I want people disarmed

Question: How far would MSNBC’s Chris Matthews have to go for people to realize what a left-wing hack he really is? What exactly would it take?

I only ask, because it seems as though there are still people in this country who actually believe him to be a completely objective, unbiased, fair-and-balanced reporter. After all, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell told us that he was.

But, as I have shown on more than a few occasions, he is nothing of the sort. He routinely injects his own worldviews into his supposedly “unbiased” newscasts. Today’s example of Chris Matthews’ unabashed bias, and unbelievable ignorance, came from Friday’s broadcast of “Hardball” on MSNBC.

Chris Matthews was “moderating” a debate on gun-control laws. I put the word “moderating” in quotation marks because he wasn’t really moderating at all. He was a participant in the debate, bringing his own Statist, anti-gun views into the discussion.

Marvel at the limitless ignorance that is Chris Matthews:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Go ahead Deroy, you live in the city. I don't understand how we want to get on the subway at night knowing that everybody else in the subway is armed, and because I have a gun I'm OK.

DEROY MURDOCK: Well, there have been studies that have shown that in cities where are concealed-carry laws, the gun, rather, the crime rate goes down because criminals are afraid that people may retaliate. As for this particular --

MATTHEWS: What do you think of that? What do you think of that? What's your view?

MURDOCK: On this race, what's interesting is that Romney --

MATTHEWS: You don't want to give me your view because it requires you to actually say what you think, because I'm asking you Deroy --

MURDOCK: I happen to agree with that. I think that --

MATTHEWS: You think we should have a concealed gun law in New York?

MURDOCK: Yah, I think that would probably be helpful. There are people who do conceal guns here, and to the extent that people think that criminals might be retaliated on, I think that helps keep the place safe. I would point out that Romney, who claims to be Mr. Second Amendment now, actually increased the cost for gun permits, and he claimed when he ran for governor that he wasn't a man of the NRA, and now that he's running for president he claims to be a lifetime member of the NRA -- lifetime being defined as joining in August of 2006. So even on the gun issue he's sort of all over the map.

MATTHEWS: You know what I think? In big cities they ought to check people on sidewalks like getting on airplanes. And why an airplane should be safer than an American sidewalk is crazy to me. Why you can walk down the sidewalk of an American city carrying a concealed weapon without a license is wacky.

MURDOCK: I think [you should have to have] a license.

MATTHEWS: But that's what's going on. I'm talking about a different point here.

So many things to point out, and so little time. First, note that Chris Matthews completely changed the essence of the debate when he said, “Why you can walk down the sidewalk of an American city carrying a concealed weapon without a license is wacky.”

No one ever said that people should be allowed to walk around concealing an unlicensed weapon. Concealed carry laws specifically state that citizens are allowed to carry a firearm, as long as they have REGISTERED for a concealed carry permit. Deroy Murdock stated this. And, Chris Matthews knows it, because HE ASKED THE QUESTION!

MATTHEWS: You think we should have a concealed gun law in New York?

MURDOCK: Yah, I think that would probably be helpful.

So, when Chris Matthews states, “I'm talking about a different point here,” HE’S LYING!

Next, let me point out to you the unbelievably Statist views of this “objective, unbiased” reporter.

MATTHEWS: You know what I think? In big cities they ought to check people on sidewalks like getting on airplanes.

Every day, we hear from hacks like Chris Matthews that President Bush is violating the civil rights of American citizens by spying on them, tapping their phones, warrantless searches….the list goes on. Yet, here is Chris Matthews supporting the idea of a fascist state where police officers can randomly stop people on the street without probable cause and search them from head to toe.

Read Chris Matthews’ statement and tell me that he is not in favor of a fascist police-state.

But, I haven’t even told you the best part yet. If you haven’t seen Chris Matthews Statist, anti-gun opinions on full-display yet, this should take care of that…

MATTHEWS: I want to see people disarmed. I want people disarmed in our major cities. How's that for a plan? I don't think we should all be armed, and I don't think more guns is the answer. I think it's wacky to say that the solution to armed robbery and killing in our streets in big cities is to put more arms in the streets.

He is actually calling for gun-owners in New York city to be disarmed. Second amendment? Who needs it?

