"Dear White People" - A Justin Simien Film (2014)

Hold on to your sides and check your political correctness at the door for this film as Director Justin Simien kicks out the stops in this wonderful piece of satire. He also wrote this original screenplay which depicts the interaction of four black students at an Ivy League in the age of Obama. And in doing so he highlights just how far we haven’t come in feeling comfortable about the issue of race; even in 2014, when this film was released.

The film is the story of a controversy which breaks out when a black face party thrown by the white students is perceived to be racist by the African-American students. This plants seed for the whole movie; how do we deal with these divisions? Biracial student DJ Samantha White implores her white listeners to name 2 black people in their lives; not counting their “weed dealers.”

Thrown into the mix is the plight of Sam, who has finally become the first black president of his all black residential hall; only to discover that in an age of diversification it “don’t mean a thing.” The all black residence hall is on the way out. Fellow student Coco Conners has ideas for a student TV show called "Doing Time at an Ivy League."

And, as if to sum up the mis-communication between the races in this age of instant communication, a student loner named Lionel Higgins is tapped by his fellow white students  to join the school's all white newspaper to cover the controversy over the black face party. Being black automatically makes him an expert on the subject to his white peers, even though Lionel knows nothing about “Black culture”.

This film is a fast paced and funny look at how far we probably haven’t come from the days of the TV show “Julia.” Comedian Godfrey Cambridge used to joke about the fact that when that show came on the air, each time he waited for an elevator a white person would ask him if he’d seen “Julia” that week. He usually said no. One week he decided to say yes and ask which part of the show the other man liked. The response was telling. He hadn’t watched it.

"The Rise of ISIS" - PBS Frontline (2014)

The basic message of this film is that our policy failures under the Bush; and later Obama; administrations are the primary cause of the radical Sunnis going berserk; cutting off heads, burning schools and going back to Sharia law. They ask you to believe that this is all due  Iraqi President Maliki; who is Shiite; double crossing the US and persecuting the Sunnis in violation of the Constitution worked out with the US for governing Iraq after we left. Remember, we had deposed Saddam Hussein; who ruled with an iron fist in order to avoid the chaos which you are seeing now; which is nothing more than the rise of Al Qaeda on steroids, masquerading as ISIS.

This film asks me to believe that the stupidity of Bush and Obama is a legitimate excuse for the barbaric behavior by ISIS. The premise that this is solely in response to Maliki’s double cross is absurd. This is simply the true agenda of Radical Islam unmasked. Maliki and the US aside; this is the chance that the radical Islamics have been waiting for. That we provided them with that opportunity is no excuse for their behavior; either before or after the fact.

While this film is an important one to see; if only to gather some facts; it is important also to realize that it has an agenda. It seems to be aimed squarely at blaming the current reign of ISIS on the Obama and Bush administrations; and hence the West in general; for the terror and insanity of Radical Islam; which ISIS represents. But remember that Islamic extremists have been terrorizing the world for decades now; long before the current state of events. Keep that in mind when watching this film.

Clinton, DOMA and Article IV - WTF?

Am I the only one who understands this, or am I just ill-informed? First off, if you don’t know the difference between an Amendment and an Article in the US Constitution, then this post is not for you. If you would like to know, then I’ll tell you.

An Amendment to the Constitution is something which has been added; or changed from the original Articles; which delineate what the government’s functions are, and how they are to go about their jobs. Amendments are; beginning with the first ten in the Bill of Rights; outline the areas of  our lives in which the government is not allowed to intrude. And sometimes; as with the 27th Amendment; they are merely additions or corrections to existing Articles. 

Secondly; Civil Rights Issues; of which Same Sex Marriage is but one; are not negotiable, and therefore not subject to populist elections. It is essential that you understand these two things. Okay, got that straight? Now, some background.

Bill Clinton is the ex-President who is seen as the godfather to the GLBT movement. I hope I have the initials in the proper order so as not to offend anyone. But Bill Clinton; in addition to giving us the ill-advised “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy; also left us with a lasting legacy; and conundrum; in the form of the Defense of Marriage Act.

DOMA; it’s easier to use the acronym; basically stated that marriage in the United States consists of one man and one woman. That alone is confusing to me in that Bill Clinton is embraced by the GLBT community as a champion of their quest for equal rights. But what really puzzles me even more is the clause within DOMA which basically guts Article 4; the Full Faith and Credit Clause; which states that “Full faith and Credit shall be given in each state to the Public Acts, records and Judicial proceedings of every other state….” In essence, this clause prevents the individual states from not honoring your driver’s license, automobile registration, marriage license etc. when traveling through their districts. This was a good thing.

Can you imagine the confusion resulting in having to pay a fee at each state border as you travel across the country? Or having to get a temporary marriage permit while on vacation? Full Faith and Credit is the antithesis of State’s Rights, which brings me to the crux of this post.

