Thursday, 25 September 2008

THE HOLLYWOOD LEFT'S OWNERSHIP OF DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES

Ken Berwitz

All the rich people are Republicans, right?

We all know that, don't we?

It's been banged into our heads for years and years by media, so it must be true, mustn't it?

Ok, back to planet Earth....

Here is an article by Scott Bensing, writing for www.townhall.com, with details that the mainstream media which keep telling us about Rich Republicans must somehow have missed.  The bold print is mine:

Liberal Hollywood Sycophants Seek Cash
by Scott Bensing

When choosing who to support in politics, different people have various standards. Some are single issue voters and wont cast a ballot for a candidate who disagrees with them on a specific issue, such as eliminating secret ballot elections. Others choose a candidate based on specific areas of concern, like national security or fiscal responsibility. And still others may seek out candidates they believe most closely shares their values.

This weekend, liberal, Hollywood Democrats are choosing to support the candidates they believe most closely represent their values. This Saturday, the Hollywood crowd is hosting a fundraiser for like-minded Senate candidates who include Tom Allen of Maine, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Mark Udall of Colorado, Tom Udall of New Mexico, Al Franken of Minnesota, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Mark Begich of Alaska. The group has pledged a minimum of $100,000 for each candidate. Not a cheap investment, even for such an affluent group of Hollywood fat-cats.

But just as everyday citizens choose the politician they support, politicians choose the donors they associate themselves with. Therefore, it is curious these candidates would choose to associate with a group whose genesis can be traced to nefarious characters like Hanoi Jane Fonda and her now-disbanded 1980s Hollywood Womens Political Committee. More disconcerting, however, is these candidates willingness to associate themselves with the guest list for Saturdays soire.

According to Politico, the group sponsoring the event includes individuals like Marg Helgenberger, Steven Spielberg, wife Kate Capshaw and Elisabeth Shue, wife of Davis Guggenheim who directed An Inconvenient Truth. Shue recently commended fellow actor Matt Damon after his vicious attack on Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. In which he said,

It's like a really bad Disney movie, The Hockey Mom.' Oh, I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska, and she's president," said Damon. She's facing down Vladimir Putin and using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink. It's absurd.

After such statements, one is left wondering why Alaskan Mark Begich will gladly accept money from an individual who openly agrees with celebrities who impugn his home state.

Most upsetting of the event attendees is Jodie Evans. Is she a movie star? No. A Hollywood power-player? No. Evans is a hero to the liberals of Hollywood because she is a representative of the dominant wing of the Democrat party she is the co-founder of Code Pink. The very same extremist, liberal group that proudly marches in parades declaring:

We Support the Murder of American Troops.

If Reps. Allen, Udall and Udall along with Kay Hagan, Jeff Merkley, Al Franken, Jeanne Shaheen and Mark Begich dont agree with these views, why would they take such generous donations? Not surprisingly, Jeanne Shaheen, who has welcomed the support of other entertainment industry liberals including Carol King, Bonnie Rait and Michael J. Fox, is excited for these tainted funds she told an organizer, the $100,000 she'll receive is the largest donation made to her campaign. After such a declaration voters are left to wonder who Shaheen will be beholden to if she is elected Hollywood or Granite Staters.

But for some of these candidates support from extremist groups comes as no surprise. For instance, Boulder Liberal Mark Udall has voted repeatedly against funding our troops and opposed legislation to expedite the delivery of their armor. Not surprisingly, the Boulder Liberals cousin Tom Udall has voted similarly. If given the chance, will Kay Hagan join them in siding with extremist groups that actively oppose our troops?

This November, when you vote, you will make a choice about which candidate shares your ideals and values. You will choose who will govern you and make decisions on the direction of this country. But you should not vote for someone financially beholden to ultra-liberal Hollywood actors who demean women opposed (to) their views. Nor should you vote for a candidate indebted to extremist groups which advocate for the murder of American citizens and soldiers.

