Why I Don’t Like Bernie Sanders

A while back someone asked me to explain why I don’t like Bernie Sanders. So here is my best attempt to explain why I dislike him.

First Findings About Sanders

The first thing I remember hearing about Bernie Sanders was his appearance at Netroots Nation’s conference in Phoenix during the summer of 2015. Friends of mine who went said they were unimpressed with how he handled it.  I was willing to give a bit of a pass because I hadn’t been there but it was a preview to what was to come.  Sanders does not like being challenged by anyone. Ever.

I had other friends who thought he was the bee’s knees. But they didn’t really seem to have a lot of information about him outside a few pat phrases.  For instance, when asked what he has done, I was told he was the Amendment King.  Essentially, he didn’t introduce a lot of legislation but he did get a lot of amendments added to other bills. And it is judged true by Politifact. That does not however tell me what these amendments were or how much they helped other people. That’s not helpful if you are trying to persuade people to vote for your guy.

Back when I was a big Deanaic, I could and still can rattle off a list of his accomplishments: he got nearly universal health care in Vermont by expanding Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance, he instituted a nurse’s visit to new mothers to help them recover from birth (very important in light of our worsening maternal death rate), he signed the civil unions bill being one of the first governors in the US to expand marriage equality while at 35% in the polls and went on to win the next election, he had started his career as a man who wanted a bike path and became governor when his predecessor died while fixing a pool.  That’s what I expected from the Bernie people and to this day, never get.

However they assured me Bernie was better than Clinton because he hadn’t voted for the Iraq war and was anti-bank.  Also she gave speeches to a few Wall Street banks and he hadn’t despite the fact that it wasn’t legal for him to do so anyway as a member of Congress.  That made him better. Also he got lots of small donations so that made him a lot better.

I was not convinced.  After all, Howard Dean rode a wave of people power/small donations and failed to place in Iowa high enough and eventually dropped out of the Democratic primary.  I honestly thought this was simply the same thing.  A guy from Vermont who is fresh and new and everyone jumps on board only to leave later on.  No harm no foul.

The Harassment Campaign

But then I started seen some disquieting things.  Ta Nehisi Coates did an article on Sanders and caught living hell until he finally said he was going to vote for the man.  Many other writers or media figures did the same thing after a wave of harassment.  To me that isn’t persuasion, that’s bullying. That’s making someone do something not because they want to but because they have to in order to stop someone’s treatment of them.

Other people started getting bullied for supporting Clinton: Representative Jim McDermott was harassed multiple times over this leading to two arrests.  One Sanders supporter put together a hit list.  There was a literal gauntlet for Clinton supporters to have to walk through in Los Angeles. The infamous threats that the Nevada Democratic State Party Chair endured after the last caucus meeting.  On and on and on.  But hey, those Bernie Bros don’t exist right?  Even though many people pointed out they do by their own personal experience.  And the Bros themselves announced they believed they had the right to treat people this way because they are “discomforting the establishment Democrats.”  I witnessed it first hand.  First with my friends who had to ultimately unfollow or unfriend on Facebook because their hatred for Clinton was so out of control they were blaming her stuff she literally had nothing to do with. Then with people on Twitter and other online spaces.

That didn’t make me want to support Sanders.  That made me want to avoid anything to do with him.

Data Breach

I am going to briefly go over what I thought at the time was a tempest in a teapot but turned into something much darker by the Sanders campaign.  I am talking about the data stealing that Sanders allowed to happen on his watch.

The Sanders campaign was suspended from using the website that most of the campaigns in the Democratic Party use because of the fact that they went into the Voter Access Network (VAN) and stole data from the Clinton campaign.  It wasn’t a long suspension and it was well before the start of the actual voting yet the reaction by Sanders and his team was eye-opening to say the least.

First they did the right thing-they fired the person responsible and supposedly held other people accountable.  And that was sufficient for the DNC to restore access.  It was apparently not good enough for Sanders and his team since they immediately filed a lawsuit for access. The lawsuit dragged on until April of 2016 when they finally withdrew the lawsuit long after access was restored and any possible damage was gone.

His campaign screwed up and he should have taken responsibility and left it at that.  Instead he let a lawsuit drag on for months for no reason.  That isn’t the actions of someone I want anywhere near my party.

