I hate having to repost this but there's a reason. If you watch the GOP rally's lately, they are becoming filled with hate, with near-violence, with hyperbole calling Obama as terrorist. McCain isn't my candidate, but that's it---I may not agree with him, but I know he's no terrorist; I know he's not evil. But the GOP is now explicitly calling up it's more violent, racist base in its desperate attempt to claw its way back to the top.
A lot of folks around here like primates. In fact, all of the bloggers around here are primates. So a number of us are pretty riled up about a recent story out of Georgia (although I don't advocate another apocalyptic March to the Sea). There is another poll to crash with the linked story, so go have at it.
In a similar vein, I posted a piece on my old blog a little while back about an article that wasn't written by an ignorant redneck, but by a writer for a prominent conservative news outlet. What follows is the repost.
I don't usually blog on politics. It's just not my thing. Not that I don't have opinions---I just save the research and writing for my own specialty. But this went so far over the line that I can't leave it alone. I'll give you the specifics, but this vicious attack on Obama's parentage is belongs at a Klan rally rather than a respected (by some) national publication. Let me show you.
[A]ll of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics... Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics.
So, by generalizing your limited experience, it is clear that all mixed race couples came together through communist mentors. Care to offer up some actual data? Of course not. It's too absurd.
I don't know how Barak Obama's parents met. But the Kincaid article referenced above makes a very convincing case that Obama's family, later, (mid 1970s) in Hawaii, had close relations with a known black Communist intellectual... it's an open question what it means practically to have been politically mentored by an official Communist. (emphasis mine)
Exactly the point...you don't know how they met, and yet you are willing to (literally) tar him with your racist brush. And, yes, despite your protestations below, it is racist. I'll explain in a bit. And of course, since his parents knew a communist, Obama is a communist. Is that the transitive theory of communism? Is it the Lamarckian communist theory? How does that work? Has Obama written, said, or otherwise proposed centralized ownership of the means of production? DO YOU HAVE ANY DATA TO BACK UP YOUR RIDICULOUS ASSERTIONS???
Political correctness was invented precisely to prevent the mainstream liberal media from persuing the questions which might arise about how Senator Obama's mother, from Kansas, came to marry an African graduate student. Love? Sure, why not? But what else was going on around them that made it feasible? Before readers level cheap accusations of racism -- let's recall that the very question of interracial marriage only became a big issue later in the 1960s.
P.C. was invented to keep people from asking about interracial couples' private business? How...far-sighted of them, whomever "they" may be. Racism isn't a "cheap accusation". You have taken an individual and made certain very offensive and harmful assumptions about the person based on senseless generalizations, and published them in order to cause him harm. You just can't get anymore racist without a hood and a noose.
It was, of course, an explicit tactic of the Communist party to stir up discontent among American blacks, with an eye toward using them as the leading edge of the revolution. To be sure, there was much to be discontented about, for black Americans, prior to the civil-rights revolution. To their credit, of course, most black Americans didn't buy the commie line -- and showed more faith in the possibilities of democratic change than in radical politics, and the results on display in Moscow. Time for some investigative journalism about the Obama family's background, now that his chances of being president have increased so much.
And to cap it off, an invitation for the rest of America's racists to jump on her Klandwagon.
This is easily the most offensive piece of "mainstream" journalism that I've seen in years. I'm hoping it is a measure of how desperate those on the far right are as their ideas have bankrupted the country, morally and financially, over the last 7 years. Lisa Schiffren should be ashamed. But of course, she has no shame.
- Log in to post comments
Ugh. And it is only the beginning. He isn't even the nominee yet.
More sickening than this garbage, is the fact that this garbage is effective at changing the minds of many American voters.
Let me see now. Obama is:
1. A blind follower of a rabid Christian minister
2. A Muslim
3. A godless Communist.
Boy, talk about multitasking.
P.C. was invented to keep people from asking about interracial couples' private business?
You have misread the article's clear statement:
Political correctness was invented precisely to prevent the mainstream liberal media from persuing the questions which might arise about how Senator Obama's mother, from Kansas, came to marry an African graduate student.
PC was invented to prevent questions about one single interracial couple, in an example of extreme foresight on the part of the International IslamoFascioCommunist Conspiracy.