We all make choices in life, including choices about the people we associate ourselves with. Tom Allen, Kay Hagan, Jeff Merkley, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, Al Franken, Jeanne Shaheen and Mark Begich have clearly stated who they choose to associate with and whose values they share. That is why when you are in the voting booth this fall, the choice is clear, the choice is Republican.

Apart from that last sentence (which, sorry to say, is a stereotype suggesting all Democrats are like the ones in Scott's column) it is hard to dispute anything here.

Can someone please explain to me how jodie evans, a USA hating, terrorist-supporting scumbag, is able to be a major fund bundler for the Democratic party - very much including Barack Obama, who she has bundled six figures worth of contributions for - with almost no media commentary about it?

Mainstream media had no problem associating a right wing USA hater - Joe Vogler, head of the Alaska Independence Party - with Sarah Palin and claiming for days that Ms. Palin was once a member of that party (which was absolutely untrue, as they had to admit....after the negative image was in people's minds of course).

But here is jodie evans,  a left wing USA hater who is indisputably collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars for Barack Obama and other Democratic candidates (she's on his disclosure forms, no way to hide it).  She is treated like a star at events such as the one described above, and mainstream media do not even mention it, let alone question why her support would be accepted.

How nice it must be to have the referee rooting for your side.

And how ignorant they try to keep voters.  Like you and me.


TAKING ADVANTAGE OF BARROOM JOE'S BIG MOUTH

Ken Berwitz

I do not accuse Joe Biden of being a drinker.  I don't know if he is or he isn't.

I call him Barroom Joe because he talks like a barroom loudmouth.  Loud, stupid and not thought out.

A few days ago Mr. Biden loudly denounced the idea of coal energy in the USA.  This, in and of itself, was stupid and not thought out on several levels, including the facts that we have massive coal resources that can service our energy needs for decades, and that Pennsylvania, which Obama/Biden is in danger of losing, is a huge coal mining state - especially it's western half.  Ditto for West Virginia and part of Ohio, both of which are being closely contested in this election.

What a dumb thing to say.  And it's even dumber, given the fact that the guy at the head of his ticket, Barack Obama, has claimed he is FOR the coal industry.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the McCain campaign quickly put out an ad that exploited Barrooom Joe's big mouth and its clear opposition to Barack Obama's stand on coal.  Here it is, along with an accompanying article, from Foon Rhee of the Boston Globe (if you have trouble viewing the video, just click here):

Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor September 24, 2008 05:18 PM


What apparently will be John McCain's last attack ad -- at least for several days -- goes after Barack Obama and Joe Biden for disingenuousness on clean coal.

The spot shows Obama singing the praises of clean coal technology as part of his alternative energy plan -- and contrasts it with Biden telling a voter in Ohio that "We're not supporting clean coal."

The ad puts an coal miner's helmet and pick on Biden and ends with these words on the screen: "Ready to pander? Yes. Ready to lead? No."

The campaigns started tussling over the issue on Tuesday, with both creating new coalitions to push their positions.

Sometimes one event changes the course of an election. If Joe Biden's barroom-loudmouth comments about coal turn enough Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia voters to McCain so that those (very close) states are lost, this will be one of them.


LUKE RUSSERT: NBC'S LIVING, BREATHING JOKE

Ken Berwitz

I had a great deal of regard for Tim Russert.  Most people did.

But I consider NBC's hiring of his son, Luke Russert, to be a cynical attempt to trade on a dead man's name.

Please don't get me wrong.  I do not personally dislike Luke Russert.  He seems like a nice enough young man.  But if his name were "Luke (fill in your last name)", would he be on TV right now?  If your last name happens to be Russert, the answer is yes.  Otherwise it is an obvious, resounding no.

Here is what you get when you hire this way, courtesy of www.comcast.net :

NBC's Russert says he made `dumb' statement
 

NEW YORK NBC News reporter Luke Russert said he made a "dumb" misstatement on the "Today" show Wednesday when he suggested that smart people supported Barack Obama for president.

Almost immediately, Russert took a hazing in the Web world. Wrote Tim Graham of the conservative Media Research Center on the NewsBusters blog: "Out of the mouths of young, untrained reporters come the unspoken beliefs of the liberal media."

