Fresh off appealing to the public that it's far, far better to have as many teenagers on as many illegal drugs as possible for as long as therapists and social workers need paychecks (which also makes every young person sound like sure...they were spirited away for being druggies to the nice rehab gulag...sure), the Speaker of the American Committee of 100...Chairwoman and General Secretary Nancy Pelosi...a few days ago urged artists, musicians, "whatever", to be entreprenurial through never expecting to have work again (see http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Xd6U2GaGSU).

Of course, the Chairwoman's own definition of those who NEED to have assets and pay is known to at least include "nomenklatura"...those who are government and their necessary orthodoxy, so they can have a good appearance for, er, um, duh, national face abroad. Also, those being such "nomenklatura" and their bailed-out echo chamber tend to look at ALL other people as subhuman or lagging behind "in evolution", and calling the manifest people of a nation "whatever" indeed WOULD be high recognition for such creampuff dictators.

Okey doke! Then whether artists, musicians, or "whatevers", what should we mincing, posing lilliputians use to support ourselves in the world apart from health care? And, most importantly, just what are our marketing and income prospects nationally and globally, if all anyone can expect is to passionately follow their dream of running after equally cash-poor neighbors into infinity?

Remember, in "The Audacity of Hope", 2008, Exalted Premier Barack Obama himself opined that ANY system which takes work from people and replaces it with handouts and government intrusions saps people of initiative and dignity, so let's be PC and help spread his most personal philosophy to Chairwoman Pelosi.

Sharing an email of mine today to my Federal elected officials:

"Having read, understood, and agreed with certain relevant Americans For Tax reform text, together with my own concerns for how the Franken Amendment would create a new credit scoring system tethered to government trends rather than traditional criteria (thus putting say Wm F Buckley Jr on the same credit-worthy scale as a bag person and vice versa), I respectfully submit my endorsement of such ATR text, same being, to-wit:

As your constituent, I am contacting you today to urge you to oppose S. 3217, the misnamed Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010.

I know that the removal of a "bailout fund" and Sen. Boxer's "no taxpayer dollars shall be used" amendment are not enough to fix this bill.

This bill doesn't even address Fannie and Freddie. Rather, at a time when these government agencies are asking for $19 billion more in taxpayer money, Title 12 of this bill makes permanent the same risky lending practices that caused their collapse.

Fannie Mae collapsed because it became a slush fund for bad loans the government forced banks to make. This Title pays banks to advertise to, and seek out, low income people who would otherwise not qualify for loans. The bank, backed by the government, issues risky loans and either the loan is paid back on time, in which case the bank keeps all the profits, or the loan defaults and the government uses taxpayer money to cover the bank's loss.

This is a total win-win for government backed banks, and a total failure for taxpayers like me and my neighbors.

Additionally, this bill violates my personal privacy by giving the government access to my personal bank account information.

The new Office of Financial Research is created in Title I, Section 151-156, is tasked with collecting and sharing data without restriction. This agency will collect data, create software to standardize financial industry data, and share with other agencies.

And, Section 1071 allows a newly created agency, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to "use the data on branches and [individual and personal] deposit accounts"for any purpose."

Why do you need to store and monitor my personal financial information?

Never before has the federal government actively sought to collect data on every single personal and business financial transaction in the U.S. until now and I am letting you know that I oppose these policies.

For these reasons and more, I urge you to oppose this bill and vote "no" on S. 3217, the misnamed Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010."

One sees how many pols promise this or that, nationalize many things from religion through housing by permanent "bail outs" or government oversight/funding/assignment of social services, and have a bailed-out mass media and Hollywood unable to show us more than their naked praise of officials whenever even glaring redundancies, particularly monuments to failure, are announced as "progress" in areas where not yet existent.

Currently, in Oregon, you can't at any price obtain Portland TV stations if you live south of Salem; south of Salem, at any price, in-State news is limited to Eugene stations; although the Portland area is as New Urbanised and immigrant-friendly as Chicago, LA, New York, Minneapolis, Boston ad infinitum, the areas south of Salem and east of the Cascades are fairly new to New Urban "revampings"...what the rest of us know for well-settled fact as mass developments/conversions into private housing, strip malls, and grand-sounding but economically ineffective Schermerhorn concert halls and Rich Daley Millenium Parks.