The Behavior of Sanders Himself

That might have been the end of it.  After all, I was pretty nasty myself by the midpoint of the campaign towards people.  Clinton wasn’t that responsible for my behavior and Sanders wasn’t that responsible for his online hordes following him.  Especially since there was plenty of Russian troll armies doing things to whip it up.  He was responsible for his own behavior however.  And that behavior started out great. Then he started losing and lashing out.  This is a common trait with him by the way.  When he is running against a woman and loses he acts like the way he did with Clinton.  He immediately claims he is better than the person running on their top issue. That is why he claims he was better for civil rights than Clinton (despite voting for the crime bill, he got a pass from much of the media and his supporters while Clinton was held fully responsible for the bill while having neither written or signed it.) and his lack of actual effort over the past forty years for civil rights.  But did you know he marched with Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Then when he lost or didn’t get endorsements, he started insulting the organizations that didn’t endorse him.  When Planned Parenthood stood with the woman who had always stood by them, he called them establishment which by then he had defined to mean anyone who isn’t me.  There was push back of course but the damage was done.  Then he didn’t bother to pay any attention to an article written up with a pretty bad headline. Clinton never said she thought he wasn’t qualified, she said she thought he hadn’t shown he was ready.  But clickbait has to clickbait and Sanders immediately claimed she wasn’t qualified despite her clear record being qualified based solely on the headline and doubled down until the wave of outrage pushed him back slightly.

He started making claims that the party was being unfair to him.  He even wrote a letter to Debbie Wasserman Schultz making that claim and threatened a floor fight at the convention if he didn’t get his way.  This started setting up a certain general election candidate to say similar things against Clinton.  There were countless examples of these petty, mean-spirited things he did.

And he never reigned in his surrogates until absolutely forced to.  As an example, when Dr. Paul Song called Democrats corporate whores Sanders didn’t have his team yank him off stage and it took more than a day to get Sanders to say anything disavowing this. Meanwhile his supporters started throwing dollar bills at Clinton at a fundraiser and he never disavowed that.

The New York Daily News Editorial Board Meeting

Now we come to one of the most horrible interviews with an editorial board meeting since I was in one for an endorsement from the AZ Republic.  The NYDN meeting with Sanders was horrifying.  He knew nothing.  He remembered nothing.  There were times I was cringing while reading it because I couldn’t believe someone running for President could give these answers.  Hell *I* could answer them better and I don’t know a damn thing about running a country.

They asked him questions directly in his wheelhouse too.  For instance:

Daily News: And then, you further said that you expect to break them up within the first year of your administration. What authority do you have to do that? And how would that work? How would you break up JPMorgan Chase?

Sanders: Well, by the way, the idea of breaking up these banks is not an original idea. It’s an idea that some conservatives have also agreed to.

You’ve got head of, I think it’s, the Kansas City Fed, some pretty conservative guys, who understands. Let’s talk about the merit of the issue, and then talk about how we get there.

Right now, what you have are two factors. We bailed out Wall Street because the banks are too big to fail, correct? It turns out, that three out of the four largest banks are bigger today than they were when we bailed them out, when they were too-big-to-fail. That’s number one.

Number two, if you look at the six largest financial institutions of this country, their assets somewhere around $10 trillion. That is equivalent to 58% of the GDP of America. They issue two-thirds of the credit cards in this country, and about one-third of the mortgages. That is a lot of power.

And I think that if somebody, like if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, he would look at that. Forgetting even the risk element, the bailout element, and just look at the kind of financial power that these guys have, would say that is too much power.

(Clinton’s interview was a lot more detailed but then, this is Hillary Clinton, the woman does her fucking homework which is what I should be doing.)

This is a terrible answer.  He doesn’t talk about where the authority is (which is mostly under Dodd-Frank more details here) He doesn’t talk about the repercussions to the markets, to the local and global banking economy, he doesn’t mention what happens to those people no longer working at JP Morgan Chase.  He doesn’t answer the questions at all because he doesn’t know.

When I brought this up with the one of the few remaining Bernie supporters I could stand, he said was absolutely okay to give these non-answers that showed Sanders has no idea what he is talking about because that’s what staff is for.

