleeful righteousness and feed on the pain they cause like vampires. It’s like trying to kill starfish by chopping them into five pieces and throwing them back in the ocean. Starfish can regenerate their limbs, so what that does is give you five times more starfish. (The things you learn from the Discovery Channel.) So re-tweeting multiplies your enemies, it does not dismay or destroy them.

What to do?

You destroy darkness by turning on the light.

I told Andrew that I wanted his permission to start a hashtag that I would use whenever I saw him retweeting tweets attacking him. I wanted his permission because doing something like that looks like sucking up. I wanted him to know that I was genuinely expressing love for him. I told him I was concerned about his heart and wanted to know how he would feel about my doing that. He told me he would love it! He said he got pounced on wherever he went by people who wanted to argue with him, so he was constantly embattled. He told me that no one really backed him up with that kind of loving support. (Even though he always leapt to the defense of others.) Again, he said he would love it.

So what I did when I saw Andrew re-tweeting especially toxic tweets was to send him tweets with the hashtag #wol, for “wave of love,” and tell him I was sending him a wave of love. Sadly, I couldn’t keep up, and I couldn’t get anyone else to pick up the meme, and I stopped trying far too soon.

However, now I would like to propose to my fellow bloggers and conservatives that we come up with a better way on Twitter to surround any one of our number who falls under mass attack on Twitter with an invincible shield. I’m especially concerned for Gov. Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. What I suggest is that instead of retweeting any toxic tweets, we bombard their sender with tweets of support for the person who is their target. Here’s the hashtag I propose and how I propose to do it:

@ToxicLeftist, you have generated a #waveoflove for @SarahPalinUSA (or @michellemalkin or @AnnCoulter). BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!* #tcot #tlot

Which comes out on Twitter as follows:

@ToxicLeftist, you have just generated a #waveoflove for @SarahPalinUSA, @michellemalkin, @AnnCoulter BWAHAHAHA #tcot #tlot

— Cynthia Yockey (@conservativelez) March 4, 2012

*There’s only so gracious one needs to be. Feel the schadenfreude.

Dear gentle readers and fellow conservative bloggers, what do you think?

Update, 3/4/12, Sun.: Thank you, Instapundit, for the link (I urge dear gentle readers not sent by Instapundit to read his post, too), and I welcome Instapundit readers.

Update, 3/4/12, Sun.:

Not for nothing, the #waveoflove for our conservative champions on Twitter complies with Rules 5 and 6 of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. It also infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

So, regarding “who then react to your advantage”: We just have to do this enough to make it a trending topic a few times to be able to force the mainstream media to cover it. How sweet will that be?

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, then there is something very wrong with the tactic.

See above: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

And don’t be worried that Rule 13 says the point of the attack is to smoke out the target’s supporters to take them down, too:

Rule 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. As soon as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the “others” come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target.

Don’t worry, not only because we will have a #waveoflove for you, too, but also because of …

Rule 12: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You can not risk being trapped by the enemy by his sudden agreement with your demand and saying “You’re right, we don’t know what to do about this issue, now you tell us.”

They don’t have one and will never have one, as Friedrich Hayek explained in his 1945 book, The Road to Serfdom. You can download the free Reader’s Digest condensed version in pdf here.

I live with my father, who will be 96 next month, and take care of him. I cover my expenses with donations from this blog. If you enjoyed this post, please donate the amount of your choice to send me to BlogCon in April and put more tools for this fight in my hands, like an HD webcam and microphone for making YouTube videos:

… You Own Yourself [boldfacing mine]:

While self-ownership may seem like a simple and self-evident concept, I believe that most Americans residing in the land of the free would become very uncomfortable when the full implications of self-ownership become evident. We know for example that many of our fellow Americans are Statists in one form or another and the premise of all Statists is that we are actually owned by the state and that all of our liberties and rights come from the state. They also believe that the product of our lives is first the property of the state and what the state chooses to give back to us then becomes ours.

