That's your problem Steve, you guys don't have enough Scoop Jackson's, John F. Kennedy's, Harry Truman's, Zell Miller's, Sam Nunn's anymore. Or when you do, you drive them out because of the extreme nutcases dominating your party.
Zell Miller's book was great to put that into light.
For all of you, I recommend reading this article of a formal liberal that converted.
A liberal sees the light...MUST READ.
---------------------
Leaving the Left (How I learned to stop worrying and hate the terrorists)
By Seth Swirsky
I used to be a liberal. I was in one of the first "open" classrooms growing up in very progressive Great Neck, New York, in the 1960s. In 1971, when I was 11, I wrote vitriolic letters to President Nixon demanding an end to the Vietnam War. My first vote, in 1980, was for Independent John Anderson, followed by Mondale, Dukakis, and Clinton-Gore. I read Thomas Friedman in the NY Times and tried to "understand" the "root causes" of the "despair" he said the Palestinians felt that drove them to blow up innocent Israelis. I wasn't an overtly political person - I just never veered from the liberal zeitgeist of the community in which I was raised.
But when I was about 27, in the late 1980s, cracks in my liberal worldview began to appear. It started with an uproar from the Left when Tipper Gore had the audacity to suggest a label on certain CDs to warn parents of lyrics that were clearly inappropriate for young people. Her suggestion was simple common sense and I was surprised by the furor it caused from the likes of Frank Zappa (and others) who felt their freedoms were being encroached upon. It was my first introduction into the entitled, selfish and irresponsible thinking I now associate with the Left.
In 1989, I remember questioning whether Democrat David Dinkins was the best choice for Mayor of New York City (where I lived) over Rudy Giuliani. After all, Dinkins' biggest claim to fame was as a city clerk in the Marriage License Bureau while Giuliani, as a United States District Attorney, had just de-fanged the mob. But, racial "healing" was the issue of the day, Dinkins won, and the city went straight downhill. When Giuliani beat Dinkins in a rematch four years later - Surprise! - the crime rate plummeted, tourism boomed, Times Square came alive not with pimps but with commerce. Since 1993, the overwhelmingly liberal electorate in New York City has voted for Republicans for Mayor. Yet, to this day, many of my liberal friends refer to the decisive and effective Giuliani as a Nazi, even as they stroll their children through neighborhoods he cleaned up.
After moving to Los Angeles in the early 90s, I watched from the roof of my apartment building as the city burned after the Rodney King verdicts were handed down. I thought what those four cops did to King was shameful. But I didn't hear an uproar from my friends on the Left when rioters rampaged through the city's streets, stealing, looting, and destroying property in the name of "no justice, no peace." And it was impossible not to notice the hypocrisy when prominent Hollywood liberals, who had hosted anti-NRA fundraisers at their homes a week before the riots were standing in line at shooting ranges the week after it.
I watched carefully as Anita Hill testified during Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court nomination hearing, claiming Thomas - once head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - sexually harassed her after she rebuffed his invitations to date him. At the time, I rooted, as did all my friends, for Miss Hill, hoping that her testimony would result in Thomas not getting confirmed. In retrospect, I'm ashamed that I was ever on the "side" of people who so viciously demonized a decent, qualified person like Judge Thomas, whether you agree with his judicial philosophy or not. Condoleezza Rice, during eligibility hearings for both National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, also had to deal with rude people like Barbara Boxer, who seemed not to be able to fathom that a black American could embrace conservatism.
I voted for Al Gore in 2000. When he lost, I was disappointed, mostly in my fellow Democrats for thinking that the election had been "stolen" and in having forgotten their American history. The Electoral College has elected three other Presidents in our history: John Quincy Adams in1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in1888. The rush to judgment by the now conspiracy consumed Left put me off. Where, I asked, were all the "disenfranchised" black voters who would have given Gore a victory in Florida? No one could produce a single name. And how exactly were the voting machines in Ohio "rigged" in 2004? I now refer to the Democrats as the Grassy Knoll party.
Still, I approached the 2004 primaries with an open mind. I was still a Democrat, still hoping that leaders like Sam Nunn and Scoop Jackson would emerge, still fantasizing that Democrats could constitute a party of truly progressive social thinkers with tough backbones who would reappear after 9/11.
