On topic now. I think this belongs here because I'm discussing OWS in the context of the election.

This morning's New York Times reports that the Republican candidates, with the exception (so far) of Romney, are making violent attacks upon our court system, proposing inter alia that we restrict the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction (no gay marriage cases), abolish the 9th Circuit, impose term limits, etc., etc., etc. Another story I saw looking for the link, a new one, says Romney is wavering about a flat tax.

We have, on the right, one of the most determined revolutionary movements in American history, designed to destroy government in America as we know it. It is a completely legal, non-violent movement (although it's taking shameless advantage of campaign financing laws.) It has effectively taken over one political party and it controls one House of Congress. There is an excellent chance that it will control both Houses after the next election and a good chance that it will also secure the White House. (I am inclined to think that even if Romney were elected, he would not significantly stand in its way, although there's a good chance he would add war with Iran to the mix. He is now in bed with the neocons and is the most hawkish Republican candidate on foreign policy.)

On the other side we have OWS, which is, basically, a love in. Delusional Boomer liberals here want you all to believe that that is the real political tidal wave that is going to change the country and sweep all before it. Mike introduced a note of reality above by suggesting that the "meme" of OWS is not going to play a significant role in this 4T. I agree.

If we are going to save government in America, by which I mean state and local (equally under attack) as well as federal, we have to focus on the real threat. (I really feel like a German Social Democrat in 1931 now.) It's Obama or the deluge. Please face it.

Where this Tea Party movement came from and how it got so strong would be debated for decades by historians if historians still cared about such things. (They are more likely to write the history of OWS, particularly if they can find some nonwhitemaleheterosexuals to write about.) It's a very difficult question. I feel I would have part of the key if I could understand why our very own James, who is intelligent and a gentleman, has more sympathy for the Tea Party than for the New Deal system that made his, and my, life possible. I just don't get it.

Originally Posted by James50

Banks are highly regulated and only do what the government let's them do. As you say, it is astonishingly simple. We did not all of a sudden get a new breed of bankers in 2002. It was bi-partisan government policy from start to finish.

James50

Yes we did. It's called the shadow banking system. Outfits like Countrywide went wild, buying politicians as they did so.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I feel I would have part of the key if I could understand why our very own James, who is intelligent and a gentleman, has more sympathy for the Tea Party than for the New Deal system that made his, and my, life possible. I just don't get it.

Where you stand depends on where you sit. I am in the private manufacturing sector. You are in the non-profit/government sector. The government is a bloated behemoth that gets in my way or in my wallet every time I turnaround. It is impossible to keep up with all the new regulations coming out on a monthly basis. I understand that you do not see this or feel its impact. To you the government is the protector and supporter of what keep our society functioning. For me, the government is the entity that keeps me in a constant low level of fear. Mostly all I can do is hope they do not notice me. I hate that feeling.

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

On topic now. I think this belongs here because I'm discussing OWS in the context of the election.

This morning's New York Times reports that the Republican candidates, with the exception (so far) of Romney, are making violent attacks upon our court system, proposing inter alia that we restrict the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction (no gay marriage cases), abolish the 9th Circuit, impose term limits, etc., etc., etc. Another story I saw looking for the link, a new one, says Romney is wavering about a flat tax.

We have, on the right, one of the most determined revolutionary movements in American history, designed to destroy government in America as we know it. It is a completely legal, non-violent movement (although it's taking shameless advantage of campaign financing laws.) It has effectively taken over one political party and it controls one House of Congress. There is an excellent chance that it will control both Houses after the next election and a good chance that it will also secure the White House. (I am inclined to think that even if Romney were elected, he would not significantly stand in its way, although there's a good chance he would add war with Iran to the mix. He is now in bed with the neocons and is the most hawkish Republican candidate on foreign policy.)

On the other side we have OWS, which is, basically, a love in. Delusional Boomer liberals here want you all to believe that that is the real political tidal wave that is going to change the country and sweep all before it. Mike introduced a note of reality above by suggesting that the "meme" of OWS is not going to play a significant role in this 4T. I agree.

If we are going to save government in America, by which I mean state and local (equally under attack) as well as federal, we have to focus on the real threat. (I really feel like a German Social Democrat in 1931 now.) It's Obama or the deluge. Please face it.