The other group that completely rejects the concept of self-ownership is what I will call the moralists. Most of these people in the U.S. believe that they are Christian. In a country like Saudi Arabia they are Muslims. Either way they are convinced that whatever life choices that they have made for themselves is also good for their neighbors and seek to impose, through the force of government, that way of life on others. What I find so dangerous about these people is that they believe that their right to impose their morality on others comes not from a manmade philosophy, like Socialism or Fascism, but from God himself. Because of this aberrant belief, arguing with these folks takes on the equivalent, to them at least, of the appearance of arguing with God, and we all know only a fool would argue with God.

H/T Red State Virginia. Be sure to read the whole thing.

I’ve only recently started to learn about property rights in relation to liberty and free markets. But the instant I heard of the private property concept of ownership of self it struck me that it applies to gay equality. That’s because the procreation-based arguments against marriage equality assume you are not your own property but rather the property of the state and that the state regulates marriage in exchange for babies. However, it seems to me that government regulates marriage due to the number of property rights and types of agency (such as the powers to make healthcare decisions and post mortem funeral arrangements) associated both with marriage and divorce.

Thoughts, gentle readers?

Note: This was originally posted on August 17, 2011. It was lost by my web host, so I am restoring it manually. I could not recover comments for this post.

The ACU recently informed GOProud’s founders Jimmy LaSalvia and Christopher Barron that GOProud is not invited to participate in CPAC 2012. Jeremy Hooper writes at Good As You:

On policy, I disagree with them most always. But as long as there is a Republican party (/conservative wing of it) of which they want to be part, they shouldn’t be denied in any way on the basis of their sexual orientation/gender identity/expression. As long as there is a conservative political conference that they care to support, they shouldn’t be shut out solely because of who they are as people. And as long as groups like Focus on the Family keep bullying like this… [click to Good As You for the audio clip] … I will absolutely go to the mat for GOProud.

These are the first words of support for GOProud that I’ve read on a Leftist gay blog. I hope it is a harbinger of a greater willingness by Leftist gays to be open to ideological diversity and engage in conversation with conservative lesbians and gays. Leftist lesbian and gay equality activists have no idea that they need to listen to conservative lesbians and gays in order to make the arguments for gay equality that conservatives find persuasive.

Thanks to Ace, I just finished reading dear Richard Miniter’s explanation at Forbes.com of “Why the Democratic Party is doomed,” and I recommend reading the whole thing, whether or not his headline fills you with hope or despair. It was transformational for me because it was the first time I saw the Democrats as a coalition of economic groups rather than social groups (or, to conservatives, identity grievance groups). It’s an extremely insightful and handy overview.

BTW, I’m not sure I would ever have seen the distinction between the economic and social groups among the Democrats if I hadn’t gotten used to Republicans making distinctions between fiscal and social conservatives.

Two points that dear Richard makes particularly amuse me. The first is the degree to which the Democrats’ war on free enterprise via the Cerberus of over-regulation, over-taxation and unsustainable union benefits is now biting them in the ass (boldfacing mine):

This crisis comes at a very bad time for Democrats. Their coalition is either dying off or going broke.

Unions. Private sector union membership has declined from 52% of the American workforce in the 1950s to 7% today. As large-scale manufacturing and the Fortune 500 shed jobs, the prospect for increasing unionization rates diminishes. There is no likely scenario in which private-sector unions grow by a significant amount; indeed they will likely continue their slow, steady march into the mists of history.

Who could have predicted that driving good manufacturing jobs out of America would be bad for the very unions that donated to the party that sent their jobs overseas? Besides conservatives, I mean.

The second point is pure ROFLMAO because, for some reason, hardcore, ahem, entrepreneurs really like free enterprise and won’t donate to the party that wants to kill it (boldfacing mine):

Porn Industry. Usually overlooked by analysts, this lucrative industry is a small but important source of campaign cash for Democrats. But the Internet is gutting it. XXX theatres, a fixture of the 1970s are long gone, and the DVD side of the business is dying too. As a 2009 Conde Nast Portfolio magazine article shows, YouPorn.com and other porn sites now offer hours of video content online for free, squeezing Larry Flint’s Hustler, Hugh Hefner’s Playboy and their many print rivals. The underground cultural force of these publications is shrinking with their revenues. While porn is here to stay, the Internet has empowered anyone to put up a website and collect revenue from ads or pay-per-view — underpricing the Goliaths that write campaign checks. As for Democrats, organizing tens of thousands of small-business porn stars will prove a difficult and low-margin proposition.