South of Salem currently, Eugene TV news is thick with praise for plans in various communities where local governments will acquire lands to increase employment, economic prosperity, and all the good things for anyone who'll wind up left living there; the same song the rest of the USA if not globe has heard so many times it's a broken record folks tune out. Of course, morning local news there keeps hammering about the "crisis" in school kids believe it or not bullying each other, Dr. Phil ready to mass-diagnose as defective anyone not doing well financially, and the usual "God bless our officials, the greatest officials in the world" rodomontades.

Obviously, economic malaise isn't lifted one bit by simply building more houses and parks, then assuring mass immigrants they too will be well-off and find work given time...again, everything east of the Mississippi has been there, done that, and well, look at what happened to the economy.

There is a reason for this. No matter what politician in this or that party or independency promises, speechifies, condemns, lauds, intends, or enacts, Federal contractors continue to run the stuff of everything from "green" to "re-educating" to overseas military operations, let alone the economy; those powers Feds vote themselves...a contractor can obtain to use of that power for them under color of authority.

Take a look at leading Federal contractor Booz Allen Hamilton ( http://www.boozallen.com/about/clients ); note that BAH itself represents its mission as ongoing to help a new global megacommunity come into existence, with BAH having the same powers as the Treasury, DHS, Secretary of Defense, and so forth to make people "see the light" whatever it takes (boasting of a high number of intelligence personnel to boot)...and this is ONE Federal contractor running the stuff of life despite whatever else we see or hear.

Perhaps until some candidates or parties actually make a public campaign issue of what's going to keep on happening no matter WHAT unless such contractors are dumped, we should find it fuzzy logic to assess whom to vote for based on polls, cutesy looks, or fear of being told we have cooties for disbelief.

If I told you I had personally created any benefit to humanity of any nature, and such alleged benefit weren't plainly in your experiential knowledge, you'd ask me for a bill of particulars; yet in a soundbyte system with many inferring only the most pro/con e-petitions of activists determines policies, it seems any politician can say "I have created or saved x-amount of jobs!" or "this and that industries have dramatically percentaged thus and so in undisclosed places", receive applause, accolades, and instill hope based on no revelation of specifics whatsoever.

It seeming so many places to be employed at have continued to shrink generally to date in the USA, it further seems fit to suggest some competent source(s) assess how many new hires this year are recalls to work from employers having laid off, or are additions to workforces and without cuts to all required, and how many new hires are actually the result of turning over positions within fixed-number staff (thus trading places in the paymaster/unemployment lines).

There are about six dominant types of logic, leading to two main forms of ethics:

Traditional logic: syllogistic reduction of propositions to the first (e.g., if A is B, C is D, A is a D);

Combinatory Logic: analyzes processes associated with autonomous variables;

Deontic Logic: systemizes principles such that nothing can be both obligatory and forbidden, operating in moral neutrality;

Modal Logic: studies features of necessity, possibility, impossibility, and related subjects; and,

Many-Valued Logic: future-contingency interpretation of indeterminates (chaos math, e.g.).

But many modern social scientists and engineers practice only a form of logic coined in the 1950’s by a Soviet expatriate and emulated by Chinese and Japanese concerns in the 1960’s and 1970’s…this would be the doctrine of “fuzzy logic”, something definite and not just a mocking slang term for any thinking one doesn’t like.

“Fuzzy logic” is actually an addition to the Boolean “0 or 1” schema, sort of a “1/2”, and fuzzy logic is what makes every interactive or “intuitive” computer-relevant modern gadget do its thing. As Lamarkian evolutionary theory best fit machines and not life forms, so it seems fuzzy logic best fits with non-human technology.

Fuzzy logic is a system of sets and second-order sets which gives the probability that something is more likely one thing and conjunctively not any other thing; however, it claims it is a mirror of the human mind as it leaves open any expedient mashing of competing terms into a new definition of a mental collectivization just like some people make up expedient if erroneous opinions.