A very brave post - there is no shortage of people producing racist attacks, but this is the only one I have seen to do so directly. All the others I have seen are indirect attacks, either of the 'His name is Hussain Osama, he must be a muslim!' variety, or the 'He is a black supremecist!' variety. This one is very direct, he just directly makes a racist attack: 'All interracial couples are communists.'
Lisa Schiffren is a piece of work. She helped found a conservative issues advocacy group called Softer Minds...er...sorry, Softer Voices. When all of this is done, at least we're going to have a better idea about how prevalent and dangerous bigotry still is in America.
I don't get the Klan connection. I see that he/she/it is being racist to some extent, but I don't see the connection to cross-burning, lynching white-hooded supremacists. This person is more worried about Obama being communist than being black. It is a common tactic of the right wing to play the communist card and this is more of an attempt to associate Obama with Communists.
As for how black men and white women (or vica versa) got together back in the 50's and 60's? High School proms? Local soda shops? NOT!
If schools and communities were integrated back then, the civil rights era never would have happened.
College, jazz and politics is how young people of different races mostly met. And maybe in mixed churches. I went to high school from '54 to '59. One of my friends was mixed race. She had a hell of a time and, no, I have no idea how her parents met. Never thought to ask her. She had enough problems figuring out who she was in addition to all the usual adolescent problems.
Since I can't quote peer-reviewed studies of how mixed couples met back in the 50's and 60's, you will undoubtedly ignore my "deduction". But, let me ask you, was it ever PC to do such research and do such studies actually exist?
"But, let me ask you,...."
How about doing your own search? You probably have more time on your hands than PalMD.
For what it's worth, here's one Brit's prediction. Whoevever wins the presidency will start his/her term by making a fine speech about the USA being the great not-exactly-white-maybe-sorta-beige hope for the future of humanity. Humanity will not be impressed.
I am not sure why anyone would be "riled up" over the curious George caricature. Obama does in fact bare an uncanny resemblance as does GW Bush (or "Chimpy" as some moonbats refer to him). The Bush - Chimp thing has been done to death over the last eight years so its a little amusing when someone suddenly cries foul now that a lefty gets it.
I don't know whether you are kidding or not, SomeGuy, but obviously (or it should be obvious) comparing a black man to a monkey is never innocent in this culture. The argument has a rather denialist tint to it.
Oh Baloney, that's just irrational guilt and PC jitteriness speaking. You shouldn't treat people differently depending on the color of their skin. But I am probably just a denier.
Well, yeah, actually. People in the U.S. are treated differently based on color, whether they should be or not, and bringing up classic racist memes is itself racist. To deny that it is is kinda nuts. I mean, what if the shirt had a burning cross on it? It really isn't that different...the monkey/black comparison has always been a classic dehumanization tactic, and dehumanization leads fairly directly to disinhibition of violence.
I don't know about the US, but in the UK it is quite common for white racists to make monkey noises at black people (mostly black soccer players on the opposing team). The stereotype is so ingrained that I was aghast when I saw the T-shirt
When Bush is compared to a chimp, this is an insult against his intelligence. People can argue over how accurate it is, but his intelligence is still important to his presidential qualifications.
When Obama is compared to a monkey, the first explanation that comes to mind is an insult against his race. Completly different. If the shirt-designer wishes to insult his inteligence they should use an image that cannot be misinterpreted - perhaps Obama in a dunce-hat.
I agree with Oldfart to some extend - the main thrust of the attack is the claim that Obama is a communist. The racist part is the justification for this: The only justification the writer has for his claim is his unfounded belief that all mixed-race couples are communists.
I did not expect PalMD to do any research at all. However, one of you might have known of such studies. I would have been interested in reading them had I access. Anything that describes "my" time would have been interesting to me. But, as I have suggested, getting funding for non-PC studies is difficult. A little bit like getting funding for a study of people who enjoyed incestual relationships, don'tcha think?