Matthews blatantly states his opinion on the issue without any restraint. Hey, Chris, you’re supposed to be REPORTING the news. We don’t give a damn what you think.

I’m not going to dwell on the fact that Chris Matthews’ opinion on gun-control is provably wrong. The statistics and studies of gun crimes stand in direct contrast to everything that he is saying.

The real point here is that Chris Matthews, this “objective, unbiased, fair-and-balanced reporter,” is using his show on MSNBC as a soapbox to spread his own worldview to his viewers.

This is not a news report. It is news commentary.


No Matter What...

For a while now, I have said that the Church of Global Warming has the most ingenious marketing campaign ever devised. They have positioned themselves in such a way that no matter what happens with our climate, they claim that it supports their beliefs. No matter what happens (unusual snow falls in Baghdad or heat waves in Canada) it can all be blamed on Global Warming.

Remember, if you will, the film “An Inconvenient Truth.” In that film, Al Gore claims that Global Warming will cause an increase in natural disasters such as floods and hurricanes. In 2005, after Hurricane Katrina, the media immediately started hyping the idea that Global Warming was causing more frequent and more intense hurricanes.

So, it’s settled then. Global Warming causes more frequent and more intense hurricanes.

Wait…what’s this?

Global warming could reduce how many hurricanes hit the United States, according to a new federal study that clashes with other research. The new study is the latest in a contentious scientific debate over how manmade global warming may affect the intensity and number of hurricanes.

In it, researchers link warming waters, especially in the Indian and Pacific oceans, to increased vertical wind shear in the Atlantic Ocean near the United States. Wind shear — a change in wind speed or direction — makes it hard for hurricanes to form, strengthen and stay alive.

You really can’t make this stuff up, folks. No matter what happens with our climate, it can always be blamed on Global Warming. Record high temperatures or record low temperatures, a record high number of hurricanes or a record low number of hurricanes, a snowfall or a heat wave, it’s really all the same.

It’s “Climate Change.” And, it’s all our fault.


Secret Clinton Memos

Hillary Clinton has been campaigning for the Presidency her entire life. But, ever since she OFFICIALLY announced her candidacy, she has claimed that she is “uniquely qualified” for the job of President of the United States. In her own words:

“I wouldn't be in this race and working as hard as I am unless I thought I am uniquely qualified at this moment in our history to be the president we need.”

Of course, no one can really figure out what her “unique qualifications” are. Is it because she was First Lady? In that case, I guess Laura Bush is “uniquely qualified” as well. How about Lady Bird Johnson, for that matter? Was she “uniquely qualified?”

Perhaps, it is Hillary’s 7 years as a junior Senator which "uniquely qualifies" her. Although, the major problem there is that, since being elected to the Senate, SHE HASN’T DONE ANYTHING. She hasn’t authored a single piece of meaningful legislation. She has no major Senatorial accomplishments to speak of. So, what in her entire career as a junior Senator from New York “uniquely qualifies” her to be President of the United States?

Going back to her days as First Lady, perhaps it was the important projects that she spearheaded. In 1993, she chaired a cabinet-level Task Force to devise a new plan for our Health Care System. This new plan became known as HillaryCare. Perhaps HillaryCare is what “uniquely qualifies” her to be President of the United States.

Although, that is doubtful. You see, HillaryCare was an abysmal failure (If you don’t know much about the plan, look it up. It was the epitome of socialized medicine with fascist controls to maintain it).

For the past several years, the Clinton camp refused to release any of the internal memos and documents concerning HillaryCare. Why did it fail? What plans did they have in place? What was going on behind-the-scenes? The public wanted to know, but the Clintons wanted to keep all of that in the dark.

That is, until now.

You see, the Clinton Library has released some of the memos from those involved with the HillaryCare Task Force. Looking over them, it is not hard to figure out why the Clinton’s didn’t want this stuff to see the light of day.

Via Judicial Watch:

A June 18, 1993 internal Memorandum entitled, “A Critique of Our Plan,” authored by someone with the initials “P.S.,” makes the startling admission that critics of Hillary’s health care reform plan were correct: “I can think of parallels in wartime, but I have trouble coming up with a precedent in our peacetime history for such broad and centralized control over a sector of the economy…Is the public really ready for this?... none of us knows whether we can make it work well or at all…”

“P.S.” is, most likely, Paul Starr, senior advisor for President Clinton’s health care reform plan. In this memo, P.S. admits that HillaryCare would be a broad, centralized control over a huge section of the economy. In addition, P.S. clearly states that the Federal Bureaucracy might not even be able to make the new health care plan work.