Where this Tea Party movement came from and how it got so strong would be debated for decades by historians if historians still cared about such things. (They are more likely to write the history of OWS, particularly if they can find some nonwhitemaleheterosexuals to write about.) It's a very difficult question. I feel I would have part of the key if I could understand why our very own James, who is intelligent and a gentleman, has more sympathy for the Tea Party than for the New Deal system that made his, and my, life possible. I just don't get it.

You got it backwards, David. OWS is the true revolutionary movement while the TP in it's current form is pure AstroTurf.

Originally Posted by Odin

You got it backwards, David. OWS is the true revolutionary movement while the TP in it's current form is pure AstroTurf.

Well, I have been accused of willful blindness this morning. I may as well return the favor.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

As a further followup on this topic, its interesting to see the role of Fannie and Freddie in the creation of the 30 year mortgage.


here.

So first we offer the subsidy of the mortgage interest and property tax deduction, then we offer the subsidy of assuming the risk of all interest rate changes over a thirty year period. Then when the resulting credit bubble blows up, the left looks the other way and says its all the fault of the bankers. Its really more like the government left a pile of $100 bills sitting on the sidewalk and then wants to criticize the bankers who decided to pick them up. The denial of this is what is ridiculous.

James50

James, this is beginning to move out of the realm of ignorance to something else.

The 30-yr mortgage was established in the Great Depression to bring stability to the market - that was 80 years ago. Are we to believe that putting 10s of millions of people in home ownership over a period of several decades of wars, recessions, great migrations, enormous technology, economic and social changes and relatively calm issues regarding home owners' ability to pay for 75 years, that the then last 4-5 years of upheaval is a result of the 30-yr mortgage suddenly becoming a problem?

You need to get your head screwed on straight and deal with your overly-selective memory of events of the last several years.

And just to note - by far, most economists believe we will never return to a robust economy until the housing sector recovers fully. Currently, the little housing sector activity that is underway is a result that Freddie and Fannie wind up owning all new mortgages and refi's.

Originally Posted by playwrite

James, this is beginning to move out of the realm of ignorance to something else.

Yes, some have called it willful blindness. History will no doubt decide who was blind and why.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

The bubble was cause by cheap credit provided by Freddie and Fannie. Without that, none of it happens. I am amazed that you and David deny this.

We are in a similar government provided credit bubble in higher education right now.

James50

Just for fun, tell me how an effect can predate a cause - to whit:



Notice the level of private mortgage activity leading-up to the crash, followed in the latter stages by Fannie and Freddie, both of which were being frozen out of the market. You can also look at the mortgages being offered at the time, and the scumbag mortgages were overwhelmingly offered by the conventional market, blended into baskets of loans, sliced into tranches and sold as AAA inventments. Fannie and Freddie bought a lot of this crap near the end of the run, but they can't be blamed for creating or, even worse, validating it.

The entire report that contained this chart is HERE.

Originally Posted by James50

You are right about one thing. Its not a mystery. But 71% is the right number. Facts are pesky little things.

James50

Gawd, I hate it when people with obviously at least half-a-brain don't bother to check their bumper-sticker "facts" even when the truth is spoon fed to them.

Did you even bother to look at this -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...889#post377889

- that clearly provides the data that shows that your 71% is based on a study by Pinto at the right wing nut American Enterprise Institute that has been shown to not only be a lie, but a zombie lie - one that keeps getting up no matter how many times it is clearly shot in the head.

What keeps these zombie lies coming back is people like you that try to come off as moderate thoughtful open-minded thinkers but in reality buy into these bumper-sticker memes without a second of independent thought because they align with your locked-in-concrete ideology. You think that you care about your country and want what is best, but the real extent of your devotion is proven to be pretty damn minimal by the laziness of not taking a second to click the mouse and a minute to read any analysis beyond the screech of "F/F did it!" Pathetic.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Pathetic.

From my POV, the lack of drill-down is wide-spread. I believed we already discussed that Fannie Mae(as originally designed) was a relatively quaranteened-entity. What it became was not so. It provided a very dangerous model that was emulated by the Private Sector. Instead of looking at the actual affect that the FINOs(Financials in name only) had on "The System", maybe "Who allowed that and for what reasons" might be a better path to follow if one is sincerely interested in an assessment.