Check this out: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/05/14/bojorquez.obama.ts…
No one can really understand Obama's agenda. Except for his platform indicated in his blog, you can observe the following:
1. Greater government control.
2. His speech against negligent black fathers is indication that he will dictate way of life and behavior.
3. Anti-war rhetorics makes his way to being Senator. Go to website of Communist Party of USA and Democratic Socialists of America: COMMUNISTS MEANS ANTI-WAR. They are for appeasement. Logic? Communism and socialism nowadays believe in one global government who can ration benefits and costs among sub-governments. They also think that the same will address terrorism and hate against America. Like the successful France (but I doubt). DNC Howard Dean hosted the feast of Socialists in their visit in Washington with a 'progressive politics" theme. Progressive = socialism, that their parlance. Check the facts if Party of European Socialists Rasmussen met with Dean in 2006.
4. Labor unionism as the solution for labor rights.
5. Equality of Gender/Race/Sexual Orientation. That's why 80% of gays and lesbians are rallying behind him.
6. Racial radicalism. That's why you have Black liberalism and Arab liberalism and Jewish liberalims (like Khalidi's AAAN). Christian liberalism is not successful to the white... only to the blacks like TUCC.
7. Collectivism is the major strategy of communists and socialists, against individualism.
8. Anti corporation.
Why all of the following are rallying behind him?
CODEPINK
MOVEON
AFL-CIO
Working Families
Communist Party of USA
Democratic Socialists of America
Progressive Alliance
Rainbow/PUSH
Black radical groups (so many of them)
ACORN
All NGOs of UNs, which are socialists in nature. (UN is the major proponent of socialism)
Why are they clinging to Obama? In 1996 Obama won in Illinois seat because of endorsement of Chicago Democratic Socialists of America and all the socialists in Hyde Park.
Are you wondering why a self-proclaimed socialist Sanders really loves Obama?
Not a problem, because 40% of America is now really socialists, especially the MSM. They believe that the best way to gain good mass appeal to Europeans including socialists France and Germany is to be a socialist too.
Now, if you focused your study in Medicine, try to take POLITICS 101 before coming to election by November.
seeker:
I'm not sure I ever understood the kneejerk hatred of socialism as a concept.
as to why those groups rallied behind him, a reasonable suggestion might be that there was room, given the absence of:
Halliburton,
Carlyle,
Blackwater,
ExxonMobil,
KBR,
etc.etc.
but as far as the particular points,
1. of what?
2. dictate or encourage?
3. what is wrong with 'anti-war'?
4. have you an alternative? the current system (or lack thereof) is working so well.
5. and this is a problem? why?
6. define liberal... in the famous phrase, "I do not think that word means what you think it means..." at least not the same thing for all 4 time you used it there...
7. I think you are over conflating communism and socialism. but in either case I think it is 'in addition to' not 'against'
8. not 'anti' but 'regulated'
oops, have I been feeding a troll?
seeker -
Maybe because he's got a good platform, you racist sexist gun-toting plutocratic homophobic asshole.
I am wondering why this post from waaay back in May is reappearing on the 12th of October?
llewelly:
Because PalMD wanted to repost it, because it was relevant in light of the recent blatant racism on the parts of many McCain supporters. Barack Obama is a mixed-race politician with a funny-sounding name, and as such embodies two of the biggest bogeymen of the right -- uppity minorities and furriners. Why write something more on it when he thinks he covered everything important the first time around?
The Bush-Chimp meme is traceable to criticisms of his intelligence.
At what point in the allegations of elitism and multi-tasking Manchurian candidate/Terrorist sympathy has Obama been criticized for being dumb as an ape? Oh that's right, never.
Let me see now. Obama is:
1. A blind follower of a rabid Christian minister
2. A Muslim
3. A godless Communist.
You forgot, he was also, at age 6, a full-on participant in the Weathermen.
...sigh...
"To their credit, of course, most black Americans didn't buy the commie line -- and showed more faith in the possibilities of democratic change than in radical politics, and the results on display in Moscow. "
Putting the rest of the tripe aside for a moment, this gem made me boggle a bit. Is this loony actually holding up modern day Russia as some sort of democratic ideal? That modern day Russian politics are something to be aimed for?!
I would ask if they've been paying attention at all, but I know the answer to that is a resounding "no".
