Earmarks in Congress - The debate

 

More boring Political stuff.

 

I watched about an hour of the first debate the other night and then gave up and went to bed. I was too tired to listen to any more of it.

 

Obama sounded like a tired Professor trying to explain a slow moving chemical reaction and McCain should have just gotten pissed of and then got over it later.

 

One more "My Friends" and I was going to put a shoe in the TV.

 

I did put it on the DVR though and watched it again this morning.

 

Does everybody "get" what an Congressional Earmark is?

 

If not here is the definition.

 

Definitions of Congressional Earmark on the Web:

• To set aside funds for a specific purpose, use, or recipient. Generally speaking, virtually every appropriation is earmarked, and so are certain ...
  rules.house.gov/archives/glossary_fbp.htm
• A requirement that revenue be spent on a specific project or purpose, therefore intercepting the money before it is pooled with other revenue and appropriated as part of the General Fund. At the federal level, earmarking is often equated with pork spending.
  www.jwpcivitasinstitute.org/media/in-print/nc-public-policy-series/budget-and-taxation-key-terms
• To specify or set aside for a particular purpose
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/earmark

They made a big to do about earmarks.

Earmarks are how Senators bring "Home the bacon" for their state, thus the term "Pork Barrel spending" is used to describe this kind of Budget request.

Literally Billions of dollars each year is spent as earmarks every year and usually nobody ever knows until some lackey staff member looks it up for a reporter.

Here are the facts from citizens against government waste.

You can look this up yourself at : http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer

We have 100 US Senators. 48 Democrats, 50 Republicans and 2 Independents.

	Totals	# Projects	Dollars Spent	Projects Per Senator	AVG Project
48	Democrat	5966	$9,194,000,000	124	$1,541,066
50	Republican	4198	$7,458,800,000	84	$1,776,751
2	Independent	122	$159,600,000	61	$1,308,197
100	All	10286	$16,812,400,000	103	$1,634,493

In 2008's Budget here is how the two main candidates used earmarks.

I'll attach the whole list also, but for clarity here are the main two.

Party

Senator

# of Projects

Total Dollars (Millions)

Extended Dollars

AVG Project

R

McCain

0

$0.00

$0

$0

D

Obama

53

$97.40

$97,400,000

$1,837,736

Now don't get me wrong, I do not think a Senator fighting for money for his state is wrong.

I think hiding it from discussion and sneaking it into the budget request each year is though. These ought to see the light of day and they don't.

The way the Senate operates in this regard is wrong and it should be changed.

Obama says he is the agent of change? 97.4 millions dollars of change, if you ask me. This looks like more of the same.

Almost nobody really knows what this 16.8 Billion dollars is spent on. Both parties have to clean it up.

Factually Republicans make about 60 requests less per senator, and Democrats spend on Average about $234,000 less per earmark, but the point is not lost on me here.

The average senator makes over 100 earmark requests per year. The average request is over 1.5 million dollars!

If you can not control this money, how do you think you are going to be able to control the budget and your own party asking for more and more and more.

The only answer that makes sense to me is this :

Future performance is dictated by past result.

Thankx for reading my rant ! 

 

bigmike

 

Visit my blog online at http://bigmikerant.blogspot.com/  

 

I encourage you to leave your own comments or reactions to my rants (even if you don't agree with me) in the comments section on each post.

 

Check out my business at http://answrtek.com

 

As Promised here is the complete list : From http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer

Citizens Against Government Waste 2008 Earmark Reports

 

 

   

 