Go figure that the Government wouldn’t be able to make something work properly. Who would have ever guessed that?

But, if Statist controls over your health care isn’t enough to open your eyes, how about this? Witness some of the tactics this Task Force wanted to use to deal with critics of HillaryCare:

A “Confidential” May 26, 1993 Memorandum from Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to Hillary Clinton entitled, “Health Care Reform Communications,” which criticizes the Task Force as a “secret cabal of Washington policy ‘wonks’” that has engaged in “choking off information” from the public regarding health care reform. The memorandum suggests that Hillary Clinton “use classic opposition research” to attack those who were excluded by the Clinton Administration from Task Force deliberations and to “expose lifestyles, tactics and motives of lobbyists” in order to deflect criticism.

“Classic opposition research.” That’s what they call it. It’s Washington-talk for “Let’s dig up some dirt.” Rockefeller specifically says that they should “expose the lifestyles, tactics, and motives” of their opposition. For a party of “Liberals” who are supposed to be so ACCEPTING of different lifestyles and individual choices, they certainly don’t seem to be too accepting or open-minded. They are willing to use those lifestyles as weapons against their opponents.

Are you seeing the big picture?

But, get this. This is one of my favorite parts. In the same memo, Senator Rockefeller discusses several strategies for using the media to push their agenda. Here is a very eye-opening line:

“Senator Rockefeller also suggested news organizations “are anxious and willing to receive guidance [from the Clinton Administration] on how to time and shape their [news] coverage.”

The media was “anxious and willing” for President Clinton to instruct them on how to sell this health care plan. Bias? What media bias?

They were ANXIOUS to receive their marching orders from the Clinton Administration! Amazing.

Then we come to the last memorandum in this report. It further reveals the fascist tactics that this Task Force was willing to use to see HillaryCare implemented:

A February 5, 1993 Draft Memorandum from Alexis Herman and Mike Lux detailing the Office of Public Liaison’s plan for the health care reform campaign. The memorandum notes the development of an “interest group data base” detailing whether or not organizations “support(ed) us in the election.” The database would also track personal information about interest group leaders, such as their home phone numbers, addresses, “biographies, analysis of credibility in the media, and known relationships with Congresspeople.”

Does this not scare you? This database would track whether or not particular groups supported them, as well as any and all personal information the Clinton Administration would need to destroy their opponents!

So let’s recap. The HillaryCare Task Force tried to implement a plan that would represent an unprecedented broad and centralized control over a huge section of the economy the likes of which have never been equaled during peacetime in the history of our country. In order to see this Fascist plan established, they relied on equally fascist methods involving secrecy, smear tactics, and a vast misuse of Government resources to gather and track personal information about American citizens.

To top it all off, President Clinton’s own health care advisor didn’t know if the Federal Bureaucracy could effectively establish and maintain such a sweeping control over America’s health care system.

I guess this is what “uniquely qualifies” Hillary Clinton to be President of the United States. God, help us.


Is An Obama Rally A Spiritual Experience?

Is an Obama Rally on par with a spiritual awakening? According to the objective, unbiased Chris Matthews it is. Earlier this week, MSNBC's Chris Matthews made an appearance on the Tonight Show. During the segment, Matthews told Leno:

"The fact is, I wouldn't be an honest reporter if I didn't tell you what the spiritual experience is like of being in a Barack Obama rally. It’s an honest statement."

Chris Matthews appearance on the Tonight Show gives all of us a good insight into how this suppossedly unbiased, open-minded, fair and balanced "journalist" views the current Presidential campaigns. So, what did he have to say?

Watch and see...

"It used to be the Democrats were the disorganized political party. Now, the Republicans are like the -- like the Iraqis. Have you noticed? They got their Shia wing, the fanatics. They've got Huckabee. This where I get into trouble. This is just where I get into trouble.