I was wrong. The Left got nuttier, more extreme, less contributory to the public debate, more obsessed with their nemesis Bush - and it drove me further away. What Democrat could support Al Gore's '04 choice for President, Howard Dean, when Dean didn't dismiss the suggestion that George W. Bush had something to do with the 9/11 attacks? Or when the second most powerful Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin, thought our behavior at the detention center in Guantanamo was equivalent to Bergen Belsen and the Soviet gulags? Or when Senator Kennedy equated the unfortunate but small incident at Abu Ghraib with Saddam's 40-year record of mass murder, rape rooms, and mass graves saying, "Saddam's torture chambers have reopened under new management, U.S. management"? What Democrat could not applaud the fact that President had, in fact, kept us safe for what's going on 5 years? What Democrat - even those who opposed the decision to go into Iraq - wouldn't applaud the fact that tens of millions of previously brutalized people had the hope of freedom before them?
What made me leave the Left for good and embrace the Right were their respective reactions to 9/11. While The New York Times doubted that we could succeed in Afghanistan because the Soviets in the '80s hadn't, George W. Bush went directly after the Taliban and Al Qaeda and crushed them in short order. Although many on the Left claim to have backed the President's actions, the self-doubt leading up to it, crystallized my view of the Left as weak and terminally lacking in confidence.
I supported President Bush's hard line against the father of modern terrorism, Yasir Arafat, remembering that Bush's predecessor hosted Arafat at the White House 13 times, more often than any other world leader. I applauded Bush's unequivocal support for Israel, which every day faced (and faces) suicide attacks against its people. But I was most disappointed with liberal Jews who don't understand that their very existence is rooted in Israel's existence and that George W. Bush has been the best friend that Israel has ever had. But because they are less Jewish than they are liberal, they didn't reward Bush with their vote in 2004.
Finally, I supported President Bush's decision to oust Saddam and make possible the only democracy (other than Israel) in this crucial region of the Middle East. Post 9/11, we had to figure out a way to lessen the chances of more 9/11s. Democracy is a weapon in that war. If people are free to build businesses, buy homes, send their children to schools, pursue upward mobility, live their lives without fear, read newspapers of every opinion, vote for their leaders, resolve differences with debate and not bombs, they will have no reason to want to harm us.
In response, the Left offered bumper-sticker-type arguments like, Bush lied and thousands died. But Bush never lied. He, like Clinton and Gore and Kerry and the U.N. and the British and French and Israeli intelligence services affirmed that Saddam's WMD were a vital threat - a threat, that post- 9/11, could not stand. An overwhelming number of Democrats voted for the war - but now the Left says they were "scared" into their votes by Bush. What does it say about Democrats if the "dummy" they think Bush is can scare them so easily?
Iraq is the "Normandy" of the War on Terror. The hope, once Iraq and Afghanistan are more stable, is that the nearly 70 million people in Iran will look at those countires (on it's left and right borders) and say: "Why do these people get to vote, send their women to school, and buy Nikes and we don't?" - and then topple their Mullah's dictatorial regime. The President understands the big picture -- that if the U.S. doesn't help to remake that volatile region, we will face a nuclear version of 9/11 within the next two or five or 10 years. He is simply being realistic in his outlook and responsible in his actions. Iraq is succeeding, slowly but surely, but that's not a sexy enough story to lead the news with: the relatively small amount of casualities are. Don't forget, we occupied Germany and Japan for seven years and we still have troops there, more than 60 years after World War II ended.
And what have the Democrats contributed to the war effort since 9/11? Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold has suggested censuring our president; Former President and Vice President Bill Clinton and Al Gore, while visiting foreign countries, have blasted President Bush - acts of unconscionable irresponsibility; Democrat Rep. John Murtha, has invoked a cut-and-run policy in Iraq, supported by Democrat Senate Minority leader Harry Reid and Democrat House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Do they think the Middle East and the World would be safer if we had cut and run, as Murtha's plan wanted us to do? Under that plan, our troops would have been out of Iraq by May 18th and al-Zarqawi wouldn't be dead, but pulling the strings in an Iraqi civil war. With these kinds of ideas and behaviors, I just don't trust Democrats when it comes to our national security.