In contrast I think these entrepreneurs would fit right into the big tent of the Tea Party and conservativism. What do you think their booth at CPAC will look like?

P.S.

Alternatively, what do you think planned economy porn will look like?

… because he actually believes that’s what we believe?

Last night I had the pure joy and honor to meet Mary Matalin and chat with her at the fundraiser she held in her home for GOProud. Whenever I’ve seen her on television she’s always been under enemy fire, so while I knew about her brilliance, I didn’t know she has warmth, wisdom and humor in the high terrawatts until, oh, some three or four nanoseconds after meeting her in person.

At the fundraiser we talked as a group for a bit on how to win hearts and minds to conservative principles and candidates and what gays can do for conservativism. That’s right — we were asking not what conservativism can do for us, but what we can do for conservativism. And Mary pointed out that we have to figure out how to defeat a rhetorical tactic of which her husband, James Carville, is reigning master and world champeen: presenting your opponent’s case in ways that are so false and wrong that you get them to run out the clock correcting all your misrepresentations so they never get a chance to make their real case.

I looked through Mr. Carville’s books on Amazon before writing this post and I gather he explains this tactic as framing the debate in his book, Buck Up, Suck Up.

I admit, when Mary brought this up and was trying to give it a name, I jumped in and called it, “rhetorical cheating.”

But something extremely rare and wonderful about the Matalin/Carville home made me reconsider that characterization this morning and give Mr. Carville more credit for integrity: their art collection of paintings, statues, ceramics and glass. I’m not just an art lover, I’m the widow of a genius artist who taught me a thing or two. So here’s the thing about the Matalin/Carville art: from big names to less well-known artists, all of it was real art and it was all chosen with real love. And here’s what is extremely rare: the unifying traits all the pieces share are joy, silence, playfulness and a transcendent spirituality.

So it struck me that the reason James Carville distorts conservative positions to frame them as demonic is NOT just to win arguments and campaigns but because that’s what he really thinks we believe. His liberal brain translates what conservatives believe into those demonic images.

What this means is that when we frame our arguments, we have to take Liberal Brain Syndrome into account. That means the place we have to start in presenting the conservative case is to frame the most fundamental difference between conservativism and liberalism. To wit, conservatives believe wealth is born of an individual’s ideas and grows in a system that respects liberty and lets individuals keep the lion’s share of the fruits of their labors. In contrast, liberals have no idea how wealth is created — money comes from rich people, who got it unfairly, and it must be taken from them by force and re-distributed by all-wise politicians and bureaucrats. So we have to incorporate into our message that money comes from ideas and the little guy with an idea can prosper, just as relentlessly as liberals chant that money comes from rich people and the little guy has no hope.

This is a more compelling message than the traditional conservative one of drastic cuts and shared sacrifice on the part of people who were so wantonly imprudent that they squandered their money instead of becoming independently wealthy before losing the ability to work by becoming elderly, disabled, or both.

Every liberal principle is based on the axiom that the origin of wealth is unknowable. This is a message of hopelessness and stagnation.

Every conservative principle is based on the axiom that the origin of wealth is within each individual in their capacity for creativity. This is a message that enlivens creativity and ambition.

Because of Liberal Brain Syndrome, liberals can’t imagine how wealth is created by individuals with ideas, free markets, less regulation, lower taxes, more incentives to create, energy independence, secure borders and a strong defense. To frame the debate so they can understand what we are saying, we have to tell them how, and paint them the picture, every time.

Dear Little Miss Attila links a post with 10 charts showing why DOOM for the U.S. economy is upon us RIGHT NOW. While there are social conservatives who claim they can handle social and fiscal policies at the same time, so far it looks to me like doing the hard work of administering the remedies of fiscal conservatism is always pushed off to the indefinite future while the non-stop battle to get at the coercive powers of government to destroy the lives of gay people is prosecuted with a vengeance.