Party	Senator	# of Projects	Total Dollars (Millions)	Extended Dollars	Avg Project
D	Akaka	59	$185.00	$185,000,000	$3,135,593
R	Alexander	60	$120.60	$120,600,000	$2,010,000
R	Allard	75	$95.70	$95,700,000	$1,276,000
R	Barrasso	5	$12.50	$12,500,000	$2,500,000
D	Baucus	92	$124.00	$124,000,000	$1,347,826
D	Bayh	87	$125.00	$125,000,000	$1,436,782
R	Bennett	89	$156.20	$156,200,000	$1,755,056
D	Biden	70	$119.70	$119,700,000	$1,710,000
D	Bingaman	150	$280.90	$280,900,000	$1,872,667
R	Bond	142	$309.80	$309,800,000	$2,181,690
D	Boxer	100	$120.00	$120,000,000	$1,200,000
D	Brown	59	$95.70	$95,700,000	$1,622,034
R	Brownback	81	$89.60	$89,600,000	$1,106,173
R	Bunning	21	$23.60	$23,600,000	$1,123,810
R	Burr	89	$117.10	$117,100,000	$1,315,730
D	Byrd	111	$386.00	$386,000,000	$3,477,477
D	Cantwell	174	$163.00	$163,000,000	$936,782
D	Cardin	145	$236.40	$236,400,000	$1,630,345
D	Carper	66	$85.00	$85,000,000	$1,287,879
D	Casey	165	$176.60	$176,600,000	$1,070,303
R	Chambliss	108	$127.00	$127,000,000	$1,175,926
D	Clinton	281	$296.20	$296,200,000	$1,054,093
R	Coburn	0	$0.00	$0	$0
R	Cochran	245	$892.20	$892,200,000	$3,641,633
R	Coleman	94	$180.90	$180,900,000	$1,924,468
R	Collins	69	$81.30	$81,300,000	$1,178,261
D	Conrad	77	$118.30	$118,300,000	$1,536,364
R	Corker	12	$33.90	$33,900,000	$2,825,000
R	Cornyn	75	$121.90	$121,900,000	$1,625,333
R	Craig	88	$97.30	$97,300,000	$1,105,682
R	Crapo	83	$83.10	$83,100,000	$1,001,205
R	DeMint	0	$0.00	$0	$0
R	Dodd	75	$129.20	$129,200,000	$1,722,667
R	Dole	110	$133.60	$133,600,000	$1,214,545
R	Domenici	168	$259.80	$259,800,000	$1,546,429
D	Dorgan	91	$178.50	$178,500,000	$1,961,538
D	Durbin	136	$256.30	$256,300,000	$1,884,559
R	Ensign	34	$92.60	$92,600,000	$2,723,529
R	Enzi	3	$10.30	$10,300,000	$3,433,333
D	Feingold	0	$0.00	$0	$0
D	Feinstein	189	$294.00	$294,000,000	$1,555,556
R	Graham	59	$99.20	$99,200,000	$1,681,356
R	Grassley	154	$321.40	$321,400,000	$2,087,013
R	Gregg	63	$93.80	$93,800,000	$1,488,889
R	Hagel	53	$73.60	$73,600,000	$1,388,679
D	Harkin	194	$302.80	$302,800,000	$1,560,825
R	Hatch	67	$103.50	$103,500,000	$1,544,776
R	Hutchison	145	$255.60	$255,600,000	$1,762,759
R	Inhofe	99	$144.40	$144,400,000	$1,458,586
D	Inouye	131	$385.50	$385,500,000	$2,942,748
R	Isakson	78	$119.70	$119,700,000	$1,534,615
D	Johnson	100	$130.10	$130,100,000	$1,301,000
D	Kennedy	124	$192.10	$192,100,000	$1,549,194
D	Kerry	124	$138.80	$138,800,000	$1,119,355
D	Klobuchar	99	$178.40	$178,400,000	$1,802,020
D	Kohl	121	$148.40	$148,400,000	$1,226,446
R	Kyl	27	$69.00	$69,000,000	$2,555,556
D	Landrieu	161	$458.50	$458,500,000	$2,847,826
D	Lautenberg	223	$288.90	$288,900,000	$1,295,516
D	Leahy	96	$163.30	$163,300,000	$1,701,042
D	Levin, Carl	255	$301.40	$301,400,000	$1,181,961
I	Lieberman	101	$149.40	$149,400,000	$1,479,208
D	Lincoln	107	$230.00	$230,000,000	$2,149,533
R	Lott	74	$242.70	$242,700,000	$3,279,730
R	Lugar	113	$128.00	$128,000,000	$1,132,743
R	Martinez	80	$115.80	$115,800,000	$1,447,500
R	McCain	0	$0.00	$0	$0
D	McCaskill	0	$0.00	$0	$0
R	McConnell	69	$194.90	$194,900,000	$2,824,638
D	Menendez	207	$286.40	$286,400,000	$1,383,575
D	Mikulski	179	$289.90	$289,900,000	$1,619,553
R	Murkowski	21	$56.20	$56,200,000	$2,676,190
D	Murray	208	$327.80	$327,800,000	$1,575,962
D	Nelson, Ben	67	$75.40	$75,400,000	$1,125,373
D	Nelson, Bill	96	$161.30	$161,300,000	$1,680,208
D	Obama	53	$97.40	$97,400,000	$1,837,736
D	Pryor	105	$223.80	$223,800,000	$2,131,429
D	Reed	96	$130.70	$130,700,000	$1,361,458
D	Reid	160	$259.50	$259,500,000	$1,621,875
R	Roberts	47	$54.20	$54,200,000	$1,153,191
D	Rockefeller	2	$6.20	$6,200,000	$3,100,000
D	Salazar	112	$111.90	$111,900,000	$999,107
I	Sanders	21	$10.20	$10,200,000	$485,714
D	Schumer	306	$298.30	$298,300,000	$974,837
R	Sessions	47	$158.00	$158,000,000	$3,361,702
R	Shelby	206	$464.50	$464,500,000	$2,254,854
R	Smith	117	$130.80	$130,800,000	$1,117,949
R	Snowe	67	$70.00	$70,000,000	$1,044,776
R	Specter	315	$220.20	$220,200,000	$699,048
D	Stabenow	220	$232.50	$232,500,000	$1,056,818
R	Stevens	150	$469.40	$469,400,000	$3,129,333
R	Sununu	36	$69.40	$69,400,000	$1,927,778
D	Tester	78	$93.00	$93,000,000	$1,192,308
R	Thune	49	$22.80	$22,800,000	$465,306
R	Vitter	104	$231.50	$231,500,000	$2,225,962
R	Voinovich	110	$130.80	$130,800,000	$1,189,091
R	Warner	122	$251.20	$251,200,000	$2,059,016
D	Webb	121	$254.10	$254,100,000	$2,100,000
D	Whitehouse	52	$46.70	$46,700,000	$898,077
D	Wyden	117	$140.30	$140,300,000	$1,199,145
		10286	$16,812.40	$16,812,400,000	$1,634,493

