Some other Socialist…

http://www.leninimports.com/nuremberg_party_rallies_gallery_9.jpg

I have the honor of being mentioned, albeit indirectly and inaccurately, on the world renowned Locust Fork blog.  This is a great day indeed!  I hope my server can handle the expected deluge of traffic as his many readers find their way to my blog (Wilson didn’t link directly, but I know his highly intelligent readers must be proficient with Google).

Meanwhile, there are other Alabama bloggers who are still relying on the Newhouse press view of the world who still can’t get their heads around the FACT that the Bush White House, including disgraced former political aide Karl Rove, manipulated justice for political reasons - even in little old Alabama.

One of the biggest dumbasses of them all has now even questioned the sanity of Roger Shuler, who was fired from his job of 19 years at UAB for blogging about the conflict of interest and incompetence of U.S. Attorney Alice Martin and the Siegelman case.

One of these bloggers, an Auburn engineer, likes to think he is some kind of an authority on blogging. Along with his little friend GOP girl - better known as Flip by her former colleagues at Auburn where she failed to get tenure and doesn’t even teach anymore - they pollute the discussion of substantive issues in this state and waste bandwidth in their attempt to be somebody, even as they mostly blog under anonymous identities and hide from real information.

In the true tradition of the First Amendment, bloggers such as Roger Shuler and myself are trying to get good information out to the good people of Alabama - as well as inform people around the country and the world - about a series of serious injustices that are taking place here.

They would rather call people crazy and attack the credibility of credentialed journalists than to do the heavy reading to find out what’s really going on in the world outside the Heart of Dixie.

I must say, being called a dumbass by the likes of Glynn Wilson warms my heart.

Glynn “Gooddamn you Christian Republicans” Wilson is an interesting study (my apologies for the coarse language).  He runs a left wing propaganda site under the rouse of being Alabama’s most credentialed journalist.  He infrequently ventures forth into the world beyond his doorstep to condemn virtually all Alabama blogs as being anonymously operated (usually incorrectly, I might add).  He has even been observed doing this through comments left under a false name (see the comments in the Daily Dixie link below).  A true paragon of integrity!

Wilson is best known for giving us Jill Simpson, the woman who claims to be Karl Rove’s personal spy.  That should tell you a great deal about his credibility.

To comment directly on Wilson’s post, though:

• I do not know, much less am I friends with, a GOP girl or Flip.
• Dan at Daily Dixie is the Alabama blogger who authored the post about Roger Shuler.
• I don’t consider myself to be any kind of an “authority on blogging.”  I’ve been over this before.  One might have thought that Wilson’s well honed investigative journalist skills would have been able to realize that.
• I am an Auburn engineering graduate, though how that is germane to the conversation is a bit unclear.
• Wilson specified that two people, me and this GOP girl, pollute the discussion of substantive issues.  Maybe, that is a personal opinion.  I have my own thoughts on Wilson’s “work.”  He goes on to say in the same sentence, referring only to me and another person, that “they mostly blog under anonymous identities.”  Not true.  “They” implies both people when only only two people are the subject of the sentence.  I have always blogged under my real name.  Any comments I leave elsewhere always include a link back to my site.  In other words it is the exact opposite of anonymous.

Update: After I pointed out a typo in one of his posts (he suggested some individuals were on the political “doll” instead of “dole”) Glynn deleted my comment and banned me from his site.  What a shame!  It’s kind of like being banned in Red China.

From Iowa:

Four peace activists were arrested on Friday as they attempted to make a “citizens arrest” of Karl Rove, who was one of President George W. Bush’s top aides before leaving the administration last year.

“It should be Karl Rove in that van. War Criminal!” one of a dozen protestors shouted as the four were put into a police van outside a Des Moines country club where Rove spoke at a private state Republican party fundraiser.

Their dementia knows no bounds.  A citizens arrest!  How silly.

Alabama liberals - yes there are a few - got their panties in a wad this week when someone started a rumor that Troy King, Alabama’s Attorney General, “is resigning.”  The rationale given by these individuals was that King had been caught engaging in a homosexual encounter.

I’m not going to speculate as to whether King is or isn’t going to resign (word is that he is not).  I don’t personally care about his sexual orientation (my sources deny that he is gay).  I’m not even a fan of his (I endorsed and voted for his Democrat opponent in the 2006 election).  However, I think that the manner in which this story has circulated has been egregiously reckless.