Russert, son of the late "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert, is covering youth issues for NBC News. He filed a report for "Today" about campaign activity at the University of Virginia, and talked about it live afterward with Matt Lauer.

Russert, 23, said about the university: "The smartest kids in the state go there so it is leaning a little bit toward Obama."

Oops. Now he's either implied that students at other colleges in Virginia aren't as smart as those at the University of Virginia or that you have to be dumb not to support Obama. Or both.

He said in a blog later Wednesday that he misspoke and "made what is without a doubt, quite simply a dumb comment."

"I meant to say that many of the kids who go to UVA are from affluent, highly educated households who are leaning (toward) Obama and hence their kids lean Obama," he said. "Plenty of smart college kids will vote for John McCain from UVA and plenty of smart kids go to Virginia Tech or George Mason and they, too, could end up being big Obama voters.

"Today was one of my first lessons in the perils of live television," he said. "Lesson learned."

What Luke Russert said was childish, unprofessional and thoroughly biased.


CHRIS MATTHEWS GOES OVER THE DEEP END FOR OBAMA

Ken Berwitz

It may be hard to fathom these days, but Chris Matthews at one time liked John McCain.

Now he is rooting so hard for Barack Obama that there isn't even a remote semblance of objectivity left on his show.

Last night was a classic case in point.  Matthews was determined that his storyline would be John McCain's "deterioratiing poll numbers" (his words, not mine I assure you). 

There was, however, a bit of a problem;  the poll just released by his own network showed McCain and Obama in a statistical tie.  So to promote Mr. Obama he had to essentially push it aside and talk up the Washington Post-ABC News poll which has Obama up by 9% and the Fox (gasp!!  Fox) poll which has Obama up by 6%.  He also gleefully pointed out several state polls that Obama was leading in.

You can't beat that for sheer entertainment value.  The people at MSNBC disdain Fox as a news venue.....but when there's a poll result they like?  Fox is just okey-dokey with them.  It is to laugh.

Anyway, that was the essence of Hardball last night.

Well, here are the data from today. 

-On September 20, Gallup's daily tracking study, had Obama up by 6%  (50% - 44%).  Today they are tied at 46%....a 6% gain by McCain in just five days.

-Also on September 20, the Zogby interactive poll had Obama ahead of McCain by 4%.  Today it has McCain up by 2%.  The same 6% jump in five days as Gallup;

-The Battleground poll's daily tracking has McCain up by 1% today.

-The Mason-Dixon poll, which Matthews used extensively yesterday, just released its new data on Michigan, which has been a reliably Democratic state for a long time.  McCain and Obama are in a dead tie there.

-The two latest polls in Florida show McCain up by 3% and 5%.

Now do you think Matthews will do an abrupt about-face and talk about OBAMA'S deteriorating poll numbers tonight?  If so I have some great beta format tapes to sell you, and a low mileage beauty of a Yugo.

One other thing:  Last night Matthews was speculating that John McCain was trying to avoid Friday's debate because of his "deteriorating poll numbers".  Am I suddenly misunderstanding everything I ever learned about politics?  Isn't the candidate who is BEHIND in the polls the one who wants/needs the debates, and the candidate who is AHEAD the one who would be happy to do without them?

Matthew becomes more and more of a joke every night on Hardball.  At this rate, in about 40 or 50 years he'll be as bad as keith olbermann.


OBAMA'S $100,000 GAZEBO (PARTIALLY BUILT)

Ken Berwitz

As media work triple-overtime on "troopergate", (which they can't possibly prove without reading Sarah Palin's mind), I wonder if a few of them can spare a minute or two for a check on Barack Obama's $100,000 partially-built gazebo.

I don't know about you folks, but it seems to me that $100,000 would be a pretty stiff price for a gazebo, even if it were finished.   So a $100,000 expenditure, supposedly for an urban botanic garden, that has yielded nothing but this gazebo sounds a little odd.  A little shady.  A little like money that disappeared and went somewhere else.  A little like money that needs looking into.