Huckabee and Thompson are the Shiites, and the Sunni, the more moderate guys, are McCain, and -- who else they got over there? And uh, Rudy Giuliani. And then they got Romney, the Kurd. I mean, they're all over the place. Who's gonna unite them?"

Yes, he actually compared the Republican Presedential candidates to warring Iraqi factions. I pressume his implication is that the Republicans are not unified in their political philosophies and have resorted to attacking each other.

Uhh...Chris, this is Washington D.C. we're talking about here. What else is new? But, that didn't stop Matthews from labeling Thompson and Huckabee as "fanatics."

In stark contrast, what did Matthews have to say about Barack Obama?

LENO: On the night of the Iowa caucus, I'm sitting there with the remote in my hand, you know. And I come to MSNBC and I was holding the remote and I hear Barack Obama starting to give his acceptance speech and go -- and, you know, I put the remote down, and I actually felt something. When he talked about his mother's from Kansas, and the father in Kenya. It's an American story.

MATTHEWS: I love it. I love it.

LENO: And you know...

MATTHEWS: And you’re talking to me.

LENO: It moved me. I don't know whether I'm being naive, but...

Well, we're white American guys. We want this fight over with. We're tired of this hatred and this back and forth thing that's been going on for 300 years, this back and forth racial thing. I said something nice about Hillary Clinton, personally. Let me tell you something about Barack Obama. If you're actually in the room when he gives one of his speeches, and you don’t cry, you’re not an American. It's unbelievable.

There are so many things to point out, that I'm not sure where to begin. For the sake of time, I'll move past the fact that Matthews just admitted that his support for Obama is based upon the fact that Obama is black, and the assumption that support for a black candidate from "white American guys" will help end racial discrimination and race-based politics.

Watch Matthews as Leno says that he was moved as he listened to Obama speak. Matthews puts his hand over his chest. He is visibly emotional. He emotes and swoons over the very mention of Obama's name.

Then, comes one of the most telling parts of the interview. Matthews actually makes the claim:

"If you're actually in the room when he gives one of his speeches, and you don’t cry, you’re not an American."

It constantly amazes me when leftists claim that Conservatives are calling them "unpatriotic" because of their stance on the war. As Hillary Clinton once shreiked:

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say, 'We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!'"

Leftists love to make this claim, despite the fact that no elected Republican has ever made such a statement. But, I digress.

Leftists hate to have their patriotism questioned. Yet, Matthews has no problem flat-out denying the patriotism of anyone who doesn't cry whenever Obama talks. Simply amazing.

Finally, we come to the interview's climax.

"The fact is, I wouldn't be an honest reporter if I didn't tell you what the spiritual experience is like of being in a Barack Obama rally. It’s an honest statement."

Honest reporter? Uhh...Chris, I think that ship sailed long ago.

Besides the humorous claim that he is an honest reporter, Matthews also claims that an Obama rally is a "spiritual experience." Spiritual? Really?

Chris Matthews isn't satisfied with selling Obama as though he worked for Obama's campaign. He isn't even satisfied with drooling all over himself at the metion of Obama's name. He goes so far as to say that hearing Barack Obama in person is on par with a spiritual awakening.

Matthews has been a mouth-piece for Obama's campaign for quite sometime now. So, his Obama lovefest on the Tonight Show comes as now surprise. But, it is quite a dichotomy to see the way he views Republican candidtes juxtaposed to the way he views Obama.

It is no mystery where his loyalities lie.

It should be noted, that this particular clip can not be used as "smokin gun evidence" for Matthews journalistic bias. Though there is no question that his MSNBC show Hardball leans decidedly to the left, and that Matthews own political views are often expressed through his supposedly "unbiased" reporting, in this particular instance he was not serving in the capacity of a jounalist. He was being interviewed about his particular viewpoints.

You will never hear me claim that jounalists are not allowed to have their own viewpoints on political issues. They are individuals. They are entitled to their opinions. The real problem is when they inject their opinions into what they claim to be an unbiased and objective news program. The Tonight Show is not a news program, nor does it claim to be. Chris Matthews was not serving in this capacity.

Therefore, his appearance on the Tonight Show does not serve as evidence of his biased reporting. It does, however, speak to his idiocy.

Of course, as I said, there is no lack of evidence of Chris Matthews' biased reporting. But, don't tell that to Andrea Mitchell.