As Danny - easily the most “connected” Alabama blogger - put it, the story is “thinly sourced.”  I think that is being generous.  Right now all that we have are the farthest left of the political spectrum, people who were itching for a reason to go after King, citing unnamed, supposedly reliable sources that have thus far proven decidedly unreliable.  This includes such noted luminaries as Glynn Wilson (he’s got credentials!) - the man who brought us Dana Jill Simpson.  Wilson is known to have a fleeting relationship with the truth and a political axe to grind.  Actual news outlets have not written a single word about the alleged scandal, despite numerous assurances from the leftists that such a story was immediately forthcoming.  Funny how organizations that have to adhere to ethical standards don’t publish rumors, isn’t it?

The allegations about King may prove to be completely true - but they also may prove to be wholly unsubstantiated.  Given the extreme gravity that such allegations have in our society bloggers should exercise more caution.  I would suggest that, if unsubstantiated, the claims cross the line of “actual malice” in terms of defaming the AG.

One thing that strikes me as a bit amusing is the way that the Democrats pushing this rumor seem to take considerable glee in calling Republicans gay.  The Democrat Party is supposed to be a tolerant, gay friendly party, after all.  Instead they frequently use shouts of “he’s gay!” as weapons against political adversaries as though being gay was despicable, which seems a bit at odds with their proclaimed values.  Just last month the kids at Left in Alabama continued spreading rumors that Florida Governor Charlie Crist is gay.  Of course Crist is now engaged - to a woman.  Democrats are quick to tell you that there is nothing wrong with being gay and that it should be accepted as perfectly normal.  If that is the case then why use it as a weapon and call it “embarassing” (sic)?  Maybe Larry Darby wasn’t an aberration in that party.

Update:  The honorable and decent Glynn Wilson of the illustrious and world renowned Locust Fork Blog has magnanimously backed down from the rhetoric ever so slightly.  He even deleted some sexually charged comments from his blog, which is an improvement as he typically only deletes comments he disagrees with.

[A] couple of Republican bloggers are now trying to convince me that the story on King is only partially true, and that he will be denying it in some fashion soon. It will be interesting to see what venue that takes.

As far as I’m concerned, I don’t care if he’s gay or not.

This entire episode should go down as a lesson for those who use personal attacks on people’s sexuality for political purposes. It’s disgusting, but that’s how Karl Rove won many of the political races he ran, including George W. Bush’s defeat of Ann Richards for governor of Texas.

That’s called hedging, folks.  Wilson realizes he may be wrong, although he’ll never admit it.  He appears to be lecturing himself in an indirect manner since he was one of the individuals using a personal attack on someone’s sexuality for political purposes (he loathes Republicans).  We’ll see if he learned his lesson, but I won’t hold my breath.

And for anyone who would blame the blogosphere for this, the rumor mill was around a long time before the Web or even the printing press. Yellow journalism ruled in the 1800s, word of mouth and fake pictures worked well enough for George Wallace, Rove took it to another level altogether, and now we have e-mail and blogs.

Since the churches are not even very Christian in the way they are passing around rumors about Obama being a Muslim on their tax exempt e-mail lists with faith-based federal tax money, a practice Obama wants to expand even though he’s been on the wrong end of it, we should not have any sanctimonious hand-wringing about the lefty blogs or the nutroots.

Every bit of this story was driven by lawyers in Montgomery, one of the dirtiest towns for politics in America. And King does not deserve much in the way of sympathy. His past comments about gays and his fervor to kill people in prison and his unethical acceptance of gifts should be enough to disqualify him for public office anyway.

This is rich even for Wilson.  His comment is typical of the hate blinded left who can’t even think without an image of Karl Rove dancing in front of them.  His defense?  (Paraphrasing) “Don’t blame me!  I’m part of the rich history of rumor mongers.  And Karl Rove did it, damn it!”  Wilson once intoned to me and others that he only deals with facts.  It seems that once again that little claim has been shot to hell (again) as he is using his space for National Enquirer caliber material.