To its credit, the Chicago Sun-Times has done a very complete story on this obvious scandal.  Here are the key excerpts -- and be sure to watch the accompanying video (you'll have to click on the story link at the beginning of this paragraph to see it):

Obama grant being probed

$100,000 DEAL | State to charity: What happened to garden money, other cash?

September 25, 2008

 
Click to enlarge image

The garden was never built. And now state records obtained by the Sun-Times show $65,000 of the grant money went to the wife of Kenny B. Smith, the Obama 2000 congressional campaign volunteer who heads the Chicago Better Housing Association, which was in charge of the project for the blighted South Side neighborhood.

Smith wrote another $20,000 in grant-related checks to K.D. Contractors, a construction company that his wife, Karen D. Smith, created five months after work on the garden was supposed to have begun, records show. K.D. is no longer in business.

In addition to the 2001 grant that Obama directed to the housing association as a "member initiative," the not-for-profit group got a separate $20,000 state grant in 2006.

Madigan's office has notified Obama's presidential campaign of the probe, which was launched this week. But Obama's actions in awarding the money are not a focus of the investigation, Smith said.

Questions about the grant, though, come as spending on local pet projects has become an issue in Obama's campaign against John McCain.

Obama and Kenny Smith announced the "Englewood Botanic Garden Project" at a January 2000 news conference at Englewood High School. Obama was in the midst of a failed bid to oust South Side Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush for a seat in Congress. The garden -- planned near and under L tracks between 59th Place and 62nd Place -- fell outside of Obama's Illinois Senate district but within the congressional district's borders.

Obama vowed to "work tirelessly" to raise $1.1 million to help Smith's organization turn the City of Chicago-owned lot into an oasis of trees and paths. But Obama lost the congressional race, no more money was raised, and today the garden site is a mess of weeds, chunks of concrete and garbage. The only noticeable improvement is a gazebo.

In a previous interview, Smith said the state grant money was legitimately spent, mostly on underground site preparation.

But no one ever took out construction permits required for such work, city records show. And a contractor who Smith said did most of the work told a reporter all he did was cut down trees and grade the site with a Bobcat.

Citing the garden's failure to take root, NeighborSpace -- an umbrella group for dozens of community gardens citywide -- moved Sept. 9 to return the site to the city. Its action followed a July 11 Sun-Times report on the grant.

The relationship between Smith and Obama dates to at least 1997, when Obama wrote a letter that Smith used to help the housing association win city funding for an affordable-housing development near the garden site. Plans called for more than 50 homes; a dozen ultimately were built.

Smith also has donated $550 to Obama campaign funds.

The Sun-Times learned about Karen Smith's involvement in the project through an Aug. 12 Freedom of Information Act response from a lawyer for Blagojevichs Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. The department, according to the lawyer, had discovered 52 pages of additional documents ommitted from an initial response in May to a Sun-Times Freedom of Information Act request about the grant. 

How bad does this stink? 

Barack Obama awards a six figure payof...er, grant to one of his supporters and the money goes bye-bye.  Now you see it, now you don't.

Just like those millions and millions of dollars Mr. Obama steered to convicted slumlord antoin "tony" rezko, who contributed hundreds of thousands to Obama over the years.

Y'know, what?  This just might be a tad more significant then trying to read Sarah Palin's mind about firing one of the people who served at her pleasure.  D'ya think?

Maybe they could take a few of their intrepid investigative people off of the Palin wild goose chase to investigate how much money and how many favors Barack Obama got from the people this money was pissed away to.  Or is that asking too much?

Never ever forget what Barack Obama is.  He is a CHICAGO MACHINE POLITICIAN, straight out of one of the dirtiest political machines in the country.

And never ever forget how much mainstream media are in the tank for him.


GUEST COMMENTARY: SAMMY BENOIT ON THE PALIN SNUB

Ken Berwitz

Here is Sammy Benoit, writing for Arutz Sheva (www.israelnationalnews.com), about Sarah Palin's disinvitation to last week's anti-Iran protest rally.  The bold print is mine:

'No Show' Rally Was a Victory

by Sammy Benoit

We will not be bullied.