Bill Clinton planted the seeds for all the confusion going on in the courts across the country right now in regards to Same Sex Marriage. That’s right; the godfather of alternative lifestyles is at the root of the problem being faced by GLBT people all across the land as they try to navigate the labyrinth of state laws which permit them to marry in some states, while making those unions illegal in others.

Further complicating the matter is that the Supreme Court struck down only that portion of DOMA which restricted Same Sex Marriage. It did not, however, strike down the clause which allowed the individual states to by-pass Article 4 of the Constitution. This is why you have lawsuit after lawsuit concerning Same Sex Marriage in one state after another. If the  entire DOMA had been struck down this would not be an issue.

President Bush postured to repeal the entire DOMA Act in order to gain conservative votes. Had he known what a roadblock DOMA could be for Same Sex Marriage he would have felt differently. This brings us to President Obama; who has stated in the past that his position on this issue was “evolving.” What is his administration’s position on this issue now?

Well, according to Eric Holder and the Justice Department, the portion of DOMA which remains intact regarding Full Faith and Credit; which would allow a Same Sex Marriage in Vermont to not be honored in Kansas; the government; for now; will not pursue a change. What the hell does that mean?

Full Faith and Credit has served this country well; both socially and commercially; for well over 200 years. The patchwork quilt created by Bill Clinton; and unchanged by his predecessors; is an ill omen of things to come. As a legal precedent it threatens us in more ways than just Same Sex Marriage. With Conservatives calling for a roll back to an era before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it threatens us in more ways than you can imagine.

And, as these elections about Same Sex Marriage roll around to your state, it is important to remember that Civil Rights are not subject to elections. They are non-negotiable. 

Obama's "Secret" Tax - Give Me a Break...

Ever since the people elected Barak Obama to office in 2008 we have been subjected to a mind numbing array of “doomsday” scenarios which all have one thing in common; they are Obama’s fault. If a bird falls from a tree, Obama did it. He’s the new Satan, the latest devil, the 21^st Century Boogieman.

And now he is set to collapse the American economy on July 1^st with the advent of the new requirements of FACTA, a component of H.R. 2847, the “Hire Incentives to Restore Employment” Act which was passed in 2010 and takes effect this July 1^st. FACTA stands for “Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act”, which is the portion of the bill that has so many people frightened.

Wait! Did I say it “has so many people frightened?” Personally I don’t know of a single one. As a matter of fact, I hadn’t even heard about this until I saw a posting online which said that on July 1^st, 2014 Americans will be facing a financial collapse of everything we know.

The American way of life will be rolled back 40 years. Buildings will go dark and sit empty; planes will be grounded; financial institutions will shutter their doors, and ordinary citizens will starve in the streets in the midst of martial law which will prohibit them from being in the streets in the first place. There will not even be a place to die! Give me a break…

FACTA will only affect you if you have an offshore bank account with millions of dollars in it on which you are not paying taxes. Mitt Romney is terrified, but Robert Williams is fine. As a matter of fact, this law is way overdue. Maybe that’s what they mean about the biggest change in 40 years. Imagine, rich people paying taxes just like the rest of us! The very idea smacks of socialism at best; and downright fair at its worse. Think of it; FACTA will require the rich to have a 1099 issued for their savings. And they’re pissed about the government intrusion.

Now, these are the same people who want you to jump through hoops of fire in order to vote. No problem with all of the paperwork they want to foist on the poor, making it harder for them to vote; but an extra 1099 will break the entire system.

For the record; I am for Voter ID. I think you should have to show who you are when you go to vote. I don’t think that it is an undue burden, just as I don’t think the 1099 requirement for FACTA is undue. That’s called consistent thinking. The reasoning behind the opposition to FACTA is not the result of consistent thought at all. And the people who are trying to scare you know that.

The other big lie being bandied about is that this law violates our own constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth. The collection of information on the 1099 is not inconsistent with the information required of all taxpayers. Once again the specter of misinformation rears its ugly head.

The same people who are opposed to this requirement are the same folks who tell you that you should be comfortable with the NSA gathering all of your personal information. Why are they so comfortable with that, yet so discomfited by the requirements of FACTA? Simple answer; it’s going to cost them a couple of bucks.

Note: The photo at the top is of Moroccan actor Mehdi Ouazzani, who played the Devil in the film “The Bible”. Conservatives were all abuzz with this photo about a year ago. I suspect that people who have too much money sitting in foreign accounts also have too much time on their hands.

The Declaration of Independence - Under Siege

                                               

Today is my wedding anniversary. I usually post a loving tribute to my wife, Sue, and our ability to make it through the minefield which all marriages are at some point or another. It was 27 years ago today when Sue and I took the vows, and though it hasn't always been easy, we are still together, relying on one another more and more with each passing year.