Wilson isn’t man enough to just admit he crossed the line and stop.  No sir.  He has to go down flailing wildly.  First he swings at Karl Rove who, as best I can tell, has absolutely nothing to do with this story.  Then he attacks churches.  Then he goes after lawyers (that’s ok, Glynn, I’m not a big fan of them either).  In other words it is everyone’s fault but his own.  Typical liberal drivel.  Take no responsibility for your own actions.  Plus, Wilson personally thinks King isn’t fit to serve (even though a majority of Alabamians differed on that point), so that further justifies saying anything he wants without any proof.  It would be funny if he wasn’t damaging a real person’s reputation.

You also have to like his “fervor to kill people in prison” quip.  It certainly isn’t the most accurate statement.  Troy King does stridently support the death penalty, as do I, but not just for “people in prison.”  No.  Only for the most heinous of criminals who earn their punishment by ruthlessly killing others.  (King also supports the death penalty for child rapists, but the Supreme Court saw fit that that wouldn’t happen.)  Wilson would have you think that King wants to indiscriminately kill off prisoners.  You see, Wilson is using a technique that only a few “journalists” as learned as himself can attempt.  He thinks that gratuitously mischaracterizing a person’s beliefs when they conflict with your own is acceptable when your goal is to bias readers against the person in question.  What a consummate professional!

Oh well, another news day has passed and all of the liberal’s prognostications about impending articles from certain publications are still untrue.  But don’t think all of them are as restrained as the good Mr. Wilson.  Now some are gloating that they were able to get King removed from John McCain’s website.  Stay classy, guys.

I also found this comment on the celebrity gossip site PerezHilton.com:

Yep, another hypocritical Republican… send him to IRAQ to fight his precious war & bring back our BRAVE SOLDIERS!
Impeach Bush
Impeach Bush
Impeach Bush today.
Thank you.

Very typical.  And very sad.  I hate to see such an advanced case of BDS.  Can you imagine a converstaion with that guy?  You might mention Brett Favre’s possible comeback for a team other than the Packers and this fool would blame Rove or Bush.

Reactionary Update:

Neal Boortz just reported (July 16) on the Troy King rumor: IMO he wanted to believe the rumor because he doesn’t like King, noting that King enforces the “sex toy” law (which was proposed and passed by Democrats BTW). But, after a little last minute research, Boortz decided to back off, concluding that until a credible news organization reports a story or until King holds a press conference, he will stay away from the story.

IMO had Boortz bit on the rumor, he would have been dropped by WVNN by day’s end. For my part, I already had the WVNN phone number dialed in ready to hit ’send’.

For over a year now the media has been churning out story after story about the moribund state of the GOP and the vibrant state of the Democrats.  There was no way that the Democrats, a party not exactly known for seizing opportunities, could screw this one up.  But with the protracted primary in which Clinton seems content to wait things out in the hopes Obama trips up it is seeming increasingly likely that the party will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Even the spiritual advisor of the nuttiest of them all, Markos Moulitsas, admits that Clinton is deeply wounding the party and risks breaking it outright (emphasis his).

First of all, the only path to victory for Clinton is via coup by super delegate.

She knows this. That’s why there’s all the talk about poaching pledged delegates and spinning uncertainty around Michigan and Florida, and laying the case for super delegates to discard the popular will and stage a coup.

Yet a coup by super delegate [sic] would sunder the party in civil war.

Clinton knows this, it’s her only path to victory, and she doesn’t care. She is willing — nay, eager to split the party apart in her mad pursuit of power.

Clinton’s only card is that Obama is not electable in the general election.  With the Obama campaign reeling from the Jeremiah Wright scandal she is only going to sharpen her attack; she’s like a shark in bloody water now.  If Obama can’t withstand the barrage of attacks then the perception will be that Clinton resorted to staid dirty tricks to “steal” the election.  On this I eagerly agree with Moulitsas that it will fracture the party badly.  If Obama can weather the storm the end result will be a demonstrably weakened candidate with an exposed Achilles heel.

The whole scenario is just delicious - and so predictable.

More fun with Alabama’s leftists as they discuss the plight of disgraced New York governor Eliot Spitzer.

I was surprised and disappointed by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s brief press conference yesterday, …

Me too. I hate to see a man (allegedly) do something like that to destroy his family. But wait, that isn’t the end of the sentence…

… in which he failed to deny reports that he was involved (as a client) in a prostitution ring.