It is funny how things turn around though. Now the US is nationalising banks (socialists! OMG!!) and involved in a war in Afghanistan, whilst Russia are doing the crazy capitalist thing and conservatives are pointing to her as a paragon of democracy.
The world has officially gone completely bat-shit crazy.
Since I'm in love with Obama, my instinct is to defend him. But most defenses are missing the point.
As a Jewish white woman who dates a highly educated black man, and who's social circles have previously included known communists (Hey! I "pall around with terrorists" and so did George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin!)... I'm kind of offended people defend Obama by saying "he was not the product of such a union".
It's a bit like John McCain "defending" Obama by saying "No, he's not an Arab. He's a good family man"... cause good family men can't be Arabs?
Uh, I like your blog and pro-science activism, but it's just not very rational or level-headed to view the source article as racist, unless by defining "racism" you mean someone who discerns that people have differing skin colors. I see nothing in the article that indicates that Obama is not a good choice of a leader because of his race.
Is it racist to believe that all American Blacks were communist? Yes. Does she do that? No. As you quoted, "To their credit, of course, most black Americans didn't buy the commie line � and showed more faith in the possibilities of democratic change than in radical politics, and the results on display in Moscow."
Is it racist to believe that often the uniting factor in mixed marriages in the 50's and early 60's was Communism (with a big C)? Maybe, but she cites specific evidence from her youth that all such marriages resulting in children (granted, in a specific geolocale) were "highly educated". It seems to me that even a closet racist wouldn't be able to admit that Blacks**, especially in the 50's, could be so highly educated.
** (I use the term "Blacks" as a Cultural-Racial identity, given that Obama's father was not American, and because the author is clearly not pointing out Africans or Kenyans.)
She links Communism with "highly educated" Blacks. Is that racist? Yes, possibly. I suppose the thinking is: if Blacks are inferior, then they are likely to succumb to immoral, impractical ideologies such as Communism. Similarly for the White partners: they must be of a 'lower stock' to associate with Communism, much less with a Black man. If you can adequately support this idea was her intent, then I agree with you.
However, (1) she's making this link because the article she refers to has already established Obama's childhood ties to a Communist intellectual, who was also black. Further (2) she notes that the Communist-Black link was neither merely circumstantial nor the result of some inferiority, but through "an explicit tactic of the Communist party to stir up discontent among American blacks, with an eye toward using them as the leading edge of the revolution." Whether her point here is valid or not, she's clearly substantiating her position coming not from racism, but from socio-political trends of the 50's and 60's.
Finally, I propose to you that while many Americans may continue to have racial prejudices, many more Americans are much more afraid of our country being led by a Communist ideologue. It may be sufficient evidence to note that while conservatives were quite fearful of a Hillary Clinton presidency (she being known as far more liberal than her centrist husband), they are quite amicable toward Sarah Palin, a gun-toting conservative.
That point is rather racist, though. It was a common claim from the turn of the century through the late sixties that any civil rights activism on the part of blacks was due to Communists "stir[ring] up discontent". The underlying message was that blacks had nothing to be upset about if those damn Commies would leave them alone, which is obviously untrue. To suggest so, IMO, is racist.
Over the past 4 weeks, I've been spending even more time monitoring economic events,as the panic grows-especially this past week-it seems that the virulent political rhetoric increases.Yesterday, our local newspaper,the Record(Bergen County,NJ) had a front page story about doctors and therapists reporting an increase in stress related symptoms and illness over the past month.Uncertainty breeds distress, anxiety, and fear. I've seen some other despicable capitalization of that fear: our two(juice) barstool philosophers follow en suite.Mike Adams' tirades against Wall Street are followed by urging people to "avoid greed" and "go back to nature and simplicity", organic farms,natural medecine,and self reliancy.He also has some land to sell you in Ecuador(sound effect- Jim Kramer yells,"You know NOTHING!"). Similarly, Gary Null has been ranting and railing, as usual, about "greed"(ironic) and also promoting a simple lifestyle in sustainable places ,like his native WV. Of course, he has lots of videos , books, seminars telling you just how to be self sufficient and "spiritual".Just like him(sound effect:PalMD says dismissively,"Friggin' idiot!").Personally, I've heard students' fears about continuing their education, friends and relatives worried about their pensions , bank accounts, and jobs.I do my best to reassure them without lying.Remember, there's that old line about, hmm, what is it? Fear itself or something.