And so, as any reader of this article can well understand, it became impossible for me to relate to the modern Democrat Party which has tacked way too far to the left and is dominated by elites that don't like or trust the real people that make up most of the country.
Although I haven't always agreed with President Bush, I proudly voted for him in 2004 (the only one of the 4-winning Electoral College - elected Presidents to win re-election). And I now fully understand Ronald Reagan's statement, when he described why he switched from being a liberal to a conservative: "I didn't leave the party - It left me!"
It just goes to show that Gore's selection of Lieberman on the ticket was to fill a demographic and provide "balance," and not because he would have sought his counsel in decision-making in any substantive way.
sigh!
Did Lieberman really expect any gratitude from Gore?
The only real issue that separates Lieberman from the far-left wing of the Dems, is the war in Iraq. Otherwise, Joe has been the good soldier and has backed the party, even when they make themselves look foolish.
Lieberman has been abandoned by even his 'good friends' now. The inmates have taken over the asylum, with Gore being one of the leaders who have decided to throw Lieberman under the bus.
"Gore, you're a piece of excrement - unfit for decent company of any kind."
But Mark, you're incapable of hate, right?
Mark,
Calm down there Cochese, you're sounding...angry...and rabid...and hate-filled; Not very Jesus-like, infact.
The man didn't say a word of discouragement, and yet you want to make this out to be something it isn't. Lieberman is a DINO, and we are going to do the same thing to them, as we are going to do with you guys in November, send em' packing.
peace
Why would Gore support a Republican in Dem's clothing?
I mean look at Liberman's voting record is Republican. He and 17 other so-called Democrats even voted for the terrible credit-card sponsored backruptsy bill.
Lieberman represents the pro-zionist,corporatist, warmonger wing of the Democratic Party. He is a Scoop Jackson Democrat, like Feinstein,Biden and some others. They are welcome to stay in the Democratic Party as long as they repent and give up their tendency toward violence and war. Peace
Tom,
That isn't hate, it is anger...I can't stand betrayal.
What??? You are mad because he won't endorse him??? As if every republican is going around endorsing McCain?? You are certifiably insane. You are criticizing Gore for literally saying "He is a great friend, but I don't want to comment on politics."
What a back stabbing piece of crap he is.......................
The extreme left owns the Donkies right now and that is why they continue to lose.
When a good man like Joe Lieberman (who I disagree with on 80% of issues) is treated this way, you know these idiots have lost their way. Absolutely lost their way.
It's a shame, because it hurts America. A strong Democratic party is good for the USA in my opinion but they are absolutely pathetic right now.
Mark,
Betrayal, you mean like the vitriol that a guy like Ron Paul gets from your side?
When someone takes the comments Gore made and calls him a "piece of sh*t" because of them... I don't know.
He's looking for reasons to degrade the man. Seems like hate to me.
Of course, if a liberal made these comments, it would be hate. But when Mark the good catholic makes them, it's anger.
One thing Mark can do with the best of them is justify.
That's your problem Steve, you guys don't have enough Scoop Jackson's, John F. Kennedy's, Harry Truman's, Zell Miller's, Sam Nunn's anymore. Or when you do, you drive them out because of the extreme nutcases dominating your party.
Zell Miller's book was great to put that into light.
For all of you, I recommend reading this article of a formal liberal that converted.
A liberal sees the light...MUST READ.
---------------------
Leaving the Left (How I learned to stop worrying and hate the terrorists)
By Seth Swirsky
I used to be a liberal. I was in one of the first "open" classrooms growing up in very progressive Great Neck, New York, in the 1960s. In 1971, when I was 11, I wrote vitriolic letters to President Nixon demanding an end to the Vietnam War. My first vote, in 1980, was for Independent John Anderson, followed by Mondale, Dukakis, and Clinton-Gore. I read Thomas Friedman in the NY Times and tried to "understand" the "root causes" of the "despair" he said the Palestinians felt that drove them to blow up innocent Israelis. I wasn't an overtly political person - I just never veered from the liberal zeitgeist of the community in which I was raised.