Hold on now. So the leftists aren’t upset that he was (allegedly) engaging in illegal actions with a prostitute, but rather that he didn’t deny it! Forget that media reports indicate that there is damning evidence against him - deny it anyway.

But there’s more!

How could he do something so stupid?

Who knows? But I will say that sex seems to come naturally to a lot of people — maybe that’s why the human race has survived so long…

“Maybe” sex is why the human race has survived so long?! Just maybe!

What is interesting is that the leftist is professing the belief that Spitzer did, in fact, seek the pleasure of a hooker, something that is still officially an allegation. So despite freely admitting that they believe the allegations they still think he should have denied it!

Head over to The Daily Gotham if you want to read what Gov. Spitzer’s peeps, New York bloggers, think about this mess. It’s outside the mainstream, …

You’ll see why it’s outside the mainstream in a minute.

… but I think Liza Sabater’s post makes an interesting point: part of the problem is Spitzer hadn’t built, hadn’t needed to build, a grassroots network that would defend and support him through a scandal like this.

So his problem isn’t that he was (allegedly) cheating on his wife with a high paid prostitute, no sir, his problem is that he didn’t develop a network of loyal robots to defend him in the face of evidence so compelling that even those politically allied individuals presume guilt. Maybe, and I’m just shooting from the hip here, if politicians didn’t engage in illegal activities they wouldn’t need the network of sheep with megaphones. But I could be wrong.

Here is an excerpt from the New York blog quoted in the Left in Alabama post:

Yet if I it said once in my Op/Ed, I am going to say it again : The Bushites knew they could bag themselves a big game like Spitzer because he has nowhere to turn to but the other people who share his social and political bubble.

Again, more indignation that he got caught, not that he (allegedly) sullied his name, disgraced his family, and broke the law. They actually think Bush targeted Spitzer because he is some kind of foundation-less politico and just happened to catch him (allegedly) messing around with a hooker!

You wouldn’t believe who one of the sheep with megaphones might be (actually it isn’t at all surprising) - none other than Scott Horton! Like some kind of political Whack-A-Mole, if a Democrat is alleged to be corrupt by the U.S. Department of Justice Horton pops up to reflexively defend the person. Horton is rolling out his same, tired argument that Spitzer was the target of a politically motivated investigation. Just like the Siegelman case! And just like in the Siegelman case, Horton does not even bother to argue that the (allegedly) corrupt Democrat is innocent - he’s just upset that the (alleged) corruption was identified! He even argues that when Republicans are prosecuted it is actually “part of a broader pattern of going after Democrats.” My head is spinning.

Back to the local leftist’s post.

This reminds me of Don Siegelman’s predicament.

Somewhere Scott Horton is gently rocking a pocket watch to and fro.

He was vulnerable to allegations of corruption in part because he didn’t have a large, vocal group of people willing to stand up and defend him at the first sign of trouble.

Another way to look at it is that he was vulnerable to allegations of corruption because he was actually corrupt! And he wasn’t (and still isn’t) lacking in supporters.

The argument offered by the leftists is uncompelling and borders on rank depravity. By their own admission, they believe that Spitzer engaged in an illegal action. However, they think he should deny it and be defended simply because of his political affiliation.  Amazing.

The leftists then asked, ridiculously, why Spitzer’s (alleged) indiscretions were leaked to the media, presumably by the Bush Justice Department, while “Dave Vitter and Larry Craig get away with this for months and years.” I’ll type slowly so they can comprehend. Vitter was outed not as a part of a federal investigation, but because a smut magazine peddled the numbers of the “D.C. Madam.” Craig was able to keep his attempted gay escapade quite because it happened in an airport bathroom under the jurisdiction of local police. Like Vitter, he was not involved in a federal investigation so there was no way the Bush Justice Department could have leaked their stories.

Other scandals are beside the point, of course.  The leftists are just trotting Vitter and Craig out as a means of deflecting just criticism at a man who, until yesterday, was one of their rising stars.

I usually try to maintain a certain, minimal level of decorum with respect to some of the crazy lefties in Alabama, but sometimes it is hard.  At one time we had a Kos-esque site dedicated to overthrowing Senator Sessions.  When Ron Sparks choose not to run that little shop of humor decided to pack it up.  But let not your spirits sink at the prospect of no humorous leftist propaganda: there is still Left in Alabama.