So, it was with great regret that I asked her if it would be okay for me to skip doing a post about our anniversary in order to  address a more pressing issue; our rights as citizens in our own land. Those rights include the freedom to speak our minds; assemble peacefully without penalty; and to enjoy the freedom from unwarranted intrusion into our personal lives. It is with sorrow that I have to state these things are all under assault at the present time.

I was a bit uncomfortable with the NSA news; that they have been reading our e-mails and listening to our phone calls; but since I have nothing really important to hide, I was almost willing to chalk it up to “national security”; trusting that our government “by the people and for the people” would be capable of making the distinction between terrorists and ordinary individuals.

I was also comfortable with the “leaks” generated by Messrs.’ Assange and Snowden; it gave me the feeling that this kind of information should be available for the public. Just as the government tells us that if we “have nothing to hide, then we have nothing to fear”, I make the same claim against them.

What are they afraid of? “Leaking” the truth? If I had “leaked” the truth to my Dad, rather than answer his questions on the first shot, I got punished. It was a great lesson to me, and one that reverberates this July 4^th, on the heels of the latest revelation about Obama’s 2 year old “secret” (until this week) program dubbed the “Insider Threat Program.” 

The IRS scandal, along with the NSA nonsense, still don’t worry me as much as this latest infringement of the rights which we all seem to take for granted, even as they are being slowly whittled away by both political parties.

This “Insider Threat Program” is the most disturbing to me because it goes against the very grain of the Whistle Blower Protection program. Just the very name says it all; “Insider Threat Program.” Think of what the term really means. It’s not a program designed to stop national security “leaks” and keep us safe from foreign enemies; it’s a program specifically designed for government employees to identify; and punish; the people who work in government agencies and may see something wrong going on.

All this brings us to the vaunted document displayed above; the Declaration of Independence. It was 237 years ago today when the last of the signers affixed their signatures to the document which gave birth to a nation founded upon the principles later codified in the United States Constitution. I wonder how many of our politicians have read; or even understand; the document. In light of all recent events, I would venture that, even if they have read it, they think of it in terms of antiquity; almost as if it were no longer relative. For those who share that view I am printing the text of the Declaration below, in the hopes that you will read it.

When you do, substitute all of the recent scandals for the things which the Declaration accuses King George the Third of. You may be surprised to discover that we have as much to complain about now, as we did 237 years ago.

So, here is the text, and after that a bit of music, which; although calling for change; does not require anyone to kill anyone else in the endeavor. Happy 4^th, and don’t forget to make those phone calls to your Representatives and Senators in Washington when the holiday is over. Let them know how angry you are at their attempt to rob of your birthright. 

And, whatever you do, wave that flag proudly today – it belongs to us, the people. And that’s something we can never afford to let them forget.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

 He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an

Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. 

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Happy Anniversary Sue. 

I love you more than ever - as if that were even possible...

Death Panelist?

This was written one day prior to a Federal Judge granting a Waiver to Sarah Murnaghan on Thursday. The Federal Government is not expected to appeal the decision. But, the fact still remains that this family was put through what amounts to more than just an abuse of process; they were subject to the kind of treatment we were told would not be tolerated under the current administration. This problem could have been resolved with the stroke of a pen, as it was for a major campaign contributor several years ago; when he was seeking permission to import an illegal medication, unavailable for you and I. 
 
What is wrong with the Democratic Party? They seem to be rudderless; lacking in courage to do the right thing in this case about the 10 year old girl, Sarah Murnaghan, in Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. She is in need of a pediatric lung transplant, but, according to existing health care regulations, she cannot have one until she is 12. To be fair, there is currently no pediatric lung available for her, but there is an adult one which can be modified and allow the girl to live. But the Democrats will not even discuss an exemption to spare her life.

Naturally, the Republicans, and conservative talk radio are having a field day with this issue, trumpeting the rise of the dreaded “Obama Death Panels.” Republican leaders are calling for HHS Director Kathleen Sebelius to make an exemption to the rule and allow the girl, who has about 2 weeks left to live, to get the lung. As of this writing, not one Democrat has even made a statement in defense of; or in opposition to; the inaction of the Director, whom they chose.

Some are ranting that if they make this exception it will open the flood gates for more of these “special circumstances”, thus bankrupting an already overburdened system. This is nonsense. Here is an opportunity; ready-made; to show true bi-partisanship on this issue, and yet the two parties cannot put down their war hatchets long enough to save this little girls life. It’s shameful, and at the same time, very suggestive of what lies in store for most Americans in the future.

Bureaucrats will be making decisions on whether you, or a loved one, will be allowed to live. Does that constitute a “death panel”? I don’t think that it does, but it’s awfully hard to understand why Ms. Sebelius, who has the power to make this decision, will not even comment on the issue beyond stating that she will have the issue “investigated”, a proposal which will certainly take longer than the little girl has to live.