But when I was about 27, in the late 1980s, cracks in my liberal worldview began to appear. It started with an uproar from the Left when Tipper Gore had the audacity to suggest a label on certain CDs to warn parents of lyrics that were clearly inappropriate for young people. Her suggestion was simple common sense and I was surprised by the furor it caused from the likes of Frank Zappa (and others) who felt their freedoms were being encroached upon. It was my first introduction into the entitled, selfish and irresponsible thinking I now associate with the Left.
In 1989, I remember questioning whether Democrat David Dinkins was the best choice for Mayor of New York City (where I lived) over Rudy Giuliani. After all, Dinkins' biggest claim to fame was as a city clerk in the Marriage License Bureau while Giuliani, as a United States District Attorney, had just de-fanged the mob. But, racial "healing" was the issue of the day, Dinkins won, and the city went straight downhill. When Giuliani beat Dinkins in a rematch four years later - Surprise! - the crime rate plummeted, tourism boomed, Times Square came alive not with pimps but with commerce. Since 1993, the overwhelmingly liberal electorate in New York City has voted for Republicans for Mayor. Yet, to this day, many of my liberal friends refer to the decisive and effective Giuliani as a Nazi, even as they stroll their children through neighborhoods he cleaned up.
After moving to Los Angeles in the early 90s, I watched from the roof of my apartment building as the city burned after the Rodney King verdicts were handed down. I thought what those four cops did to King was shameful. But I didn't hear an uproar from my friends on the Left when rioters rampaged through the city's streets, stealing, looting, and destroying property in the name of "no justice, no peace." And it was impossible not to notice the hypocrisy when prominent Hollywood liberals, who had hosted anti-NRA fundraisers at their homes a week before the riots were standing in line at shooting ranges the week after it.
I watched carefully as Anita Hill testified during Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court nomination hearing, claiming Thomas - once head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - sexually harassed her after she rebuffed his invitations to date him. At the time, I rooted, as did all my friends, for Miss Hill, hoping that her testimony would result in Thomas not getting confirmed. In retrospect, I'm ashamed that I was ever on the "side" of people who so viciously demonized a decent, qualified person like Judge Thomas, whether you agree with his judicial philosophy or not. Condoleezza Rice, during eligibility hearings for both National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, also had to deal with rude people like Barbara Boxer, who seemed not to be able to fathom that a black American could embrace conservatism.
I voted for Al Gore in 2000. When he lost, I was disappointed, mostly in my fellow Democrats for thinking that the election had been "stolen" and in having forgotten their American history. The Electoral College has elected three other Presidents in our history: John Quincy Adams in1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in1888. The rush to judgment by the now conspiracy consumed Left put me off. Where, I asked, were all the "disenfranchised" black voters who would have given Gore a victory in Florida? No one could produce a single name. And how exactly were the voting machines in Ohio "rigged" in 2004? I now refer to the Democrats as the Grassy Knoll party.
Still, I approached the 2004 primaries with an open mind. I was still a Democrat, still hoping that leaders like Sam Nunn and Scoop Jackson would emerge, still fantasizing that Democrats could constitute a party of truly progressive social thinkers with tough backbones who would reappear after 9/11.
I was wrong. The Left got nuttier, more extreme, less contributory to the public debate, more obsessed with their nemesis Bush - and it drove me further away. What Democrat could support Al Gore's '04 choice for President, Howard Dean, when Dean didn't dismiss the suggestion that George W. Bush had something to do with the 9/11 attacks? Or when the second most powerful Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin, thought our behavior at the detention center in Guantanamo was equivalent to Bergen Belsen and the Soviet gulags? Or when Senator Kennedy equated the unfortunate but small incident at Abu Ghraib with Saddam's 40-year record of mass murder, rape rooms, and mass graves saying, "Saddam's torture chambers have reopened under new management, U.S. management"? What Democrat could not applaud the fact that President had, in fact, kept us safe for what's going on 5 years? What Democrat - even those who opposed the decision to go into Iraq - wouldn't applaud the fact that tens of millions of previously brutalized people had the hope of freedom before them?
What made me leave the Left for good and embrace the Right were their respective reactions to 9/11. While The New York Times doubted that we could succeed in Afghanistan because the Soviets in the '80s hadn't, George W. Bush went directly after the Taliban and Al Qaeda and crushed them in short order. Although many on the Left claim to have backed the President's actions, the self-doubt leading up to it, crystallized my view of the Left as weak and terminally lacking in confidence.