 

 

 

Barack Obama versus John McCain - My Dilemma

OK, My predictions were off base. I guess I was dreaming. Hillary is not the Democratic candidate and Fred Thompson didn't have the juice to ever get off the ground. Many of you have never heard this from me, however , I was wrong.

 

Now lets look at reality.

 

In November we will choose a sitting Senator as our next President. I don't think that's been done since John F. Kennedy and it had been a while before that. In the next election we will either elect a Black man as President or an old Senator with a youngish white woman as Vice President.

 

Usually we don't like to elect Congress to the Presidency. We choose people with real verifiable experience, because in our national collective judgment we think that past performance and proof of experience will dictate the future result.

 

Myself, I could care less what the party is. I'll vote for whatever party if I like the candidate.

 

Personally I have voted Democratic 3 out of the last 8 Presidential elections.

 

Here's the history- (Real brief)

 

• Ike (R)- Military man ,Supreme Allied Commander WWII
• Kennedy (D)- Military man (PT109), Pulitzer Prize winner ("Profiles in Courage"),Author ("While England Slept") Senator (Political family)
• Johnson (D)- VP, then Presidency (was in the senate before)
• Nixon (R)-former VP in '52, then failed as a Presidential candidate in '60 and failed as Governor of Cali. in '62
• Ford (R)-Appointed to replace Spiro Agnew as VP, succeeded as President when Nixon resigned, never elected as Pres.
• Carter (D)-State Senator, Former Gov of GA, Navy man -(Sub Commander?), peanut farmer, Nobel peace prize winner
• Reagan X2(R)- Former Gov -California, actor, ran S.A.G., and was a Democrat turned Republican
• Bush1 (R)-Bush held a multitude of political positions prior to his presidency, including VP for Reagan and director of the CIA
• Clinton X2 (D) - former Governor-Arkansas
• Bush2 X2 (R)- former Governor-Texas

 