You may ask, “What about the press? Where are they on this story?” And you wouldn't be alone. This is news of the most heartbreaking kind; a little girl being deliberately deprived of the one thing which can save her life; and yet the press is strangely quiet. They seem to believe that, just as a tree falling in the forest makes no noise if no one is around to hear it, they can ignore this story altogether. But you can be sure they will make a buck or two on it after the little girl has died.

There is so much blame to go around on this issue; but the biggest blame of all would be if you read this and do not make that call to your Congressperson, or Senator, and demand that something be done; even if you do not  really believe in this cause, then at least to dispel the Republican’s assertion that there really is a “Death Panel.” Unless; of course; there is.

I have spent Wednesday morning phoning my elected representatives from North Carolina to urge Ms. Sebelius to change her mind. Not only were the offices of the Democrats I contacted disinterested in doing anything about it, but Ms. Sebelius re-iterated her stance on this issue on Wednesday. I urge you to phone your Representatives and Senators asking them to intervene. I hope that you will, as the sands of time are quickly running out for Sarah.

"FDR and Chief Justice Hughes" by James F. Simon (2012)

The old saying about how everything changes, yet remains the same, is highlighted in this book highlighting the battle between the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Charles Hughes, and Franklin Roosevelt, the President of the United States, over the Presidents “New Deal” policies. More than just a chronicle of events, the author takes the time to study each man’s past in an effort to more fully understand the differences in the two.

Within the first 5 days of his administration taking over the office of the Presidency, FDR enacted sweeping changes which put him; as well as the changes he did manage to make permanent; at odds with certain interests in the financial community. That chasm still exists today. And that’s what makes this book so important to read. At a time when we should be using the success of the New Deal to wriggle our way back to financial security as a nation, we seem to be having the same old arguments about how that recovery should take place.

Harry Truman once said that “The only thing new is the history you don’t know.” I quote that often, mainly because it is true. Within days of his taking office, FDR had declared a bank holiday, and suspended trading in silver and gold, using the Banking Acts of the First World War as his precedent to do so. He then went on radio to deliver the first of his “fireside chats”, explaining to the average American just how the financial system worked. After only three days the banks which had been allowed to reopen showed twice the amount of deposits as they did withdrawals. By the 15^th of March, a mere 2 weeks after the new administration took control, Wall Street re-opened, surging well ahead of the markets in Europe, and racking up the highest gains in 6 months.

Of course these changes did not sit well with many people in the banking profession. Particularly glaring were the changes regarding the Gold Standard, which had many of the more well-heeled industrialists fulminating. Eventually the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Hughes, struck down the New Deal as being Unconstitutional, leaving an exasperated FDR to come up with a new plan which would pass the courts muster. This is the part where he tried, through a failed attempt at legislating the age of retirement for the Justices on the Court, 6 of whom were over the age of 70. He hoped to be able to “pack” the court with Justices who would uphold his legislation. Although his motives may have been pure, his thinking was not.

The framers of the Constitution had made a point of having Supreme Court Justices appointed for life. They did this for a very good reason. In order to keep the Supreme Court from becoming a “plumb” position; handed out as a reward to political lackeys; they envisioned the positions to be life-long. This ensured that no party, no matter how long they might retain control of the Executive Branch of Government, could maintain control of the Court. The Court, like the Executive and Legislative Branches, was to act separately, answering only to their interpretation of the Constitution under which it was formed.

The book is filled with the history of both Franklin Roosevelt and his family, as well as that of Chief Justice Hughes. Even if the book were completely devoid of the struggle between the two men over the New Deal, the histories of their respective families would be interesting enough on their own.

Throughout the book, as the two men circle one another over this issue, the reader cannot help but admire the tenacity of both parties as they struggle to do what they feel is right for the American people. Both men were brilliant statesmen, making the tale of their adversity all the more remarkable.

Fully researched, and deftly written, this is the perfect book to help you get through both Conventions. It contains the seeds of the economic struggle which still rages in America today, as the “haves” try their best to bring back the days when the rest of us were “have nots.”

This Should Scare You.

This should scare you. Conservative radio talk shows have been airing this rant from the Reverend Farrakhan all week long; and the scary part is that they are in AGREEMENT with him on almost every talking point.

No doubt, the good Reverend is the most effective speaker since Adolph Hitler, and therein lies the concern you should have when it comes to the axis of these two theologically different groups. There must be a common purpose at work here. But figuring out just what it is will take more than one viewing of this tirade. And that’s what it is; a tirade.
 

So, as you watch this video, be careful; there may be portions of it with which you think you agree; but tread carefully. There are so many nuances which are really at the core of what he is saying, yet he leads you to the many different doors without ever opening one of them for a closer examination. But, then again, that is just what he does. And he’s been doing it for almost 50 years now.