So he is willing to find a real, non-metaphorical racist brush, and some real, non-metaphorical tar, and use them to non-metaphorically paint the real, non-metaphorical Obama?
Or do you mean the exact opposite of literally?
Hm. The Bradley effect has been widely debunked and discredited. Senator Obama's policies are sufficiently worrying to core GOP members to evoke a host of emotional responses (for reference read any tracts by left leaning authors post 2000 election or 2004 election).
There is sufficient fear among anti-Obama (not necessarily pro-McCain) voters to generate almost any angle for not electing him (although racism seems far down the list). In fact, I have heard, firsthand, the internal racism existent among African-Americans based upon his lineage.
I think that the McCain camp is frustrated that the rest of undecided voters don't seem to share their worldview of Obama's character or the impact of his policies. Interestingly, Consumer Reports published a nice comparison of the candidates health plans which seemed to favor McCain overall, but left Obama in the lead for the least insured, most at risk category.
Obviously, not every opponent of Obama's or supporter of McCain's is racist. However, there are clearly a significant and vocal number of racists opposing Obama and supporting McCain (or both). Further, and this is far more troubling, there is no dearth of McCain supporters and/or Obama opponents who are not particularly racist, but are THRILLED to be able to play on the racism of others to further their political preferences (either McCain victory or Obama defeat. If it's puzzling why I make that distinction, I know of "libertarians" who don't like McCain but apparently revile Obama more, so I consider them anti-Obama rather than pro-McCain).
As a side note, the links lead to stuff about an Atlanta-Constitution poll on whether an Obama-as-Curious-George t-shirt being sold by some barkeeper in Marietta, GA is racist or not: at the time this was posted, apparently a majority of poll-takers felt the shirt was "just fine." I just voted and the results are 2:1 that it's racist. No shit, Sherlock. Of course, Obama DOES have some awfully big ears. So why isn't he being shown as Abe Lincoln? Or is that "Ape Lincoln"? Didn't rumors fly that Honest Abe was part black? There's actually a web-site out there by a "scholar" named Leroy Vaughn that claims ther have been FIVE black US presidents: Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Harding, and Coolidge. <http://www.computerhealth.org/ebook/
Dr. Vaughn is, by the way, African-American. You really can't make this stuff up. Well, *I* can't, anyway.
A song from the early '60s (printed lyrics):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&ad…
Prejudice is forming expectations about individuals based upon generalizations (whether correct or incorrect) about some group that individual is perceived as belonging to. We refer to prejudice as "racism" when that group is perceived as being defined by race.
The author is reasoning that Obama's parents, by virtue of being a mixed-race couple (a group defined by race) were brought together by left-wing politics, and that Obama was influenced by this kind of politics. This is a judgement about individuals based upon their belonging to a race-defined group. That makes it ipso facto racist.
Earthling6: sorry, you must be confused. Anecdotes are not "evidence" that fly very far in this arena.
for example, google "wired.com dowsing rod" or "divining rod" sometime, and if you don't believe in the ability of dowsing for water, then see if the thousands of anecdotal comments left on that article (THOUSANDS!) will convince you to start believing in its efficacy.
it shouldn't. why not? Cause it's not true even if 100% of the population believes it to be true.
Does that make sense?
K then.
in case you're really lazy, this is the page i was referring to:
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/11/10-awesome-gadg.html
trrll,
Even if your definition of racism is correct, which it is not, the author's reasoning includes race as only one factor of several in "defining" the group: Well-educated, 1950's, Black. Further, she's talking about both Obama's father and mother, the mother being white. So if she's racist, she must be forming an expectation about the mother based upon the fact she was white? Therefore, she hates white people?
I acknowledge that the term "Racist" has become muddied in recent years. Originally, it meant superiority or inferiority of a human because of their "race", which by the virtue of Nazi theories in the 1930's, included "Jewry". (See here.) Today's sense is a bit more broad, but your definition, and I suppose PalMD's sense, is a bit too broad.