John McCain , Republican,  chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. Was this a Masterstroke of political theatre or obvious pandering to the female vote? Depends upon your point of view, I suppose. I think it was what he had to do to shake up the race. I mean, if you have ever heard him speak, he wasn't going to get the press coverage with his speaking ability. His speeches suck. He can be a bit dry (to say the least). he gets on my nerves a bit with the "My Friends" bit too. Sarah Palin gives him what no other choice could have. She gives him (among other things) a clean break from Washington insiders and a clear philosophical break from the sitting president. Palin is no Dick Cheney. McCain has a long history of service. He's always been a republican and of course, he has supported republican ideals. You can find thousands of examples of what McCain has done and supported and said. Former military man from a military family, Fighter pilot, former POW, Senator etc.  There is almost too much out there on John McCain and the information is voluminous. He has a temper? Big Freaking deal. I want a president that gets pissed off every once in a while. Its disingenuous and insults my intelligence to compare Bush to McCain. Like we don't remember the campaigns from the past 2 cycles and how much McCain disagreed with him to begin with. Agree with him or not ,at least there is a lot of substance and history to draw a conclusion from.

 

Barack Obama, Democrat, chose Joe Biden as his VP. I like Biden. If he were the Democratic candidate, I'd probably vote for him over McCain and over Obama. Why not? I voted for Clinton twice. This race ain't about Vice Presidents though and no matter how much the press spins Biden, McCain's age or knocks Sarah Palin it never will be. He had to choose somebody with Foreign policy chops, because he doesn't have any.  He pretty much thinks he has the race in the bag and his current philosophy seems to be to stay "above it all" and act Presidential. Thinks he can win the race because he draws big rock star crowds and makes pretty speeches. The guy can talk I'll give him that. He gets great press and it looks like he is starting to believe his own press releases. I think he is making a big mistake by staying out of the battle for the mind of the undecided voter and letting his people make the case for him. I take reporters and political pundits points of view with a grain of salt. They are a bit loopy if they think we believe only what we hear from them. Hell even I think Rush Limbaugh is goofy every now and then.

 

Here is what I don't get and don't understand why he is thought of as the answer to our problems.

 

What has Obama ever accomplished besides writing books getting married and having children?  He was (is) a lawyer? What legislation has he ever sponsored? What has he ever done to indicate he has ever taken a stand for me or you (before he announced his run for the Presidency?) His whole entire substance of work is based on one vote against the war? I'm sorry, what ? Chicago politics is his claim to fame ? He commanded 13 people on the South side of Chicago while he was an organizer? He wrote 2 political books that nobody has ever read besides the news reporters ? Oprah supports him is why I should vote for him? Young people (who usually don't know anything about world politics and think "The Daily Show" is a real news show), show up in big numbers at a rally. Hollywood supports him?

 

Google Obama and you will find reporters stories, his web sites, and a plethora of copies of his speeches and the like. Google "Obama accomplishments" and it is about as light as a recent college graduate's would be if he were applying for the Top Job in any industry.

 

The guy from the mail room is qualified to be the CEO ?

 

That is my dilemma in a nutshell. I'd love to vote for a positive candidate like Obama. I like the way Obama carries himself. So far he has run a pretty decent (no mudslinging BS) campaign. He makes a good speech. I have heard basically everything he has said.

 

I am still waiting for him to actually say something (anything) specific besides "Change", "Yes we can" or "Make it better". Change may be the answer but his brand of change may not be, because he still hasn't told us what it is made of. Being the first black man is not enough, just as being the first woman was not enough. It is just not a good enough reason to give them the job. If it was I could start a catchy chant phrase and get elected and trust me I'd never make it either.

 

I have no idea how he can make a negative claim on anyone else's history or accomplishments though when he doesn't have any himself , nor how he can judge anyone else's qualifications for the job when his resume is so light in reality and substance. Who gave him the high ground? He is a lightweight running for a heavyweight's job in a fog of words and video. This is why 35+ and older male and female voters will have a hard time voting for him. This is why Undecided voters will have a tough time seeing him as the answer. This is why middle of the road democrats (like my wife) won't trust him. Black big city support will not get him elected. Hollywood support will not get him elected, because we believe in actors about as well as we believe in politicians. Money will help, but won't matter a bit to anybody in Independence Missouri on election day. Far Left liberals will not get him elected. There is just too little of them to overcome the middle of America and all the small towns between Boston and Los Angeles. How can we trust or elect an unknown, untried, untested, politician with two best selling books (but no legislation) with no experience and no executive background who has never led anything or had to make a decision under tough circumstances to be the most powerful leader on the face of the planet?