But fuzzy logic disobeys what in logic is known as the “conjunction fallacy” where erroneous definitions are allowed to normalize a false prototypical set; e.g., an apple can’t be both and apple and not-apple unless one elects to say being a wood carving of an apple makes it both apple and not…that is, unless one chooses to re-write a definition of what vegetation classes belong together as equals. This of course requires setting up subjective scales apart from autonomous being/not-being, and violates the Laws of Contradiction and the Excluded Middle (see, e.g., psychologists David Osherson of MIT and Edward Smith of Stanford in their joint work “On the Adequacy of Prototype Theory as a Theory of Concepts”, ‘Cognition’, 9, 1981, pp. 25-58). 

All that said, there are two prominent current types of ethics: subjective ethics and objective ethics. Rooted in fuzzy logic, subjective ethics says whereas human rights apply globally, a sovereign of any tribal or greater group on earth may substitute getting or being used to what otherwise are oppressive-seeming tactics for cultural tradition and by virtue of no manifest complaint of their people be respected for their edicts; objective logic usually rooted in combinatory logic and anything BUT fuzzy logic asks if the appearance of impropriety is correct, and if so do most people affected truly desire it contrary to human dignity…if not, then what would be sane policy to try and not abet human rights violators.

Obviously, no particular culture is necessary to be moral or immoral within it.

Ah, El Presidente de Mexico, friend of every non-USA person on earth, worthy of immediate and maximum posterior smooching by every layer of USA government...or IS he?

First, we all know that we are racist/nationalist/militia/terror-mongers for even daring to question how a non-citizen can vote, yet alone alone spring no-permit "in your face!" political marches on us; yet, El Presidente de Mexico enforces IN Mexico a strict law saying NO foreign citizen...not even Cubanos, Haitians, Peruvians, Nicaraguans, Chileans, Africans, Arabs, Jews,you name it...can engage in ANY political activity of any nature in Mexico or ELSE! Now, even the USA State department knows this, as currently going to http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_4755.html and scrolling to topic "Demonstrations and Large Public Gatherings" one reads quote: "The Mexican Constitution prohibits political activities by foreigners, and such actions may result in detention and/or deportation. U.S. citizens are therefore advised to avoid participating in demonstrations or other activities that might be deemed political by Mexican authorities." Does anyone on earth call MEXICAN government racist or such?

Next, consider the current Mexican Constitution. Reading it currently at http://oas.org/juridico/MLA/en/mex/en_mex-int-text-const.pdf , Chapter II, Article 32, quote: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces.". Wow, isn't it racist to not even let Cubanos, Arabs, Jews, Hindus, Asians, Africans, or other Hispanics, let alone Caucasians, participate in Mexican employment or government benefits?

To reiterate, before anyone jumps on the psychology train to ram through "Arizona is Racist, Invite All Latinos To Socialized America NOW!", first, do they NEED to come to the USA for such help; if so, why, and what better policy might help them participate in their own nation(s); and last but not least, what will ever-increasing housing space, nationalized health care and business, and evermore foodstamps/pantries do to raise dreams for ALL United States of America residents, no matter their racial composition on any given day under any given administration?

Sorry, George Soros, Rahm, and the gang...hardly anybody beleives any more that mas enmigration means mas denero for ANYONE other than those who are permanently bailed-out and those doing the bailing.

This week, most media from Matt Lauer outward have been going ga-ga over news that the USA housing market is selling again like hotcakes; oh, details of who, how many are just States and Towns "buying" via NOLA, where people work, are just as absent as on 2010 Census forms, but we MUST accept the fact the USA government has fixed ALL needs for all but the most anecdotal of pockets, correct? Is not "-ism" or "of interest" or "partisanship" to say otherwise?

Then as a Conservative, if required or inculcated to believe that the USA economy via housing and bailouts shows prosperity for all but a few, I must respectfully request that, except for tiny numbers left for the microscopic few needing them: close all food drives; close all food pantries; cut foodatsmps a/k/a SNAP; cut all housing vouchers of any nature; evict every last person behind on a tax or mortgage; greatly reduce eligibility for public health care, neonatal, and prenatal care; and immediately cut all related budgets at every level (and include jail/prison funds, as hardly anyone's going, right?).