Genewitch,
I 100% agree with you that anecdotes don't make something true. However, they do count as evidence, and the author claims to have no counter-evidence. I don't agree with her claim. However, unless she's lying or being disingenuous (which she might be if you suspect she's a racist! How's that for circular reasoning?), her argument is supported.
If during your childhood you prayed to God ten times, and every single time your prayers came true, you'd have evidence in a God. I still wouldn't believe you, however, because I had counter-evidence.
By the way, I can recount from my youth four interracial families. One was of my closest childhood friend, with whom my mother stayed with earlier this year, another had lived with my family for the better part of a year, and the other two having known my parents for decades. None could be considered communistic, most were Christian, one was African (two, if you include the Lebanese, and three if you include the Arab from the Ivory Coast). In sum, her argument is mostly bullocks, but I don't see it as racist per se.
Hmm...
1. interracial couples are all communists.
2. communists are bad people.
3. Therefore, interracial couples are bad people.
Sounds like a classic racist argument to me. There is no supporting evidence for 1 or 2, leaving 3 kinda hanging out there.
Are you seriously arguing that "This guy is bad because I think all interracial couples are communists" is not racist? Give me a break.
LanceR,
No, that's not her argument. Gheez. Did you read the article? It's
 1. Most Interracial couples in the 50's met through communistic political connections. Supported by:
   * Most of (the writer's) interracial acquaintances met in "Communist Youth League".
 2. Barack's family may have been such a couple. Supported by:
   * Barack Obama's childhood mentor was Black and also a well-known communist ideologue
 3. Therefore Barack Obama's early childhood influence may have been Communism.
4. Communism is evil implied as pretext
5. Barak Obama, having grown up around Communists is probably also evil.
From this, you could assert that most interracial couples are bad/evil people, but I don't think anyone can claim this is the author's intent.
I'm not posting these comments on some left-wing/progressive/liberal forum -- that's a lost cause. I'm posting this on a forum devoted to reason and scientific inquiry and facts, not blind prejudices and knee-jerk reactionaries.
The fact that somebody may have other prejudices in addition to racism does not subtract from the racism. Prejudice against white women who marry black men seems to be particularly prevalent among racists.
I don't think you're following your own argument. I fail to see a difference between my summation of her argument and yours. A distinction, yes, but without any substantive difference.
Facts remain facts whether left/right/center. Racism is healthy and active in America. The Republican right has a lengthy history of using racism to further their political agenda (cf Southern Strategy). I don't believe that anyone is arguing that the original author *is* a racist, just that the argument *is* racist.
To restate the argument:
1. Interracial couples of the time were all Communists (anecdotal "evidence")
2. Barack Obama may be a product of such a union (implication)
3. Barack may have been influenced by Communism (wild-ass guess)
4. Communism is evil (pretext)
5. Barack Obama is evil. (by virtue of being a product of an interracial marriage)
I fail to see how this could possibly be anything other than racist.
Good grief. The author of that piece evidently is unaware of the miscegenation laws that existed in this country prior to the Civil War. And has apparently never seen "Showboat", one of my very favorite musicals. The philistine. :-P
LanceR,
It's simple. Points 1, 3 and 4 are necessary to the author's argument and have little or nothing to do with race. We cannot get to the conclusion (5) without these points unless it is clear that the author is a racist.
So basically, an author provides an argument. Because the author's argument has a racial component to it, the author must be a racist. Other arguments, which would distinguish the argument and/or the author from being racist, are just subterfuge to disguise the fact that the original author and/or argument are racist.
Maybe racism is healthy and active in America. Maybe Republicans do use racism to further their political agenda. Maybe all Blacks are Communist. I dunno.
Because the author's argument is founded upon racial prejudice--i.e. prejudice based upon the races of the people involved, it is racist.
Did anyone read this gem from the NY Times today? The fail is EPIC. I'm hoping that some kind of liberal bias was at play, and there was a lot of cherry picking in the interviews and quotes because I just don't want to believe that people could be so completely stupid. Gahh.
Gahh, no links allowed? Name link goes to article. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/politics/15biracial.html?em
See, i was so groovin' till you dropped your html tags...fixed it for ya tho.
Thanks, mate.
Anyway, the article makes me lose a lot of faith in humanity. And I'm already a bit of a sociopath.