In 2006, the anti-Ahmadinejad Rally at the United Nations drew 40,000 People. Last year's rally drew 25,000 people. This week's rally drew 2,000 people. This week's rally was the most successful of the three.

This week, the supporters of Israel and, most especially, the Jewish People told the world that we will not be bullied.  We may be blindly liberal as a people, but we are not stupid.  We will not allow our leadership to continue their practice of blindly following the Democratic party without any regard for the issues.

Who were the losers? Lets start with Senator Hillary Clinton. She started it all. This week, her "bat boy" Howard Wolfson was on Fox. He came out with the lame excuse that Mrs. Clinton decided not appear at the rally because she did not think it proper for someone running for office (Gov. Sarah Palin) to appear at a rally. Sorry, Howie. Those of us who were at the 2006 rally remember that your boss spoke there, and she was running for re-election at the time. Oops, caught in a lie.

Senator Barack Obama is also a big loser. Senator, you are about to become the first Democratic presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter to get less than 60% of the Jewish vote. Hell, you might even lose the Jewish vote. Despite the fact that your entry into the race was bankrolled by Jews, and the fact that most of the supposed leaders of the Jewish community blindly support anyone with a Democratic party label, you might actually lose the Jewish vote. And you still don't understand why. They tell you it's all about those Muslim whispers. Guess what? Most Jews are so liberal that they would even vote for you if you were Muslim. Remember, those people behind that New York City madrassa include a Jewish head of education and a Jewish mayor.

We may be blindly liberal as a people, but we are not stupid. Your claims of being pro-Israel do not match your record or your list of advisers. Your poorly shrouded attempt to bully us into submission just made you look even worse. Did you see that picture from the rally this week? That's what you just did to yourself.

The major loser is the morally corrupt leadership of the Jewish community in America. Especially the leadership of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. We will no longer blindly follow you. It is time for you to start to put your people before your liberal bias. (Note to Abe Foxman: you weren't involved in this week's embarrassment, but you are as morally corrupt as the rest of them.)

Folks, if you want to run a Democratic party organization, then resign your positions and go get a job with the Democratic party; until then, start putting your responsibilities to the Jewish community before your bias in favor of the liberal Democratic position.

While I'm not 100% on board with everything Mr. Benoit says, readers of this blog know that I certainly agree with the lion's share of it. 

Go Sammy Go.


FRANKENFUDGING BY THE MINNEAPOLIS STAR-TRIBUNE

Ken Berwitz

Why oh why do so many people think mainstream media are biased?  If you believe the poll numbers a huge majority of citizens feel this way.  Is it fair?

Well, here is a pretty good example of why they might have such feelings.  It comes to us from Scott Johnson of www.powerlineblog.com, and details how that font of neutrality, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, has addressed senate candidate Al Franken's serial disinclination to pay taxes:

Lies (and the newspaper that abets a lying liar)

In April of this year the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that Democratic Senate candidate Al Franken owed $70,000 in back taxes and penalties owed in 17 states, going back to 2003. The disclosure was attributable to the digging of Michael Brodkorb of Minnesota Democrats Exposed, left unnamed in the original Star Tribune story.

Today the Star Tribune purports to assess the factuality of various ads attacking Franken for not paying taxes. Franken has not in fact paid taxes required by applicable tax laws. The Star Tribune nevertheless finds the ads under review "misleading for what they don't say and the implication they leave."

The ads are accurate. The Star Tribune nevertheless finds them misleading. The article explains that Franken earned income across the country as an entertainer and has blamed his accountant for Franken's failure to pay the taxes owed in each state.

Among other things, according to the Star Tribune, the ads don't note that Franken's tax problems are his accountant's fault! According to none other than Franken himself! And that Franken has actually paid taxes on the relevant income, only in the wrong states! According to a spreadsheet provided by none other than Franken!