You appear to have an agenda, PW. A Second Bill of Rights, maybe?

Prince

PS: James > Playwrite, IMHO of course.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

On topic now. I think this belongs here because I'm discussing OWS in the context of the election.

This morning's New York Times reports that the Republican candidates, with the exception (so far) of Romney, are making violent attacks upon our court system, proposing inter alia that we restrict the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction (no gay marriage cases), abolish the 9th Circuit, impose term limits, etc., etc., etc. Another story I saw looking for the link, a new one, says Romney is wavering about a flat tax.

We have, on the right, one of the most determined revolutionary movements in American history, designed to destroy government in America as we know it. It is a completely legal, non-violent movement (although it's taking shameless advantage of campaign financing laws.) It has effectively taken over one political party and it controls one House of Congress. There is an excellent chance that it will control both Houses after the next election and a good chance that it will also secure the White House. (I am inclined to think that even if Romney were elected, he would not significantly stand in its way, although there's a good chance he would add war with Iran to the mix. He is now in bed with the neocons and is the most hawkish Republican candidate on foreign policy.)

On the other side we have OWS, which is, basically, a love in. Delusional Boomer liberals here want you all to believe that that is the real political tidal wave that is going to change the country and sweep all before it. Mike introduced a note of reality above by suggesting that the "meme" of OWS is not going to play a significant role in this 4T. I agree.

If we are going to save government in America, by which I mean state and local (equally under attack) as well as federal, we have to focus on the real threat. (I really feel like a German Social Democrat in 1931 now.) It's Obama or the deluge. Please face it.

Where this Tea Party movement came from and how it got so strong would be debated for decades by historians if historians still cared about such things. (They are more likely to write the history of OWS, particularly if they can find some nonwhitemaleheterosexuals to write about.) It's a very difficult question. I feel I would have part of the key if I could understand why our very own James, who is intelligent and a gentleman, has more sympathy for the Tea Party than for the New Deal system that made his, and my, life possible. I just don't get it.

I agree with some of this particularly the implied fear behind it all. However, I think you dismiss too early what OWS has done.

I posted earlier, as an indicator, the number of times words associated with federal deficit/debt versus those associated with unemployment/jobs were used on the main TV news outlets. It was overwhelmingly on federal debt back in July but is now overwhelmingly on jobs. Surely that is because of the debt ceiling 'crisis' during the summer and now the OWS in the Fall. The real "tell" will be what happens now as the "deficit super-committee" reports out or misses its deadline. If there is even just a reported clash between jobs and deficit, it will be because of OWS, for that was certainly missing or at best an afterthought back in July.

That shift in the ether is at least a start that could impact the eventual outcome of the budget/deficit policies for the coming year and then feed into the 2012 elections. I don't think there are two divergent paths of OWS and non-OWS; rather, OWS is a marker along the way, more or less as will be the 2012 elections.

Originally Posted by Odin

You got it backwards, David. OWS is the true revolutionary movement while the TP in it's current form is pure AstroTurf.

This is the part that baffles me. Why is it that people can readily accept the notion that the Tea Party movement can or has made an impact, but think that OWS is a frivolous exercise? Maybe someone out there can explain this rationale to me. It's kind of like saying vanilla ice cream is ice cream, but chocolate or strawberry ice cream aren't. Those flavors are just cheese.

Because I'm really not seeing the difference here. If a group of people can rally around one message, why can't a group of people rally around another and their voices be just as strong?

Originally Posted by ASB65

This is the part that baffles me. Why is it that people can readily accept the notion that the Tea Party movement can or has made an impact, but think that OWS is a frivolous exercise? Maybe someone out there can explain this rationale to me. It's kind of like saying vanilla ice cream is ice cream, but chocolate or strawberry ice cream aren't. Those flavors are just cheese.

Because I'm really not seeing the difference here. If a group of people can rally around one message, why can't a group of people rally around another and their voices be just as strong?