Let’s take a stroll through some of the current stories there…

We’ll start with this post that underscores liberals obsession with race.  A candidate (Republican, of course) sent out a campaign flier with what was, quite frankly, run of the mill campaign propaganda nonsense.  There is prolific use of the word “liberal” to describe his opponent.  He denounces his opponent’s public sector career by portraying the work as “taxpayer funded,” unelected positions.  The intent to make the opponent appear to be a leech, surviving on the public dole is clear even if it is absurd; I know a great many virtuous government employees and the source of their paycheck does not diminish their character or aptitude.  However, the “taxpayer funded” line is most certainly not peculiar to this race.  The author of the blog post jumped to the conclusion that the flier was racist because the Republican candidate is white, while the Democrat challenger is black and interprested nearly every claim in the flier as having racist implications.

It bears noting that the GOP candidate, Wayne Willingham, has previous ties to groups of dubious repute with respect to race relations (to put it delicately).  Within that context one would be justified to judge the campaign literature a bit more critically.  But, that is not germane to this particular scenario because the author of the post had no prior knowledge of Willingham’s background that might have prejudiced him to seek out racist implications in the mailing – otherwise the author would have most certainly mentioned this given his penchant for spotting racial strife.  So what we have is a “progressive” Democrat getting a campaign glossy in the mail and assuming that because A) one candidate told prospective voters that he is better than the other candidate and B) the self proclaimed better candidate is white and the denounced candidate is black the literature must therefore be racist.  The author’s own fixation on race caused him to independently interpret a rather standard piece of campaign propaganda as racist.

Honestly, if you think that “And there is only one candidate to represent Cullman County,” really means, “Do you really want a lazy black guy representing Cullman County,” then you have problems.  What would the author think is reasonable language to use when campaigning against a minority opponent?  Can you not even suggest that you are the better candidate without being deemed a racist?

Now, bringing the context of Willingham’s prior (current?) associations into the situation…  The only aspect of the mailing that can be interpreted as playing on race would be the decision to include pictures of both candidates.  It is typical to put your picture on campaign literature and while it is not abnormal to put your opponent’s picture on an advert as well, I think there is a possibility that it was done in this case to make sure that Cullman County voters know the race of each candidate.  Let’s be honest, Cullman County is not exactly known for being on the leading edge of racial harmony.

Moving along, there is also the frantic post about the latest vote to sustain Bush’s SCHIP veto entitled “Republicans Hate Children.”  The statement is absurd on its face.  They refuse to even acknowledge the rationale for voting against the bill and refuting it, preferring instead to argue that Republicans hate children.  It is as ridiculous as the argument that Democrats hate the troops if they vote against a huge increase in defense funding even if they are wiling to support a more modest increase.  You really need to read some of the comments following the post to do their nuttiness justice, though.

More race interjection (seems to be a theme).  John Edwards says he is the best candidate for the entire country.  This is interpreted by the left as him saying that he is better because he is a white male.  What is funny is that Edwards went out of his way to disavow such a notion, which means he expected his leftist supporters to seek out race or gender subtext in his statement.  How prescient!  If he read Left in Alabama he would known better than to assert he is the best candidate.  If you’re running against a minority (or a woman) you cannot, under any circumstance, suggest you might be the better candidate.  If you do then you hate blacks and women.

The “progressives” also labeled one of the state’s major newspapers an “undercover arm of the Alabama Republican Party.”  Why?  Because the paper had the unmitigated gall of suggesting that it would be good if the GOP was successful in ousting some of the old guard “mossbacks” in the legislature.  The author of the post states that the Mobile Press-Register is beating “the same old horse of Paul Hubbert, AEA and 2 year colleges,” and that the Republicans “have ridden that horse as far as it will go and it’s starting to smell” on them.  Based on some of the details of former chancellor Roy Johnson’s plea deal with the Feds she has a point: something does stink.  But it isn’t the old, tired story.  It is the fresh details of the breath and depth of the corruption.  Considering the fixation that the Left in Alabama crew has on a single plane owned by a state agency (just look at the number of posts written about it) one might think that smoke would be coming out of their ears over all of the corruption, but then again this story mainly deals with Democrats.  Better to play ostrich.

That is just a small sampling of what you’ll find on the leading “progressive” Alabama blog.  Take some time and look around.  You’re sure to be amused.