I was appalled.  You should know something of what the law can do so you can effectively review what the staff brings you as ideas. You can’t just let them do everything because how do you know that person is giving you useful information or feasible policies?  We see it now with the Trump Administration since none of them know what they are doing besides Elaine Chao and Nikki Haley. (Interesting the only two who are competent are the women.)

The DNC Convention

We come to the end of the race and Sanders refuses to drop out.  Why did he refuse to drop out after he had lost so decisively?   After all he lost it by 12 points, 977 delegates, by open primaries, closed primaries, caucuses and whatever you call Nevada.  But he didn’t drop out until July 12th.   Which is odd since the last primary was June 14th.  He kept going and even kind of promised a floor fight unless he got his way on the platform and other things he wanted.

Yet despite all of the pleading for unity, he didn’t do squat until after a certain press conference that was bizarre in of itself.   A week after that, he endorsed Hillary Clinton tepidly in New Hampshire.   He immediately then went on to work on his book Our Revolution and skipped campaigning for her until the end of August.

To his credit he did a lot of campaigning in places like Wisconsin and Michigan.  But during the DNC convention, he addressed his supporters a single time on their behavior and ignored their repeated efforts to drown out the speakers on every night of the convention.  His facial expressions said it all.  He was miserable to be there and angry he didn’t win.

Sanders v Clinton

After the Election

Since the election, which he immediately blamed on Democrats not paying attention to the white working class despite there being next to no evidence of that being why Clinton lost (racism and sexism explain it and was pretty obvious right from the start), Sanders has returned to being an independent.  As Clinton pointed out in her new book, this isn’t a smear, it is what he says.  He has taken that perch to spend as much time bashing the Democratic Party as he can.  Here, here, here and on and on.

This despite the legislative victories the Dems keep racking up. They stopped the health care bill in the Senate (although zombie like it keeps coming back), they completely won on the most recent budget deal, which isn’t the first time and continue to do as much as they can to stop the Republicans in their tracks for all of the Republican priorities.

As we enter the 2018 election which starts around 01/30/2018, the Democrats are already starting to pick up seats in the state legislatures (these two and then these two) and have been running about 10 points in their favor for most elections.

But Sanders can’t help himself I guess.  When you get lots of love from the media, that’s what you stick to.  His endorsement is the kiss of death (none of the winners were endorsed by him) and his PAC that he started Our Revolution is more focused on scoring cheap political points than winning elections (they have won one seat, the NY seat which while listed on the candidate’s website, she barely mentioned when campaigning.)

Am I being petty? Somewhat but I am deeply angry.  2016 was a terrible year for me in a lot of ways and one of the key ones was the fact that an old man from Vermont did everything he could to make it miserable for those of us ecstatic to finally have our turn as women at the head of the table because he didn’t win.  So I don’t like Sanders.  He had some ideas I agree with (most of which were thought up by Democrats previously-single payer system, college, doubling the minimum wage which was Truman again as well as increasing taxes.)  But his behavior has made me pretty much hate him.  He can go back to being the backbencher he has always been.  I am tired of his shtick.  Tired of the insults, the petty sniping at people trying to stop the Trump Administration and the lack of respect for others.

So that’s why I don’t like Bernie Sanders.  You’re welcome.



No Pardon for Old Men

Sheriff Joe ArpaioAs the second season of Humorless Rants, Elizabeth and Kevin bring you a lively discussion of the week’s events.

They start with a discussion of the DNC lawsuit that recently ended after a year in court. Federal Judge William Zloch dismissed the complaint by Jared and Elizabeth Beck claiming that the DNC had plotted to make Hillary Clinton its presidential nominee. Humorless Rants has been covering this issue since it began. So our intrepid duo have a few thoughts on whether the DNC was really in “cahoots” with the Clinton campaign, and whether Florida judges in red robes should only cry in their chambers.

Joe Arpaio Pardon

Next up, the Ranters take on the pardon of Joe Arpaio. Elizabeth has a long history with the racist, power-abusing sheriff and she gives him a good introduction to his many misdeeds that led to his conviction. But even with the pardon, it isn’t all bad news. Sheriff Paul Penzone, who succeeded Arpaio is cleaning up Arpaio’s mess, including shutting down Tent City.