Well, with respect to election cycles, OWS is about 6 months behind the Tea Party, which first got onto the radar in the spring of 2009. By November 2010 it had a massive electoral impact. I will be very surprised if OWS has a comparable electoral impact in 2012. Surprised, but delighted.

[QUOTE=ASB65;401446]This is the part that baffles me. Why is it that people can readily accept the notion that the Tea Party movement can or has made an impact, but think that OWS is a frivolous exercise? Maybe someone out there can explain this rationale to me. It's kind of like saying vanilla ice cream is ice cream, but chocolate or strawberry ice cream aren't. Those flavors are just cheese.

Because I'm really not seeing the difference here. If a group of people can rally around one message, why can't a group of people rally around another and their voices be just as strong?[/QUOTE

I don't know that I have specific, quantifiable rationale, but the Tea Party movement did, rather early on, have both the ears and voices of some conservative television commentators which, therefore, gave the Tea Party both an audience and thus subsequent access to the political party system.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Well, with respect to election cycles, OWS is about 6 months behind the Tea Party, which first got onto the radar in the spring of 2009. By November 2010 it had a massive electoral impact. I will be very surprised if OWS has a comparable electoral impact in 2012. Surprised, but delighted.

This sort of thing is a perfect example of in-the-box thinking, in this case, partisan in-the-box thinking. It's as if what David believes is that the only possible point to Occupy is to help elect Democrats and defeat Republicans.

The only reason to elect Democrats and defeat Republicans is damage control. It's worth doing, but we aren't going to win that way, just avoid the worse consequences of losing. If we want to actually win -- create a First Turning we can be happy with -- then we have to put things on the discussion table that are currently off of them. Electing Democrats as they are now won't do it, and it's unlikely we'll be able to change the party sufficiently by next year. That means that next year's election is of only marginal importance.

The important election is 2016, not 2012.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

From my POV, the lack of drill-down is wide-spread. I believed we already discussed that Fannie Mae(as originally designed) was a relatively quaranteened-entity. What it became was not so. It provided a very dangerous model that was emulated by the Private Sector. Instead of looking at the actual affect that the FINOs(Financials in name only) had on "The System", maybe "Who allowed that and for what reasons" might be a better path to follow if one is sincerely interested in an assessment.

I'm not excusing Fannie/Freddie. The primary reason they lost market share, and therefore the primary blame for the sub-prime shenanigans, is that they previously had their wings clipped hard as a result of the accounting scandals of 2004. However, lets not forget that these GSEs were turned into private corporations, as driven by "stockholder value" as any other listing on NYSE, and that nearly all the evils that emerged from them came from that corporation aspect of their business model. They have since been returned to solely federal government entities that can't avail themselves of corporation bullshit; they are currently the only thing underpinning any housing sector activity, and at some point will likely be a 'profitable' segment of federal operations. It is that latter attribute that has the wing nuts trying to destroy it ala Obamacare. If Obama gets elected in 2012, it is game over for the t-baggers as these govt programs prove out to be integral to our economy's well being, i.e. we'll have t-tards at town halls with signs of "Hands-off my Fannie" along with the ones with "Keep govt socialism out of my Obamacare." People like the Koch brothers know this and are fighting it with everything they got

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

You appear to have an agenda, PW. A Second Bill of Rights, maybe?

Yes, and mostly for economic reasons. Given what automation is doing to jobs, this is the only viable way to keep any semblance of what was the American Dream.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This sort of thing is a perfect example of in-the-box thinking, in this case, partisan in-the-box thinking. It's as if what David believes is that the only possible point to Occupy is to help elect Democrats and defeat Republicans.

The only reason to elect Democrats and defeat Republicans is damage control. It's worth doing, but we aren't going to win that way, just avoid the worse consequences of losing. If we want to actually win -- create a First Turning we can be happy with -- then we have to put things on the discussion table that are currently off of them. Electing Democrats as they are now won't do it, and it's unlikely we'll be able to change the party sufficiently by next year. That means that next year's election is of only marginal importance.

The important election is 2016, not 2012.

Bingo.


...........................

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Well, with respect to election cycles, OWS is about 6 months behind the Tea Party, which first got onto the radar in the spring of 2009. By November 2010 it had a massive electoral impact. I will be very surprised if OWS has a comparable electoral impact in 2012. Surprised, but delighted.