It would indeed confound even immigrants yet to be enticed to partake of the American Dream to hear that in a land of such economic wizardry and personal prosperity, such huge amounts of money disappear on grounds it's being used for social and criminal issues hardly anybody needs.

Ever wonder why, for all the possible woes and worries imagineable and aired in whatever nation you're in, apart from the hot breath of TV and politicians it appears nowadays one street in America is the same as one in China, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, and so on? Which of course makes it interesting that all nations need to take rights away to keep people safe from terrorists and those "unfit" to govern, lead, work, what have you...with most every nation on earth being in the same doldrums.

No need to make this up...go to HGTV's "Househunters International" (http://www.hgtv.com/house-hunters-international/show/index.html) and enter ANY nation, then watch housing and culture. Seeing is at least sometimes a good way of testing.

So how come we're told so many nations HAVE things to attack by nuclear means or otherwise on mass scale; or that earthquakes and tsunamis and mosquito bites on to infintiy MUST be made job one by global officials; or that gold at $1161 or more an ounce is "healthy"; why is important Barack Obama "be a hit" with foreign leaders than produce what he or anyone else promises; why are jobs unimportant to media; why are critics in any nation...even anti-terrorist people...called all kinds of names in media and by officials, often imprisoned?

Good ol' Oxford may have the answer: the point seems to BE that all the world be treated to psychological stimulus crafted TO produce ever-mounting off-putting sensations in just about everyone, and make them all feel like there's something wrong and confineable about not being satisfied, asking questions on anything, or both, as the same officials globally perpetuate themselves in absolute monarch-like say-so good times.

Anyway, that's what Soviets, Castro, and others have been doing a long time to "explain" why only the insane aren't happy with their treatment in life; per Oxford, if you look at globally inane media bailed or owned by governments together with what any nation's officials natter on about, then read up on resurgence of "sluggish schizophrenia" as the new number one health concern of world governments (e.g., at http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/36/1/33), maybe you're NOT a racist/terrorist/provoking/nationalist/scum-sucking fill in the blank for feeling more objectivity is needed in government. 

 

I’ve said a lot about all the various ways for centuries critics of religion have claimed same is some sort of self-projection or epigenetic hypertrophism…and from such diverse criticisms of such types, further criticized all religions as therefore psychology. Whereas I do believe metaphysics has room for both religion and sciences such as psychology, there is one particular dynamic of any relevant religion I could agree is nothing but psychology.

My earliest knowledge of what is meant by “religion as psychology” actually began with translated works of folks like Karl Konrad Grass ThD (and Counselor of State), Pensionary Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the Imperatorskij Jurjevskij University, Dorpat, Russia, and John Chapman, OSB, Palazzo San Calisto, Rome…as well as religion and ethics encyclopedias they were cited in around the year of my own birth, topic “Mysticism”.

Such men, and many subsequent researchers, make out an abundantly logical case for saying that where soul AND body only APPEAR affected by mystical light or visions (where such light or vision is needed to sustain physical rapture, ecstasy, or general well-being without intellectual or physical advance), definite psychological stimuli/response matters exist…and are more prevalent in persons open to suggestion, including their own. Grass and Chapman were among those citing most of the well-known female Roman Catholic saints of medieval times and later as examples of such “ecstatic visionaries”, noting even the medieval Church did not so much authenticate their visions as promulgate them for being nihil obstat (not outside the doctrine of faith; indeed, even the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church in part states that Catholic prophecy ended with Jesus and elsewhere that visions do not increase faith deposits as if Scriptural in nature or otherwise, and does not favor making fanfares for alleged visions).

But such writers also identified that where the response to the Absolute is wholly intellectual, as or in the nature of existing in objective reasoning only, there is no physical dependency and thus such religious pursuit need not be de facto psychology.

When it comes to those just wanting to feel physically or emotionally better, it seems to me that if one can imbue relief to them like (but not necessarily only) Jesus Christ…one real problem, one real touch or word, one instant and permanent cure or accurate forecast, with as little regard for a recipient’s initial faith as Scriptures show Jesus had…then obviously they’re a healer; same goes for those who claim an angel, Jesus, God, or whatever appeared to them and completely fixed them day one. But when the excuses are: “It takes PERFECT faith to work such miracle”, “The Power moves in mysterious ways and not right away”,  “Something beneath the powers of the Power must be interfering”, and so on, I must admit no matter what religion or metaphysics, I can’t see why any psychic/healer/healing mystic SHOULDN’T be examined by States to ensure merely a common non-afterlife immediate need to feel better/empowered isn’t at the center of a mystic’s ministry unable to produce more than erratic random-chance “cures”.