And notice that I say “hard work” instead of “hard choices.” That’s because the “hard choices” politicians make tend to fall heavily on the vulnerable and always on people who aren’t them. No, by “hard work” I mean the effort required at the local, state and national levels to get rid of taxes and regulations that kill entrepreneurship, strangle businesses, chase manufacturing out of the U.S., kill jobs, make us dependent on foreign oil, raise the price of electricity — we need more nuclear reactors — and discourage investment. They also can’t be bothered to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws.

Our best hope for escaping the economic disaster that is upon us is to get to work applying these remedies because they create wealth and produce prosperity. It sounds prudent to talk of cutting the budget, but the cuts terrify so many people who can vote against them that they won’t get made. We must create prosperity and it’s going to require all our attention.

Today I took my father, who is 94, to a routine appointment with his geriatrician, which always begins with the physician assistant, Debbie, taking a history and his vital signs. She pronounced my father’s blood pressure “perfect” at 106/60. Then she said she was especially glad to see this because over the last six months they’ve seen a big jump in the number of their elderly patients with hypertension. Debbie’s career includes Carter’s presidency and I asked her if people are more frightened now than they were then. She said, yes, by a long shot, and added that so many of their patients also are suffering from depression and anxiety that they have added the services of a psychiatrist who specializes in the elderly to come in twice a week to see patients. Debbie said this is a phenomenon she’s never seen before in over 35 years as a physician assistant.

Now, what with this being a conservative blog, you would expect that I would follow this news with a denunciation of the debt bombs — aka stimulus spending — that Obama has been using to destroy America’s economy. So, OK, yes: Obama’s debt bombs are toppling this great nation. They are his fire in the Reichstag.

But it looks to me like the epidemic of illnesses caused by fear and hopelessness began when the 2010 election season kicked into high gear. And since gaining control of the House of Representatives — and thus, the purse strings — rather than fighting the fake stimulus of Keynes with the real stimulus of Hayek, instead Republicans have harped on the the virtues of pain and sacrifice on the part the most vulnerable citizens of our nation: the elderly and the disabled, who are served by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Basically, we have targeted people who do NOT have the ability to WORK to improve their lot even though they DO have the ability to VOTE to that end. So — what could go wrong?

In his column on Obama’s state of the union address, Charles Krauthammer explains (boldfacing mine):

The November election sent a clear message to Washington: less government, less debt, less spending. President Obama certainly heard it, but judging from his State of the Union address, he doesn’t believe a word of it. The people say they want cuts? Sure they do — in the abstract. But any party that actually dares carry them out will be punished severely. On that, Obama stakes his reelection.

What astonishes me is that fiscal conservatism has the tools to fix America’s economy and restore prosperity without attacking entitlements, but fiscal conservatives seldom use them — and we certainly aren’t using them now. So, what we should be doing is filling people with confidence in the future by getting rid of everything that is strangling economic recovery in its cradle — taxes, regulations, debt, boondoggles — and securing our energy independence and our borders and making America a profitable place to manufacture goods once more. The more we talk about how necessary it is to require sacrifices by people who aren’t us, the more we validate the mirror image of this policy, which is the redistribution of wealth — sacrifices by people who aren’t them. Either way, it isn’t sacrifice that is going to save us — it will be American resourcefulness and ambition unleashed.

H/T Instapundit.

I am plotting the demise of Randian conservatism — for real — so I am relieved to learn that dear Shakey Pete rejects it also (boldfacing mine):

I would have been more into the Ayn Rand/Atlas Shrugged crowd if it had not been for Eddie Willers. Remember Eddie? He was the main assistant to Dagny Taggert. While not quite bright enough to be a hero of the story, he was a staunch and steady subordinate. Maybe he couldn’t think of the best solution, when told how to work that solution, there he was, giving his all. Remember the end of Taggert Transcontinental? The train stopped and Eddie, the faithful, left alone. Want to know why I’m not a Randian? It’s right there. No loyalty down. Eddy would have stopped a bullet for Dagny, yet she abandoned him. Somehow this fits with that Gosnell story.

“No loyalty down.” That scene in the book infuriated me, too, but it’s Pete who captures the exact reason why.