The Star Tribune notes that Franken has not produced copies of his tax returns. The Star Tribune does not note that Franken has not addressed any tax issues that predate 2003. The Star Tribune does not note that Franken's accountant isn't talking -- apparently on Franken's order -- or that one might reasonably draw negative inferences under the circumstances.

A new round of ads on Franken's tax problems that includes his attribution of responsibility to his accountant and his accountant's clamming up on the subject might be more effective than the ads that are the subject of today's Star Tribune article. Some day the Star Tribune might even want to follow up on the questions itself.

Al Franken is a comedian who hasn't been funny in a long time. The humor for which he has been responsible over the past few decades has been unintended. Today's Star Tribune story is another example of the phenomenon.

What can you say after reading something like this? Me, I just finish with my standard line:

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


MURTHA BEING SUED BY ONE OF THE MARINES HE SLANDERED

Ken Berwitz'

Here is some truly welcome news from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Canonsburg Marine to sue Murtha

By Jason Cato
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, September 25, 2008

A Marine from Washington County today plans to sue U.S. Rep. John Murtha for publicly claiming his unit slaughtered innocent Iraqi civilians, according to the man's attorney.

A lawyer for Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, 24, of Canonsburg on Wednesday announced plans to sue Murtha, D-Johnstown, for comments he made to news outlets concerning the November 2005 killing of about two dozen people in Haditha.

Murtha repeatedly said Sharratt and seven fellow Marines "committed cold-blooded murder of innocent women and children," according to lawyer Noah Geary, who scheduled a news conference for 1:30 p.m. today to announce the lawsuit.

Messages left at Murtha's Washington, D.C., office were not returned.

After the death of a Marine from a Nov. 19, 2005, bombing of an American convoy, Marines fatally shot unarmed civilians in a taxi and two homes, Murtha told The Associated Press in May 2006.

Murtha, a former Marine whose district includes Sharratt's hometown, told the wire service that high-level reports indicated no one fired on the Marines after the explosion.

"I will not excuse murder, and this is what happened," Murtha was quoted as saying at the time.

Several investigations focused on the killings and whether there was an attempt to hide the truth.

Geary said Sharratt was cleared of unpremeditated murder charges, filed in military court, after a full investigation and a Uniform Code of Military Justice hearing. Six other Marines have been exonerated, Geary said. Charges against the eighth are still pending, he said.

"Murtha supposedly has credibility as a 'war hero,' " Geary said. "Murtha, if anybody, should know better if he's a Marine and, ironically, Justin is his constituent. ... He did not have any information to say what he said, and what he said was false."

The lawsuit will accuse Murtha of violating Sharratt's constitutional rights to a presumption of innocence and due process, as well as slander, Geary said.

Sharratt requested and received a discharge from the Marine Corps, Geary said. He plans to attend college next year.

"He was so disillusioned, hurt and disappointed out of this whole experience," Geary said.

Good for Lance Cpl. Sharratt!!!!!   It's about damn time one of them sued murtha.

How I hope he wins, and cleans out this disgraceful pig who slandered him and his fellow marines.


MEGYN KELLY MAKES BILL BURTON LOOK LIKE A FOOL

Ken Berwitz

Here is a video, which I pulled from www.mediabistro.com, which has a five minute interview between Megyn Kelly of Fox News and Obama campaign manager Bill Burton.  It involves whether the new NRA ad, which claims Barack Obama supported a handgun ban, is accurate or false. 

Please watch it (if you have trouble clicking on the video, click here instead) and see how you feel Kelly handled Burton - and who was more credible:

Is it my imagination or did Kelly come out strong and accurate, while Burton came out looking and sounding like a ridiculous liar, who was reduced to claiming that his lies were "well documented" maybe a dozen times --- without documenting them?

And how about when he decided to attack Fox for showing the ad, and Kelly pointedly reminded him that it was being shown all over the internet AND other cable news shows?  Good for her.

Now if the other networks would follow Fox's lead and challenge BS from Obama and his people when they see it, wouldn't that be a refreshing change?

Don't hang by your thumbs waiting for it to happen, though.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!