I'm really looking more towards the 2014 mid-term elections before we really see any impact from the OWS as far getting different candidates in congress. Although I do think there just might be a few independent, progressive candidates that will arise in senate and house races and they may just have a good chance of winning. However, I do think OWS will change some of the narrative of this upcoming election. It's already starting to. But neither of the candidates (Obama or Romney) can really take on the mantle of this movement and claim it as their own. They are both too heavily invested in Wall Street and their corporate donors to be seen as authentic. We will probably have to wait until the 2016 presidential election before we see a strong progressive, populist candidate for presidency.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The important election is 2016, not 2012.

On the other hand, maybe 2012 will give us a Brüning administration and we'll move the 2016 election up a few years.... particularly if there is a fire.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This sort of thing is a perfect example of in-the-box thinking, in this case, partisan in-the-box thinking. It's as if what David believes is that the only possible point to Occupy is to help elect Democrats and defeat Republicans.

The only reason to elect Democrats and defeat Republicans is damage control. It's worth doing, but we aren't going to win that way, just avoid the worse consequences of losing. If we want to actually win -- create a First Turning we can be happy with -- then we have to put things on the discussion table that are currently off of them. Electing Democrats as they are now won't do it, and it's unlikely we'll be able to change the party sufficiently by next year. That means that next year's election is of only marginal importance.

The important election is 2016, not 2012.

Yep, I think so. Both the GOP and most Democrats are steering us toward plutocracy and corporate dominance. The Democrats are doing it more slowly, though, so that when 2016 comes we may not have already plunged past the point of no return.

James,

Yes facts are a pesky thing. My link links to othr links that back it up.
And the fact is that you used this sophist who while he had been a part of Fannie Mae in the 80's, indeed, the credit on his pie chart proudly says so-- without mentioning that it was over 20 years ago, has provided no way to verify his work. One can not verify his claim.

Yes facts are a very pesky thing.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

On topic now. I think this belongs here because I'm discussing OWS in the context of the election.

This morning's New York Times reports that the Republican candidates, with the exception (so far) of Romney, are making violent attacks upon our court system, proposing inter alia that we restrict the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction (no gay marriage cases), abolish the 9th Circuit, impose term limits, etc., etc., etc. Another story I saw looking for the link, a new one, says Romney is wavering about a flat tax.

Worth remembering: any challenger has every advantage in the polls a year before the election. Challengers have no duty to implement public policy or go through the nasty business of budgeting. Challengers can carp all that they wish about the incumbent and can make contradictory promises and nitpick at any decision of foreign policy and get away with it. The incumbent as a rule will have a record to run on an win or run from and lose. Maybe if a challenger is on the lunatic fringe she (two such imaginable candidates are female) can discredit herself quickly.

We have, on the right, one of the most determined revolutionary movements in American history, designed to destroy government in America as we know it. It is a completely legal, non-violent movement (although it's taking shameless advantage of campaign financing laws.) It has effectively taken over one political party and it controls one House of Congress. There is an excellent chance that it will control both Houses after the next election and a good chance that it will also secure the White House. (I am inclined to think that even if Romney were elected, he would not significantly stand in its way, although there's a good chance he would add war with Iran to the mix. He is now in bed with the neocons and is the most hawkish Republican candidate on foreign policy.)

The Republican Party is no longer a democratic party; although it allows some internal competition the policies are set. Think of the national Fascist Party of Italy (1922-1945) or the SED of the former East Germany. It represents the Religious Right, the neocons who want wars for profit (and consolidation of international markets and secure supplies), and people who want the government to represent nothing more than asset ownership and bureaucratic power (within corporations, that is). We know how it operates in Congress; its first objective is to gain power, and its second objective is to destroy whatever ability anyone has to contest its policies.

On the other side we have OWS, which is, basically, a love in. Delusional Boomer liberals here want you all to believe that that is the real political tidal wave that is going to change the country and sweep all before it. Mike introduced a note of reality above by suggesting that the "meme" of OWS is not going to play a significant role in this 4T. I agree.

It is hard to determine who is delusional in mad times. These are certainly the maddest times in American history since the Civil War.