For theses reasons, I do not oppose government screening for anyone at all claiming some supernatural or extra-human power in any way will effect physical changes in or to bodies or spirits “given enough time”, nor for those who allege visions as to anyone’s particular temporal future events ; but I do contest government regulating anyone who may provably heal on contact, or separately anyone for whom all ritual, prayer, sacramental activity, and ministry are incidental hypertrophisms of intellect-only, nonaggressive objectively reasoning response to an Absolute toward eternal…not just temporal…progress.

I swear, what an enlightenment (in a way) it would be for more people to read the works of the now-late collegiate philosopher Richard Rorty; from 1979 to about 2008, he vacillated between being an oracle and a mere Rosetta stone on the impact government, media, and global money were making on the USA, but at any rate he was always an accurate compass pointing to everything as it happened.

To be sure, Rorty was most noted among the “better” universities’ faculties and textbooks, with “lesser” like minds populating everything from high schools through sub-Ivy colleges through libraries and bookstores…likely why Rorty’s works carry such an air of sounding like a schema of what WAS going to happen in the USA and HOW it was going to be forced no matter what.

Sure Rorty said he was a leftist and Democrat philosopher, and apostle of the obtuse John Dewey credo “every evil is a rejected good”…but in his books even he admitted intellectuals in his own political spheres opposed his way of affairs; I myself ask: can anyone HONESTLY say there’s not been a bit of the Rorty in even some GOP and Conservative camps? Rorty expressed in books like “Achieving Our Country” that he always saw ANY intellectual objections to his kind of New Order as a quote “unimportant war”, with the effectiveness of messages that worked with the public (and effectuated as he alleged by low-level and other bureaucrats and related orthodoxies)being the “important war” for culture. He dismissed American patriotism as mere military worship as if nothing else about the nation existed for pride; he laid out (in 1998, mind you) that the middle class was to become a proletariat, that about 25% of people on any given day should be told they’ll be part of the exclusive “outer ring” of the New Age’s super-elite “inner ring” to get their help in “redistributing” the other 75% on any given day, and that globalization to him and his meant a never-ending process of plying socialist if not draconian solutions in order to keep all world leaders as peers…and get this, with “media created pseudo-events”, sports, and attacks on religion and morality as “distractions” for the masses from the objective assessments of what any government was doing.

Here’s an example of how this malarkey is re-packaged for dummies as ‘global folks hate the sins of the USA,  we must live as they do to have a chance’ or such words. In “Achieving Our Country” (1998, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-00311-X), at page 7 therein says Rorty: “Heidegger describes America’s success in blanketing the world with modern technology as the spread of a wasteland. Those who find Foucault and Heidegger convincing often view the United States of America as…something we must hope will be replaced, as soon as possible, by something utterly different. Such people find pride in American citizenship impossible, and vigorous participation in electoral politics pointless…When young intellectuals watch John Wayne war movies after reading Heidegger, Foucault, Stephenson, or Silko, they often become convinced that they live in a violent, inhuman, corrupt country”. [End of Citation]

Obviously, anybody Rorty was talking about in 1998 would have to be in one of those “lesser” educational places, as Rorty himself not to mention even Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger) would demonstrate Martin Heidegger was not only a member of Hitler’s NSDAP, but on his educational squad as well…I’m sure those who KNOW a Nazi was opining “facts” against the USA post-Auschwitz and Hitler would take John Wayne in a more at least neutral way and the Nazi with a truckload of salt. Yet Rorty ran with such false perceptions by the public, shoring up 21^st century “facts” the USA erred about Hitler and many others, no country has ever had even one hypocrite in it, and lack of protests or voting under Democrats OR anyone else “proves” most people agree government meets or exceeds majority public intentions; or, “who isn’t happy here, prole?”. Speaking of media pseudo-events, this is why Obama re-re-re-promising to not own nukes even if other nations stockpile them is supposed to be “breakthrough global initiative”, or some “credit nudge” to China, for example…gosh darn it, he SAID so, and his degrees are so big how can peons raise voice?