“That Gosnell story” is about the Philadelphia abortion doctor who performed late term abortions and murdered babies who could have survived outside the womb. Reading Pete’s entire post, I think the way it fits is that the number of poor black women who are desperate for abortions and receiving such a low standard of care suggests that black and/or Leftist leaders have no loyalty down for them and their babies.

Today Instapundit — here and here — linked both Megan McArdle’s explanation of why we should get rid of income taxes on corporations and Amity Shlaes using the story of Triple-Crown winner Secretariat, whose bio movie was recently released, as a cautionary tale for the tsumani of increased estate tax rates set to begin wiping out small family businesses and farms on Jan. 1, 2011.

Leftist leaders attract and control their constituencies with two fundamental ideas, both of which have their foundation in hopelessness and passivity, attitudes that have the bonus powers of making it easy to control anyone who buys into them. The first fundamental idea of Leftism is that particular identity/grievance groups are members of a permanent underclass, which entitles them to pity and unearned privileges and money. This idea has been particularly attractive to black Americans and led to the Great Society welfare state, the destruction of marriage and the black family, the rise of race hucksterism and racial protection rackets and a holocaust of ambition, talent and genius in the black community because welfare rules punish these traits ruthlessly.

The second fundamental idea of Leftism is that there is a privileged overclass who owe their pity and earned privileges and money to an ever-expanding list of identity/grievance groups in the permanent underclass.

As noted by Eric Hoffer (The True Believer), Friedrich Hayek (The Road to Serfdom) and Jamie Glazov (United in Hate), these two fundamental ideas of Leftism have nothing to do with the real goal of Leftist leaders, which is identical to the goal of all sociopaths: the power to make people jump. The real purpose of Leftist leaders is to gain power for themselves. The fact that they are using pity, shame and guilt to get it gives them away and what really clinches the diagnosis is the fact that wherever they gain power their community or nation falls into stagnation and decay and they have no remorse whatsoever about the lives they destroy to get and keep power.

One prominent author who failed to see the sociopathy behind using these ideas to attract, trap and manipulate followers is Ayn Rand. While I was recovering from my cough and back injury this month, I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time. Rand repeatedly derides the destructiveness of the Communist slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” and I have the impression that she developed her philosophy of objectivism to argue against it. But she failed to see it was only the bait and that you can’t defeat the hook by arguing with the bait.

Where was I? Oh, right, back to a thought I had while reading the essay by Amity Shlaes on the estate tax: Leftists perpetuate hopelessness while conservatives are optimists. If you believe that you have no hope of making the most of yourself and building a prosperous life, then the hopelessness of Leftism makes sense to you and you believe that money comes from luck and/or exploitation and you can only get it by taking it from those who are making it. In contrast, fiscal conservatism is about optimism in the individual’s ability to create wealth and the recognition that the system that allows individuals to keep the majority of the wealth they create harnesses one of the greatest powers in the universe: human ambition.

As I was reading Shlaes’s essay, I had the thought that conservatives reading it would identify with the families whose businesses are threatened or destroyed by the estate tax. Conservatives also would assume that anyone reading it would see the threat estate taxes pose to their own well-being, their own futures, their own opportunities. Then it occurred to me that Leftists reading it would feel justified and even gleeful about the slaughter of geese laying golden eggs that the sacrifice of family businesses to the ax of high estate taxes represents. Why? Because the Left has trained them to be permanently hopeless about their own prospects or the prospects of their preferred grievance/identity groups. Money is not something that anyone can make, it’s something you take — or ransom you pay to assuage your guilt.

And this is where the Right makes its biggest mistake, a mistake on such a grand scale that I think it is the real reason the economic fate of America hangs in the balance now. Conservatives don’t keep emphasizing that fiscal conservatism is about creating and preserving a system where individuals can make their dreams come true — a system where individuals get to keep and control the majority of the financial rewards they have earned through their creativity, courage, thrift, wise choices, hard work and ambition.

In other words, fiscal conservatives NEVER use their big idea to drive the discussion about America’s economy and inspire people about fulfilling their full potential. Yet this big idea is the one that exposes and destroys the hook that is the true motivating force of Leftist leaders: gaining control over others, regardless of the destruction that causes.