If we are going to save government in America, by which I mean state and local (equally under attack) as well as federal, we have to focus on the real threat. (I really feel like a German Social Democrat in 1931 now.) It's Obama or the deluge. Please face it.

I fully concur on that. But if the Republicans gain control of the Senate and hold onto the House, then President Obama is irrelevant and might as well resign. It can be President Obama and the deluge as the GOP takes America into economic inequality far worse than the nasty level that we now have, provokes wars for resources and control of markets, imposes superstition as education, and turns upon anyone likely to "vote wrong". America can begin to resemble the sorts of countries that some of our ancestors fled. In my case the only 'country' to avoid is Northern Ireland.

I'd like to believe that President Obama is playing a sophisticated game of chess against neophytes who insist that they can win by having a queen up their sleeves as if they were cheating at cards with cards hidden up their sleeves. What I'd like to believe might not be reality.

Face it -- and we might as well all say it -- that if you are an American liberal you have far more in common with an Iranian liberal than with an American fascist. Some of us might have cute names for Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, and Dick Armey, some of the engineers of the Hard Right... but it will be safer to recite those in a place like Russia than a place allied to the US... not that Russia is a free country. How much we will envy the Swedes, Finns, Swiss, and Austrians! (Maybe NATO would break up if the USA were to become the Evil Empire).

Where this Tea Party movement came from and how it got so strong would be debated for decades by historians if historians still cared about such things. (They are more likely to write the history of OWS, particularly if they can find some nonwhitemaleheterosexuals to write about.) It's a very difficult question.

Millions of Americans fell asleep during their civics and American history classes in high school. We stand to get some harsh lessons as OJT... and we won't be able to sleep through those lessons. Exchanging a false consciousness (FoX Propaganda Channel, Rush Limbaugh) for an objective world view is never easy. OWS is much more knowledgeable about economics and politics than is the Tea Party.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I'm really looking more towards the 2014 mid-term elections before we really see any impact from the OWS as far getting different candidates in congress. Although I do think there just might be a few independent, progressive candidates that will arise in senate and house races and they may just have a good chance of winning. However, I do think OWS will change some of the narrative of this upcoming election. It's already starting to. But neither of the candidates (Obama or Romney) can really take on the mantle of this movement and claim it as their own. They are both too heavily invested in Wall Street and their corporate donors to be seen as authentic. We will probably have to wait until the 2016 presidential election before we see a strong progressive, populist candidate for presidency.

The Senate offers no reasonable prospect for significant Democratic gains until at least 2016 when several of the Republicans elected in 2010 in states best described as liberal to moderate come up for re-election. Those anomalous Republicans (Ayotte in New Hampshire, Toomey in Pennsylvania, Rubio in Florida, Kirk in Illinois, Johnson in Wisconsin, maybe Paul in Kentucky) will then be up for re-election and are likely to be vulnerable. In advanced age, John McCain and Chuck Grassley will be vulnerable. Until then the Democrats have more potential losses in the Senate in 2012 and 2014 because they have more incumbents to defend.

That of course is moot if the Republicans are able to so tamper with the electoral process that huge numbers of voters are culled from the polls for poverty or not being property owners or that employers get control of workers' votes. If that happens, then American democracy is dead.

Originally Posted by Odin

I've been saying this for a while. This is why the Independent = Centrist meme needs to die a horrible death.

For years, I've responded to questions about my political alignemnt by saying I'm too liberal to be a Democrat. Even though I'm serious, it always gets laughs. Lately, a few people I would categorize as politically disengaged have begun to understand that yes, the Democrats aren't the liberal party any more. Once they figure that out for themselves, the Socialist/Marxist prattle from the right becomes a form of humor. Eventually it stops being funny, and just gets on their nerves.

I'm counting on that.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

For years, I've responded to questions about my political alignemnt by saying I'm too liberal to be a Democrat. Even though I'm serious, it always gets laughs. Lately, a few people I would categorize as politically disengaged have begun to understand that yes, the Democrats aren't the liberal party any more. Once they figure that out for themselves, the Socialist/Marxist prattle from the right becomes a form of humor. Eventually it stops being funny, and just gets on their nerves.

I'm counting on that.

It gets on my nerves.