For those who insist the Left will still come through for them and “the GOP are meany slower-downers”, I return to Rorty in “Achieving”, p. 80: “Whereas the top-down initiatives of the Old Left had tried to help people who were humiliated by poverty and unemployment…nobody is setting up a program in unemployed studies, homeless studies, or trailer-park studies, because the unemployed, the homeless, and residents of trailer parks are not “other” in the relevant sense. To be other in this sense you must bear an ineradicable stigma, one which makes you a victim of socially accepted sadism rather than merely of economic selfishness.”[End of Citation] Simply put, treat people as you will, but DON’T call them names or slur their gender…see also last April’s DHS reports on Left and Right, or as I call it, Bush Part III.

Now I admit I am NO flashpoint of human evolution or “Ihr natürlicher Leiter” or something, but to my readings, nothing being as or in the nature of Rorty’s schema appears to be part of the USA Constitution or indeed necessarily natural human nature; thus it seems possible one need not be racist, nationalist, or “militia” to question government simple, or support things like the main Tea Party theme…nor does the Constitution just through its own terms appear to agree that seeming silence on the part of an electorate is de facto proof of anything.

In addition to more concentrated philosophical “dissolvers” such as Richard Rorty, spurious other types of one man bands dotted the educational and public source book shelves of the 1990’s and 2000’s…a priori PhD’s in assorted disciplines who would crank out books trashing order as a proof of God on through existence of souls as “independent researchers” in outright vanity or subsidized fashion (although not all went this route), and get distributed through political and educational media spin machines; usually, these works were filled with one-sided outright dismissals that anything negativing them or relied-upon prior philosophers/scientists COULD exist, often on the dismissive edict “I the author have nothing in my awareness which contradicts these statements”. In other words, one was “smart” if one overlooked or didn’t know some PhD was re-hashing many imperfect propositions and ate up everything such PhD hurled at them as “breakthrough reasoning”.

A Soros-friendly PhD in this regard was a Mr. Elbert, PhD in physics of all things and never then known to have much interest in other than giving his own opinions in marketed books, all derived from his own unilateral work (perhaps no one was as “enlightened” as he).

In his 2000 book “Does The Soul Exist?”, Elbert offered that because he personally believes no other data exists besides his opinion and further that he believes no God of any kind exists, thus souls cannot exist. If he would appear to underpin Rorty types in this way, he more blatantly supported Rorty’s position on morality.

In “Does”, at the end of all God-trashing, Elbert concludes directly that because no one standard of morality could fit anything at all, and since there’s no Divinity, it is unfair to punish any kind of criminal of any kind as each is just doing what is best for them! He claims the State should compensate crime victims in every conceivable way (odd, sounds like a moral standard, but positivists ARE fond of saying no propositions can be laid down while themselves constantly laying them), but should not punish absolutely any kind of act in the nature of even heinous criminality.

There are so many such lecturers who held sway with government, media, and officials from the 1980’s into present, I don’t mean to single out one or some; but I found and still find a lot of such repetitions on the New Order theme that all philosophy even law should be dissolved, all governments should just provide healthcare and nihilistic lives to all people, and all “normal” people should be overridden and ignored as “unfair” racists/religionists/nationalists/whateverists keeping back natural social Darwinism where the State knows best which are the fittest for the State’s health. In the case of the Salem-Keizer School District (Oregon), per the “Statesman-Journal” at (http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20100401/NEWS/4010343/1001), it appears this now includes issuing regular diplomas to special education cases so that they’ll be indistinguishable from other students and compete for the same jobs and educational grants but of course on quota basis…one wonders if these will be amongst tomorrow’s nationalized health care specialists.

Recalling my own simple morality proposal: “What say that when you describe one thing and do/don’t do in accordance with its own terms, you’re a liar or contract breaker?”, and knowing how much Rorty-Elbert a priori synthesis has been going on in schools and colleges, I can only ask if following the “best ideas in philosophy for the highest standards of human progress” works for you, readers.