Both Elizabeth and Kevin also discuss the status of the pardon. You might be surprised to hear that it is not a done deal. But you will have to tune in to find out about it.

Transgender Ban

Although it is on hold for up to a year during which the military will study the issue, Trump is pushing forward with his ban on transgender troops. Elizabeth and Kevin get into the broader issues with regard to this. Many would like to see the military refuse this order at the same time that they realize how dangerous that would be for civilian control of the military. Tune in to hear the discussion.

Season Two, Episode Two: No Pardon for Old Men

Next Week

Be sure to tune in next week for a review of the week’s news. We’ll update this when we know what the Ranters will be talking about.

Image cropped and distorted from Sheriff Joe Arpaio at a rally for Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Season Two, Episode Two: No Pardon For Old Men


It’s time for Kevin and Elizabeth to not stop blathering about legal crap from the dismissal of the DNC lawsuit to the defiance of the military to Cheeto.  They also meander their way through the pardoning of ex-Sheriff now convicted criminal Joe Arpaio.

Books that they mention at the end:

The Big Roads: The Untold Story of the Engineers, Visionaries, and Trailblazers Who Created the American Superhighways

Al Franken, Giant of the Senate



Neoliberal Shills and the Documents That Bind Them

Over on the Twitterverse, there was a bit of a kerfuffle when Professional Troll(TM) Nomiki Konst decided to bring up this chestnut from the long ago days of 1983 when the Democrats were facing their biggest crisis in years as they had lost a lot of elections and were feeling kind of bruised. (Sound familiar?)

She, of course, misrepresented it.

evidence 64

I went ahead and read the manifesto because unlike Konst, I like to know what I am talking about when it comes to critiquing 34 year old policy papers.

Blaming Unions

She first states that he blamed Unions.  Well no. He didn’t.  He did point out a small problem.  Unions weren’t very good about changing to the economic times that changed around them.  On one hand, most of the time the reason that the various different businesses were (or are) having difficulties was because management was pretty freaking stupid.

But on the other hand, sometimes there needs to be some give from the workers so new workers can share in the prosperity and unions don’t always understand this because they are protecting their current workers.  In the article, Charles Peters points this out and offered a solution that is definitely neo-liberal as I understand the term.  Paul Tsongas, a Senator from Massachusetts, came up with a compromise for the Chrysler auto bailout in the 1970s when the workers asked for a pay raise during the negotiations for the bailout.  He disagreed with the notion that they should have an increase when the company was being rescued but he also believed that they shouldn’t suffer if the bailout worked.  So he proposed what became the Lugar-Tsongas bill that gave the workers stock instead of money.  Peters approved of this and recommended it for other situations.

I don’t know if I agree with that.  I get the compromise and why it occurred but stock instead of money?  Seems like deferring the problem down the road while at the same time ignoring the real problem of workers getting the shaft when business leadership fucks up.

Means Testing Social Security

She claims he says that Social Security is wasteful.  That isn’t what he says.  What he does say is that not means testing Social Security is wasteful since people who don’t need the money get money when those who need more (like say my mother) have to make do with less.  Further we could use the extra money elsewhere to help more people.  It is a terrible idea.

While the article I link to gives a lot of discussion of the nuts and bolts as to why it is a terrible idea, my reason to oppose it is simple: it turns a well loved program into a welfare program that opens the door to what happened with Aid to Families With Dependent Children (ADFC/welfare) or what is now Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF or Fuck the Poor.)  TANF is a block program that has the same level of funding as it did in 1997: $16.5 Billion dollars.  Which is why most states have been able to boast their welfare rolls have dropped.  Because there literally is no money for more people to receive assistance. Arizona, for instance, has 10,215 families receiving assistance that they only can get for a year.

I don’t want that to happen to Social Security.  Yes it does seem to be wasteful but if the idea that giving workers an ownership in the company makes it more likely they will work harder for the company…why isn’t the converse true for those who receive funding through Social Security?

Over-reliance on Credentials

I am not sure where she gets the idea that he was declaring a war on public schools.  He does recommend being better able to remove incompetent teachers from schools while broadening the scope of people who can teach from those who have degrees.  Which Arizona recently did. I understand some of what he is saying as a way of getting those who do have the ability and experience in the classroom to teach young miscreants I mean children things that are of value but at the same time, especially now, we don’t need people who have no idea what they are doing with kids to try to handle 40 of them at once to get them ready to navigate a complex shifting sand world.