 

Just what exactly are his qualifications for the job? The fact that he is running a political campaign? Are you serious? "(Insert Lewis Black quote here)"

 

Can anybody answer that question or give me concrete examples that I can compare to anything anyone else has ever done who has held the office? If this were a contest between Bill Clinton and Obama would you think Obama is qualified? I'm having a very tough time thinking this guy has the prerequisite skill sets necessary to be given the responsibility. Start up dotcom firms in Silicon valley may give young people the chance to be the CEO, but should we do it when electing a president? It is a stunning proposition to say you do not need any demonstrated leadership experience to be President. One day Boy Scout Troop Leader and the Next running the USA?

 

Just take a look at his history and his resume and ask yourself these kinds of questions before you actually decide on election day.

 

Could this guy run a medium sized company with this much experience?

 

Would you hire a guy with this experience to run things for you if you absolutely had to make money or go broke?

 

Here is a novel non-racist question I have heard no one ask. What if McCain was Black and Obama was white. What if Obama was a republican and McCain was the democrat?

 

Would you vote for this guy if he was a white republican based solely on his experience?

 

Thankx for reading my rant ! 

 

bigmike

 

Visit my blog online at http://bigmikerant.blogspot.com/  

 

I encourage you to leave your own comments or reactions to my rants (even if you don't agree with me) in the comments section on each post.

 

Check out my business at http://answrtek.com

 

 

Movie - Hancock (starring Will Smith and Charlize Theron)

RE: Your review of Hancock in Variety Posted: Tue., Jun. 24, 2008, 4:01pm PT:

(Mr. McCarthy writes movie reviews among other things I imagine for variety in Hollywood CA.)

See Todd McCarthy's review at : http://www.variety.com/VE1117937497.html?query=Hancock


07/04/2008

Dear Mr. McCarthy,

First and foremost , and with all due respect, I believe that you miss the entire point of this movie and in general most critics (seemingly including you) do not understand why people go to movies in the first place. My wife, my son and I went to see this movie ("Hancock"- starring Will Smith and Charlize Theron) last evening. I see a lot of movies, probably at least 2 a month. I've pretty much seen all the last 10 years of big releases. This was a great movie. Great acting. Pretty good 90 minute story, too short for all the plot points, but that's a decision made by money and marketing not the actors. It had sufficient texture and was fun to try and figure out. The whole theatre clapped at the end. Everybody clapped. Seemed to flow pretty well. We in the theatre seemed to all understand it pretty well if you ask me. Overall, I was entertained. We talked about it all the way home. Would love to see a sequel. Heck, I'd like a MIB III also.

Tonight I searched out reviews about this film and among others, found yours on Variety.com

As I read your review (and others) and then tried to make any sense out of what the critics (and you) were thinking about as they wrote them, or tried to understand what it is they think the public expects of them , I was taken by one thought. Critics who write movie reviews for a living must be a bunch of jaded, dark hearted souls, who wouldn't know a good movie if it smacked them in the face. They wouldn't know a good performance if it was imprinted upon their skulls with a laser. They couldn't buy a clue if they were Sherlock Holmes on "Wheel of Fortune" and Vanna White was their client. Reviews like this are a disservice to the movie industry, the actors and to the movie going public. You guys almost always get it wrong and I am not sure who you think the audience is for your review, cause it sure ain't the person who goes to see them.

I can almost read the reviews first, find out which one the reviewers said would blow and go to that movie secure in the knowledge that it will be a (good to great) movie and I will have a good time watching it. You guys (and girls) are wrong that often. The only conclusion I can come up with is people who write movie reviews for a living must have some gross misunderstanding of why movies are made in the first place, beyond making sure big stars get big paychecks, and I do not care even a little about that.

Its either that or being a critic is a fill in job until you get to write about more important stories maybe. Maybe it is where the interns start, I have no clue.

Movies are made for the entertainment value to the ticket buying public.

Period.

End of definition.

I can't remember the last time I went to a movie expecting for the flick to explore some deeper reality or explain the meaning of life to me. I do not go to movies for spiritual guidance (and I'd be hard pressed to name anyone who does) or life advice, genre study, or character development or any of the other points that reviewers write about.

Does your boss really say to you "Go watch this movie and then rate it against our scale of genre studies, story development and reality metrics".

Not very likely, I think.