I supported President Bush's hard line against the father of modern terrorism, Yasir Arafat, remembering that Bush's predecessor hosted Arafat at the White House 13 times, more often than any other world leader. I applauded Bush's unequivocal support for Israel, which every day faced (and faces) suicide attacks against its people. But I was most disappointed with liberal Jews who don't understand that their very existence is rooted in Israel's existence and that George W. Bush has been the best friend that Israel has ever had. But because they are less Jewish than they are liberal, they didn't reward Bush with their vote in 2004.
Finally, I supported President Bush's decision to oust Saddam and make possible the only democracy (other than Israel) in this crucial region of the Middle East. Post 9/11, we had to figure out a way to lessen the chances of more 9/11s. Democracy is a weapon in that war. If people are free to build businesses, buy homes, send their children to schools, pursue upward mobility, live their lives without fear, read newspapers of every opinion, vote for their leaders, resolve differences with debate and not bombs, they will have no reason to want to harm us.
In response, the Left offered bumper-sticker-type arguments like, Bush lied and thousands died. But Bush never lied. He, like Clinton and Gore and Kerry and the U.N. and the British and French and Israeli intelligence services affirmed that Saddam's WMD were a vital threat - a threat, that post- 9/11, could not stand. An overwhelming number of Democrats voted for the war - but now the Left says they were "scared" into their votes by Bush. What does it say about Democrats if the "dummy" they think Bush is can scare them so easily?
Iraq is the "Normandy" of the War on Terror. The hope, once Iraq and Afghanistan are more stable, is that the nearly 70 million people in Iran will look at those countires (on it's left and right borders) and say: "Why do these people get to vote, send their women to school, and buy Nikes and we don't?" - and then topple their Mullah's dictatorial regime. The President understands the big picture -- that if the U.S. doesn't help to remake that volatile region, we will face a nuclear version of 9/11 within the next two or five or 10 years. He is simply being realistic in his outlook and responsible in his actions. Iraq is succeeding, slowly but surely, but that's not a sexy enough story to lead the news with: the relatively small amount of casualities are. Don't forget, we occupied Germany and Japan for seven years and we still have troops there, more than 60 years after World War II ended.
And what have the Democrats contributed to the war effort since 9/11? Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold has suggested censuring our president; Former President and Vice President Bill Clinton and Al Gore, while visiting foreign countries, have blasted President Bush - acts of unconscionable irresponsibility; Democrat Rep. John Murtha, has invoked a cut-and-run policy in Iraq, supported by Democrat Senate Minority leader Harry Reid and Democrat House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Do they think the Middle East and the World would be safer if we had cut and run, as Murtha's plan wanted us to do? Under that plan, our troops would have been out of Iraq by May 18th and al-Zarqawi wouldn't be dead, but pulling the strings in an Iraqi civil war. With these kinds of ideas and behaviors, I just don't trust Democrats when it comes to our national security.
And so, as any reader of this article can well understand, it became impossible for me to relate to the modern Democrat Party which has tacked way too far to the left and is dominated by elites that don't like or trust the real people that make up most of the country.
Although I haven't always agreed with President Bush, I proudly voted for him in 2004 (the only one of the 4-winning Electoral College - elected Presidents to win re-election). And I now fully understand Ronald Reagan's statement, when he described why he switched from being a liberal to a conservative: "I didn't leave the party - It left me!"
Al Gore isn't going to take sides in a Democratic Party primary. It would be entirely inappropriate for him to do so.
He will support the nominee. If that's Lieberman, then Gore will support him. If it's Lamont, then Gore will support him.
Your post is ludicrous and fueled by an obvious hatred. That kind of hate over a man who hasn't been in office in six years and is trying to help by promoting environmental security? Cuckoobananas.
Calling Al Gore an SOB and a piece of excrement and accusing him of betrayal simply because he refuses to endorse Lieberman in this race is ridiculous. The two have gone in different political directions, and he may well feel philosophically closer to Lieberman's opponent, so why should he be obliged to endorse Lieberman under these circumstances?
I'm sure I smell fear in the air. Your scared aren't you? I love it. Attack mode high. Smear lights on. I love it. Squirm you little freaks. Wallow in your shrillness. You are such brave men. Nay, I cannot even be sarcastic. You are fools.