Instead, fiscal conservatives speak almost exclusively — as Ayn Rand did — to the ideas the Left uses as bait. This means the Left is always in control of the discussion, leading fiscal conservatives on a perpetual wild goose chase and tricking them into articulating only the positions that validate the Left’s framing them as demons. The solution is for the Right to begin every discussion with a statement of its own big idea of individual empowerment and self-realization. This will leverage one of the fundamental rules of a paradigm shift: people only give up their current paradigm when they see the advantages of a better one. And it is fiscal conservatives who have the better paradigm.

Update, 10/31/10, Sun.: Babalu has more on reports of small business owners planning to die in 2010 when their estate taxes will be zero, instead taking a risk that they would live past Dec. 31 because the jump to 55 percent that estate taxes will take on Jan. 1, 2011, will destroy their family business.

Update, 11/1/10, Mon.: Thank you, Prof. Reynolds, for the link, and welcome Instapundit readers. One commenter requested clarification on the following:

“Instead, fiscal conservatives speak almost exclusively — as Ayn Rand did — to the ideas the Left uses as bait. ”

“…leading fiscal conservatives on a perpetual wild goose chase and tricking them into articulating only the positions that validate the Left’s framing them as demons.”

The ideas of fiscal conservatives that allow the Left to frame them as demons start with the phrase, “We need to get rid of …”:

• Social Security
• the IRS and our current tax code
• Medicare and Medicaid.

Come to find that there are legitimate ideas behind these that never get mentioned because the debate is happening in code. Also because the Leftists’ heads burst with rage before fiscal conservatives can offer their alternatives and explain them. I’m new to fiscal conservatism, so as near as I can tell, the above proposals are code for the following ideas:

• We can starve government into being smaller and make it interfere less by depriving it of the rivers of revenue for Social Security from the FICA tax, which go into the general fund and can be used for anything.
• Our tax code is so burdensome and complex that we would be better off throwing it out and instituting a flat tax.
• Caring for the elderly and the disabled is the camel’s nose in the tent for socialized medicine. (Hayek specifically states in The Road to Serfdom that a prosperous society should provide support for those who truly can’t provide for themselves, so I’m not including the other conservative argument that we can’t afford the care of the elderly and the disabled and because I have no idea what fiscal conservatives offer as an alternative.)

Old and busted — the ideas the Left uses as bait for fiscal conservatives:

• Wealth must be re-distributed
• Planned economies are better than free markets because outcomes are guaranteed
• Taxes and regulations are good and only bad people want to limit them
• Identity groups have perpetual grievances

The new hotness — if fiscal conservatives framed the discussion in their own terms:

• Wealth is created when human ambition is harnessed by a system that gives it liberty and the right to keep a majority of the wealth it has created.
• An economic system that empowers people to create wealth doesn’t have to pay as much in welfare.
• We can provide opportunities for all, but nothing should guarantee an outcome.
• Keeping taxes and regulations to a minimum unleashes wealth-creating power.
• People should be treated as individuals, not members of identity groups.

I went to a dessert fundraiser for Jim Rutledge, the candidate for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate that I think can beat Sen. Barbara Mikulski. Here’s a good omen: it was held in the home of a DEMOCRAT who will be changing her voter registration to vote for Jim Rutledge in the primary election on Sept. 14.

What sets Jim Rutledge apart is his grasp of the principles of the Constitution and capitalism that make America the place where people have the freedom to make their dreams come true. First Jim spoke with passion of the Marylanders he’s met as he’s campaigned across the state who are hurting due to the economy-stagnating policies that Obama proposed and Sen. Mikulski supported. THEN he spoke about what wealth is and how it is created by ideas and the motivation of people who are allowed to keep the lion’s share of the wealth they have created. THIS is why Jim Rutledge CAN beat Barbara Mikulski. He understands what wealth is, how it is created and the system it needs to prosper and grow. Jim Rutledge knows how to unleash the creativity of the individual to create the wealth and jobs that will restore Maryland and America to prosperity. If I have good video of Jim making these points, I’ll have it up in a day or two.