The Really Offensive Stuff

Weirdly she doesn’t mention his offensive suggestion we return to patronage to handle civil service. We already are seeing what a disaster it is when the person picking people is doing so solely for the fact that they did a favor to him. Without the apolitical civil service corps enduring the incompetence from the top, we would be in a much worse situation with the current disasters all over the country (Harvey, the wildfires, Irma, Trump.)

That is a terrible idea that thankfully has hit the dustbin of history.  I do like his idea to increase public service and have always liked Bill Clinton’s solution of Americorps, it isn’t the same thing.  And even then there were problems like with any program with the Americorps.

There Are Very Few Neoliberals These Days In the Democratic Party

Based on this article, if this is what a neoliberal is, there aren’t many in the Democratic Party.  Most members, and especially elected members, are in favor of the things outlined in the Democratic Party Platform of 2016. Most of the bills being introduced don’t talk about using the free market to the extent this does.  In fact the electeds are going in the opposite direction towards more government control of economic units through heavier regulation and expanded government programs like Medicare Buy In.

That won’t stop the Rose Brigade from accusing their opponents of being neoliberals because those opponents are understanding that getting to something like the Medicare Buy In takes time and winning elections in bulk. It does however give us a reason to point and laugh at them.  Well besides the usual reasons.





Corporate NeoLiberal Shills

NaziSwastika.pngSeason Two of the Humorless Rants Podcast starts with a bang — featuring president of the Center for American Progress, Neera Tanden.

The conversation focused on two issues. The first was the future of the Democratic Party. Tanden noted that many people have written off the party — or at least feel that it needs to make deep changes. Such people think it should do something like the Republican autopsy after its 2012 defeat. Of course, it’s hard to justify that when Hillary Clinton got just under 3 million votes more than Donald Trump. The Democrats only lost the election because the system isn’t democratic.

Tanden noted, “We don’t need to beat ourselves into a pulp about the Democrats being dead.” She added, “I feel very optimistic.” And it’s not hard to see why when all of the indicators point to 2018 being more like 2006 than any other off-year election in recent memory.

The Russian-Trump Connection

The second issue of the podcast was the connection between the Russian government and the Trump presidential campaign. The Center for American progress has released a report, Russiagate: The Depth of Collusion. Tanden didn’t go into great depth about the 14,000 word report. (You should read it yourself!) But she did mention some tantalizing bits like the fact that they have found over 20 contacts between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

Tune in for the whole show to learn more about these issues in addition to insights about Capitol Hill meetings where they serve water and don’t even offer doughnuts.

Season Two, Episode One: Corporate NeoLiberal Shills

Next Week

Join Elizabeth and Kevin next Sunday for a discussion of the DNC lawsuit, disobedience to Trump’s ban on transgender military personnel, and anything else that comes up this week.

Image cropped from Center For American Progress. by Jay Baker at Washington, DC by Maryland GovPics. Licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Season Two, Episode One: Corporate NeoLiberal Shills



Join the Dynamic Trio with their special guest as they talk with the president of the Center for American Progress about Russia, Cheeto, what it is like to be a Corporate Neoliberal Shill Whore and other topics!

CAP’s report: https://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/security/reports/2017/08/02/168240/russiagate-depth-collusion/


Humorless Rants wishes to apologize about the audio. We had a lot of trouble with technical stuff this episode and so we are sorry it isn’t as good as it normally is.

So Trump has pardoned Arpaio: A Lawsplainer

Arpaio-Pardon_77828.jpg-4a3a7 (1)

As you may have heard, Trump issued his first pardon of his presidency to former Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Arpaio was recently convicted in a case involving contempt of a federal court’s order. What does this mean? Why did he do it? Is it legal? Allow me to lawsplain.

What is the presidential pardon power?

The presidential pardon power is granted by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which says:

The President…shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Thus, the presidential pardon power extends only to federal criminal acts, and does not and cannot be used to absolve a person of civil liability or immunize them from prosecution under state law.