Maroons.
Noonan, I'm with you but whoa. Calm down. We don't need that stuff here. We get enough from our leftie commenters.
Lieberman was just fine when Gore needed him, and was discarded when he became irrelevant to Gore's future plans. Gore had no problem supporting Dean.
And steve, you can't possibly call Feinstein and Biden "Scoop Jackson Democrats"---not if you know what the term means. They are as far from Scoop Jackson as you can get without wandering into the rabid rabble-rousing uber-lefty country of Boxer and Dean, etc.
There are still some rational Dems out there who can prioritize, and as Lieberman is one of them, he is anethema to the far left. They need foot soldiers who will stoop to anything, and the last thing the want to deal with is a Dem with prinicples. So Joe is out in the cold.
It's so interesting that a man can be scorned by the same party that ran him for the vice presidency so recently, for what is apparently the unforgivable crime of being in favor of national security. But it's always interesting when the Dems, no matter how inadvertently, open a window into their souls. Dark and creepy, but interesting.
Lieberman was just fine when Gore needed him, and was discarded when he became irrelevant to Gore's future plans. Gore had no problem supporting Dean.
And steve, you can't possibly call Feinstein and Biden "Scoop Jackson Democrats"---not if you know what the term means. They are as far from Scoop Jackson as you can get without wandering into the rabid rabble-rousing uber-lefty country of Boxer and Dean, etc.
There are still some rational Dems out there who can prioritize, and as Lieberman is one of them, he is anethema to the far left. They need foot soldiers who will stoop to anything, and the last thing the want to deal with is a Dem with prinicples. So Joe is out in the cold.
It's so interesting that a man can be scorned by the same party that ran him for the vice presidency so recently, for what is apparently the unforgivable crime of being in favor of national security. But it's always interesting when the Dems, no matter how inadvertently, open a window into their souls. Dark and creepy, but interesting.
And I wrote the above before reading raker's demonstration of the darkness and the creepiness.
Gee, and Republicans are always accusing the left of mean-spiritedness.
Blogs for Bush has our very own Ann Coulter, minus the miniskirt. Mark this post hit a new low for you. A true Christian would never spew such vitriolic invective. Is Gore's endorsement of Lieberman that important to you?
Tom,
Remind me not to be your friend - seems you've no problem with a bit of back-stabbing if it helps you get to your goals.
Kritter,
True, it is a harsh post - and I do regret the invective; I won't remove it because I'm a firm believer in "warts and all" in my writing. With me, what you see is what you get - the good, the bad and the ugly....though I do sincerely try for the good.
Still, the anger is there - and anger is not a sin. It is good to keep in mind that when Clinton betrayed the gay rights movement on gays in the military, I also went into a spluttering rage...loyalty is very important; its not like Lieberman went out and worked against Gore, or has said word one against Gore...they do have their policy differences, but these policy differences were known when Gore picked Lieberman for VP...
If you can't see that Gore is throwing Lieberman under the bus in order to continue to curry favor with the leftwing base of the Democratic Party, then I feel sorry for you...you've got a very stunted sense of right and wrong if you can't see just how wrong Gore is on this.
Ah, so now I'm a backstabber to! Mark's really on a roll.
Tom,
No, didn't say that at all - just pointed out that since you have no apparant problem with back stabbing, I'm wary of being your friend...
I don't agree that Gore is throwing Lieberman under a bus to appease the left wing of the Democratic party. In fact he seems to be enjoying his non-candidate status, and I believe is speaking more freely than he did back in 2000. But if Gore were to run for president again, would Lieberman be disloyal if he did not endorse him? I don't buy into the notion that once two candidates run together they must always endorse each other in future contests.
First off, this is not a monarchy. You are not an automatic winner because you've held a seat forever. If the voters do not like how you are representing them, then you will be voted out, and why should anyone support Lieberman if he is not representing the views of his State? I mean, isn't that his job???
I wonder how this would go over if a Republican started expressing radical liberal views in a red state?
I am so sick of naive Americans who still think that ANY politician represents anyone other than big money. How much did you contribute to your party??? Guessing a bit less than say.... Exxon.
Open your eyes.