You said in your review :

"Even in his derelict state, why would the presumably super-studly Hancock have no lady friends?

Why would humiliated criminals ever think they could strike back at their nemesis?"

Huh? Did you see the same movie I did?

Have you ever seen a Superman flick?

Ever heard of Lex Luther?

Would you date a self destructive booze bum (or would you want your sister to date him)?

Was he supposed to have a beer swilling, tube top wearing, trailer park mama for a sidekick in his trailer?

What exactly is your point in writing this thought for millions to read, in Variety of all places, in the first place?

Yeah I had to suspend belief, and I know I can't fly or knock helicopters out of the sky with cars, but that's why they call it a movie, and not reality !

If digression was your point, you scored.

Listen, all the critics (including you) got the plot explanations right, all of them (including you) basically tell you what the story is about. Just about all of them (including you) accurately portray what the main characters are about. I think just about everyone of them (including you) got it wrong when they went off on a tangent talking about how it measures the superhero genre or points that don't get tied up and finished or why certain things happen the way they do. Generally speaking I don't believe this generation of movie critics understand their job (including you), and certainly they do not understand the audience that buys the tickets (including you). Don't get me wrong, I suppose that many do. Sometimes they get it right. Occasionally, a movie sucks so bad you can't help but see it too.Personally, I'd be thrilled to be a critic and I think it would be exciting and a generous way to spend my time. I would use the word "pedestrian" to describe what I see from most critics in today's media though.

Most of the time though, whenever a critic says a film is mediocre, they are wrong. For example, They said the latest "Die Hard" movie was bad, they were wrong. Coincidentally, "The Sixth Sense" was a great movie as well (nothing to do with the lead actor- Bruce Willis). The reason they were good movies is because they were entertaining. Why else would you write about it? Why do I care about the analysis of special effects, or at what minute point something happens. I mean I know who the Cohen Brothers are, but not many people go to see movies based on who directed or produced a show as a main reason for buying a ticket (unless maybe it was Spielberg or George Lucas or Robert Rodriguez and possibly the late great Stanley Kubrick) . If I could see a movie reviewer (like you for example) judge a movie first just by this one element (Is it entertaining?), I could accept pretty much anything else you had to say.

Using all the "self important, make it up as I go , let me look artsy-fartsy" definitions as a reason or an excuse to write a bad review is not my idea of how you look at a movie in the first place. It is not main priority. Lets face it, this is not investigative reporting, and your probably not doing the job to go into this "lets kill this film discussion". It should be more like a book report than an obituary, I would think. If you don't like writing movie reviews or don't like being a critic, I humbly suggest you then write something else or get a better job you do like.

I pretty much don't give a rats ass if John Wayne made a movie about a stagecoach and this movie is about one too. Why is that important? Should this film have been compared to every other Super-Hero/Action Hero movie ever made? Does it mean if I make a western, then it should be reviewed and judged against every Clint Eastwood , John Wayne film ever made if it has a similar plot?

Of course not.

Here it is and it is real simple. Start right here first.

Movie is entertaining = Good Movie. Big Sales.
Movie is not entertaining = Bad Movie. Low Sales.
Not much else needs be said, but feel free to expand on this theme and then beat the crap out of the dingy theatre that you had to see it in and the lousy or great marketing job that was done to promote the film. Save the movie metrics for the film schools and your presentations to the film industry.

P.S- If you are reviewing movies for the general public, you give them too much credit in using a word like "Dramaturgy" in your review. It was an unnecessary literary stretch and I am guessing you had to use a thesaurus to actually use the word correctly or maybe you won a bet by being able to actual write it in a sentence and get it published. I am really surprised your editor did not strike it and make you use a word that every one would understand. I had to look it up to be certain of its meaning. I suspect it is one of those insider words that only movie people or academics know or use. I would love to see a poll of theatre goers who actually knew what it meant.

But I digress.

Just one man's opinion. I guess you get what you pay for.

cc to :

Dana Harris
Editor, Variety.com
dana.harris@variety.com

Olivia Hemaratanatorn
Managing Editor, Variety.com
olivia.hemaratanatorn@variety.com

Thankx for reading my rant !

bigmike

Visit my blog online at http://bigmikerant.blogspot.com/

I encourage you to leave your own comments or reactions to my rants (even if you don't agree with me) in the comments section on each post.