The m500 ***UPDATED***

I swore to myself that I wouldn’t turn this blog into a technology blog. But, every now and then, a product comes along which merits my commentary.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m kind of a nerd. This is especially apparent when it comes to my love of gadgets. Geek-chic, techy gadgets have always fascinated me. I’m a sucker for them. Most of the time, you can see me sporting one of these gadgets on my wrist, because I also happen to be a huge sucker for gadget watches.

My primary watch is a Casio PRG70T.

This watch has it all. It’s a compass, an altimeter, a barometer, a thermometer, a stopwatch…oh yeah, it tells time too. It’s not as though I use all of these functions on a daily basis. But, it’s certainly comforting to know that they are there…just in case.

Of course, a lot of people are sporting watches similar to this one. I like to also find watches that very few people are going to be wearing. They are unique not only in their style, but in their function as well. Here are a couple of my more eccentric watches.

This one is called Alien, and it’s made by a company called Android. If you have ever seen the film, Equilibrium, you’ll probably recognize this watch. It made a couple of brief cameos on Christian Bale’s wrist.

But, the most unusual watch I have, by far has got to be…

…the Scope. It’s manufactured by TokyoFlash. Most people can’t even figure out how to read the time on it, but you get used to it after a while.

But, why am I saying all of this? Well, I have just become aware of a new watch. This is the one I have been waiting for most of my life. I have to have it:

That’s right. It is a cell phone watch. The m500 by SMS Technology. Over the past few years, there have been attempts at manufacturing such a watch. But, all of the predecessors suffered from a similar fatal flaw. They were all too big!

A watch like this must have full functionality, ease-of-use, flexible usage for different cell phone providers, all packaged in a very small form factor. You can see why this has been a difficult achievement.

But, I think the m500 answers all of these issues. Obviously, I don’t own it yet, so I can’t properly review it. But, from what I have seen and read, this is the cell phone watch I have been waiting for.

It has a speaker-phone with optional Bluetooth headset capability, full phone functionality for sending and receiving calls or texts, a full color touch-screen, it’s SIM card ready and unlocked to work with virtually every carrier, and a decent battery life. And, to top it all off, it’s small!

Someone on YouTube purchased one, and created a few videos which show off the watch’s capabilities. Check these out:

Video 1
Video 2
Video 3

The major downside at this point is the price tag. The lowest prices I have been able to find are on eBay for around $800. That’s more than an iPhone! Perhaps the price will come down in the future. But, for now, I guess I’ll just have to stick with my RAZR.

Side Note: My birthday is on April 3.

I have been informed that is selling the m500 for a mere $500!


Keith Olbermann vs. The Truth

It's not as though lying is new to Keith Olbermann. But, when he is caught on video making a blatantly false statement, it simply must be brought to the public's attention.


Olbermann's particular brand of "journalism" severely suffers from a lack of fact-checking. Yet, there are some who still consider him to be a credible, objective journalist. Amazing.

It should be noted that a "lie" is defined as a false statement made with a deliberate intent to deceive. In other words, the person making the statement must KNOW that the statement is false at the time that they make it, in order for it to be defined as a "lie."

Whether or not Olbermann KNEW that he was making a false statement is anyone's guess. But, even if he didn't, he could have avoided making this mistake by practicing some simple research. He could have actually watched the broadcast that he was so eager to criticize. Had he practiced some common sense and actually checked his facts, he could have avoided looking like an ass.

Instead, Olbermann chose to be negligent in his duty. He intentionally ignored a basic tenant of debate, and made allegations which had no factual basis. That, in and of itself, is enough to label Olbermann's actions as deceitful.

But, as I said, this is nothing new.


Gun Control By The Numbers

In the wake of recent school shootings, there have been more than a few people who had knee-jerk reactions. Sadly, their first inclination was to say that stricter gun laws are needed. Gun ownership must be further limited, and we must make it extremely difficult to own and/or carry a firearm.

It amazes me that these individuals never consider the possibility that strict gun laws, and the vilifying of those who carry firearms, are the reason that these events were allowed to take place.

Criminals are much more likely to carry out an attack on a group of people that they know will not be armed. Accordingly, they are less likely to carry out an attack if they believe that their potential victim is also carrying a firearm.