This quote from Mitt Romney to his phone bank volunteers sums him up quite nicely:

Hit the phones today make all the promises you have to, and…make sure that we get the funds that we need to keep on propelling this campaign forward with power and energy.

Mitt may well be a fine conservative in his heart, but he has not demonstrated it over the expanse of his career.  He told Massachusetts voters what they wanted to hear to get elected governor of that state.  Recently he’s been telling the Republican base what they want to hear in order to secure the party’s nomination - most of which is at odds with his words and deeds while in the Bay State.

Republicans should take heed that the spiritual advisor for the Angry Left is calling for Democrats to support Romney in the Michigan primary.  Obviously he isn’t of the mindset that Romney is the best choice as president, but that he would like to see as many GOP candidates engage in protracted attacks as possible.  I would wager that Kos and his ilk would be euphoric to see Romney eventually win the nomination.  His conservative credentials are shaky at best, his campaign style is, well, bland, and I can envision the class warfare ads decrying Mitt’s Wall Street, upper crust background.  Actually I have already heard such ads - from Mike Huckabee.  In most years those ads would not be terribly effective, but the current mood of voters is receptive to such an appeal in my opinion.  Speaking of Huckabee, it is also worth remembering that the venerable Moulitsas suggested that Huckabee would be the strongest GOP candidate and would make him “lose sleep at night.”  I happen to agree.

As a slight aside, Kos justifies calling out Dems to vote in the GOP primary by saying that the GOP has ”a history of meddling in our primaries,” and that the Dems should “try and return the favor.”  Those poor, innocent Dems being mistreated by evil Republicans!  But then he writes near the end of his post, “Michigan Democrats helped deliver their state to McCain in 2000 to spite their hated governor, John Engler, who had ‘guaranteed’ his state to Bush.”  So really Kos’ motivation isn’t revenge, but rather opportunism.  Why not just say as much?

Alabama’s Democrat controlled legislature is toying with the notion of gerrymandering the 2nd Congressional District ahead of the 2010 census.

Left in Alabama, Alabama’s “blog for progressive politics,” takes a predictably less than principled stand:

Personally, I thought the Texas and Georgia redistricting initiatives were bad ideas and I still think mid-decade redistricting is a bad idea and a waste of resources, but I don’t get to make the rules.  The law allows it, some states have already done it and the Supreme Court has upheld it.  Obviously, the rules have changed.  Democrats have to consider the mid-decade redistricting option in Alabama (and in other states like Michigan) because you don’t win if you constrain yourself to playing by the old rules.  Especially when your opposition made the new rules and got them approved.

So in other words, gerrymandering is bad unless it helps your team.  Because, you know, one shouldn’t stand for what is best for the country or on general principle, but rather what helps a particular political party.

If I were king - oh what a glorious day that would be - my redistricting plans would take a decidedly engineer-like feel.  It would be done by computer algorithm (of course!) without concern to anything other than population.  No race.  No economic levels.  No political leaning.  And the algorithm would try to make each district a reasonable shape.  No little fingers that follow narrow corridors to avoid political opposition only to reemerge downstream, creating a dumbbell shaped district.

A while back there were a couple of posts written on the apparent satire site Left in Alabama bemoaning our fair state’s relatively low funding of public defenders (here’s one).  Someone found a study that placed us dead last in America - even behind Puerto Rico.  While Alabama is no stranger to occupying the basement in one ranking or another I must concur that this one is troubling.

What I found telling was that after the first post was written another contributor there wrote a post laying 100% of the blame at Bob Riley’s feet.  I believe he was called “Divemaster Bob” - as in he is taking us to new depths.  It was suggested that Riley is going to align us with Myanmar and other countries of ill repute.  Obviously the post was very critical and oozed with rage over the low funding of public defenders.

I’d put a link to the post, but it’s been removed from the site.  You see, I left a comment that as far as I knew the legislature - the Democrat controlled legislature - was responsible for allocating those funds, not Riley.  Next thing I knew the post was gone.

Now, if the fury over the paltry funding were genuine wouldn’t it stand to reason that the author would then turn their ire onto the responsible people?  I think so.  Instead the whole issue was forgotten.  I guess it’s a big deal if it can lead to criticism of our Republican governor, but isn’t worth mentioning if Democrats are the ones taking the heat.  Principles are overrated though.