But does a criminal contempt conviction qualify as an “offense against the United States?”

It turns out that it’s not entirely clear that a criminal contempt conviction actually qualifies as an “offense against the United States” in this context, since in Arpaio’s case the Government agreed to limit his potential imprisonment if convicted to six months or less, which obviated the need for a jury trial.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ex Parte Grossman, 267 US 27 (1925) ruled that a conviction for criminal contempt of court and sentence of 1 year did qualify as an “offense against the United States,” and upheld President Coolidge’s pardon of a man who was criminally convicted for contempt of a federal court order prohibiting him from selling alcoholic beverages during the prohibition era.

Whether Ex Parte Grossman would have the same effect in the context of Joe Arpaio remains to be seen.

What does the pardon mean?

If it’s upheld by the courts, it means that Arpaio will not see the inside of a prison cell as a result of his conviction. However, the pardon will not absolve him of civil liability, and I would suspect that one or more victims of his contumacious conduct (that is: the brown people he illegally stopped in violation of the court’s injunction) will sue the pants off of him. At least I hope they do.

There is also the little problem that, according to SCOTUS, once Arpaio accepts the pardon, it is likely tantamount to an admission of guilt (although whether a court will construe it as such will depend on the exact wording of the pardon, which hasn’t been publicly released yet). Thus, Arpaio and his lawyers are likely now wrestling with whether to accept the pardon and how to deal with the legal consequences that will result.

Finally, let’s not diminish the fact that this pardon will have tremendous implications for the Arizona GOP in the 2018 elections and possibly beyond.

You Can’t Reason With Nazis

NaziSwastika.pngWith a title like “You Can’t Reason With Nazis,” you would think this podcast would be about the neo-Nazi rally in Charlotteville, VA. But this podcast was recorded before that. It just goes to show, Nazis are always with us — especially when our president is “Donald Trump: Friend of Nazis.”

Kevin and Elizabeth are joined by Jesse Turner.

They start with Noah Berlatsky’s argument against Angela Nagle’s (ridiculous) idea that liberals created the alt-right. As Elizabeth noted, “There’s a reason why we don’t have dialog with Nazis.” This is where Jesse Turner relates to the discussion, since he has studied Nazism in some depth.

What follows is a fascinating look at the actual Nazis and the neo-Nazis that we all have to deal with. Not surprisingly, this gets into Donald Trump and his rhetoric and use of power. What’s most interesting is that things really haven’t changed. The same lies that worked then work today.

Tune in for 50 minutes of the best audio you’ll hear this week. It’s only here that you will learn if it is effective to tell Nazis to check their Aryan privilege.

Episode Sixteen: You Can’t Reason With Nazis

Next Week

Tune in next with for Neera Tanden! Yep, that’s right: Neera Tanden.

The Looming Male

Today an excerpt of Hillary Clinton’s forthcoming book What Happened was released.  The one from the book talks about how Clinton felt as she was on the stage with Cheeto looming over her.  The reaction at the time was mixed-many people noticed how he was trying to intimidate her.  I personally had always wondered if he was going to hit her since she does know how to get under his skin.

It speaks to a lot of women because they remember the same time that a male did that to them.  Stood over them in an attempt to force them to bend to their will.  Men have for centuries used the power of their bodies to make women do as they want rather than what the women want. It is a subtle act of power and control that was for once incredibly obvious.

Yet when Clinton talks about it, it is the same mix of reactions that happened at the time.  She wonders if she should have told him to back off and thinks her failure to do so was a mistake. (Look media, one of those mistakes you insist she admit to in order to appease your abusive view of her!)

I don’t think it was really that much of a mistake.  She was in a damned if you do and damned if you don’t moment.  Do you acknowledge the inappropriate behavior of a male so people assume you are making too much of it?  Because that is the reaction even when the person is watching it happen in front of them. “No, no, he wasn’t trying to intimidate you. You are overreacting.”  If you don’t then people will say “why didn’t you speak up then?”  Which each action comes a cost.

This is one of those where I think she played it right for the time. Now of course she could probably sock him in the nose and everyone would cheer.  But that is because what she said about the racist, sexist, violent, idiotic smeghead has been shown to be true by his having won the middle class white person vote in three key states. Now people get why it was important.