Evil preys upon the weak and defenseless. It fears those who fight back.

Case in point…Michigan.

Six years after new rules made it much easier to get a license to carry concealed weapons, the number of Michiganders legally packing heat has increased more than six-fold.

According to anti-gun zealots this change would undoubtedly result in an exponential increase in gun violence. Workplaces would be turn into war zones due to disgruntled employees packing heat. The streets would be transformed into rivers of blood by enraged drivers with itchy trigger fingers. More people carrying guns inevitably means that more people are going to die.

Yet, it didn’t happen.

Dire predictions about increased violence and bloodshed have largely gone unfulfilled, according to law enforcement officials and, to the extent they can be measured, crime statistics.

The incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined.

"I think the general consensus out there from law enforcement is that things were not as bad as we expected," said Woodhaven Police Chief Michael Martin, cochair of the legislative committee for the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police. "There are problems with gun violence. But ... I think we can breathe a sigh of relief that what we anticipated didn't happen."

John Lott, a visiting professor at the University of Maryland who has done extensive research on the role of firearms in American society, said the results in Michigan since the law changed don't surprise him.

Academic studies of concealed weapons laws that generally allow citizens to obtain permits have shown different results, Lott said. About two-thirds of the studies suggest the laws reduce crime; the rest show no net effect, he said.

But no peer-reviewed study has ever shown that crime increases when jurisdictions enact changes like those put in place by the Legislature and then-Gov. John Engler in 2000, Lott said.

Anti-gun zealots would have us believe that such changes to gun laws will return us to the days of “Wild West.”

We should be so lucky:

• In 1880, wide-open towns like Virginia City, Nev., Leadville, Colo., and Dallas had no homicides.

• By comparison, Cincinnati had 17 homicides that year.

• From 1870 to 1885, the five Kansas railheads of Abilene, Caldwell, Dodge City, Ellsworth and Wichita had a total of 45 homicides, or an average of three per year - a lower homicide rate than New York City, Baltimore and Boston.

Sixteen of the 45 homicides were committed by duly authorized peace officers, and only two towns, Ellsworth in 1873 and Dodge City in 1876, ever had as many as five killings in any one year.

With a few legendary exceptions, law enforcement officers in the Old West were rather ineffective. Still, there were few robberies, thefts or burglaries in western towns, primarily because almost everybody carried or possessed firearms and was willing to resist. "The citizens themselves, armed with various types of firearms and willing to kill to protect their persons or property, were evidently the most important deterrent to larcenous crime," said one author. Unlike "Gunsmoke's" Matt Dillon, the much-heralded western peace officer actually faced fewer problems than his counterpart elsewhere. The westerner, said one student of the era, "probably enjoyed greater security in both person and property than did his contemporary in the urban centers of the East." "It's a fairly recent idea that guns aren't a good thing," says Jon Weiner, a professor of history at the University of California. "The image of the lone man defending his homestead . . . is deeply embedded in the American psyche."


The Epitome of Bias

In the midst of the Presidential election, it becomes more important than ever to expose the mainstream media’s left-wing bias. Sadly, many in this country watch broadcasts on CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC and actually believe that they are getting a balanced presentation of the candidates and their platforms.

But, this simply isn’t the case.

Take, for instance, ABC’s Good Morning America. On Monday, Good Morning America dedicated several segments to Presidential candidates. During the two-hour program, a total of 15 minutes was given to Democrat candidates. So, how much time was given to Republican candidates? Being an objective, fair, and balanced news network, I’m sure that ABC dedicated an equal amount of time to the other side.

Not even close.

While they gave 15 minutes to Democrat candidates, they gave a mere 31 seconds to Republican candidates. That’s right. 31 seconds.

The 15 minutes dedicated to Democrats (which took place over the course of 4 segments) included Diane Sawyer interviewing Barack Obama TWICE, George Stephanopoulos (who used to work as an advisor to President Clinton) interviewing Hillary Clinton, and Kate Snow discussing the current state of Hillary’s Presidential campaign.

After these four segments, Sawyer decided to maintain the illusion of balance by asking “And what about the Republicans?” What followed was a conversation lasting 31 seconds. That’s it. 31 seconds.

Balance? I don’t think so.