The Gaytheist Agenda

I wish this was a joke but it isn’t. An Oklahoma Baptist church used a $800 semiautomatic rifle as a means to lure teens to church.

…..
Windsor Hills Baptist had planned to give away a semiautomatic assault rifle until one of the event’s organizers was unable to attend.

The church’s youth pastor, Bob Ross, said it’s a way of trying to encourage young people to attend the event. The church expected hundreds of teenagers from as far away as Canada.
…..
A video on the church Web site shows the shooting competition from last year’s conference. A gun giveaway was part of the event last year. This year, organizers included it in their marketing.
…..
Friday evening, Ross said the gun giveaway had been canceled. Pastor emeritus Jim Vineyard, who ran the event, injured his foot and wouldn’t be able to attend. The gun giveaway was also removed from the church Web site.

Ross said the church would give the gun away next year instead. He said the church spent $800 buying the gun for the promotion.

First of all, if people are so opposed to coming to church that you have to bribe them with $800 assault rifles then you should just give it up. They’re not coming for the church, they’re coming because they want the rifle.

And don’t even get me started on how insane it is for a church to be handing out deadly weapons to children. Of course these are the same teens that, according to the RRRRW, can’t be told about condoms or get the HPV vaccine because it will make them promiscuous. But apparently they can be trusted with semiautomatic weapons. At least I live nowhere near Oklahoma.

 

Seitan has gone through the mail bag again. As always he enjoys reading everybody’s comments and has asked for readers to keep sending them in. The first message is from Ezekiel regarding Holocaust Remembrance Day:

I was shocked to learn recently from the play: “The Re-Education of George W. Bush” (by Peterson Toscano) that when U.S. troops liberated many of the camps, when they found out what the pink triangles (and presumably black patches, though I don’t know on that count) meant, they actually put many of the gay survivors back into prison, believing this to be an instance where the Nazis seemed to be on the right track.
Chilling, from a country that seems to have an obsession with having been “the good guys” in this and every other war.

I’d like to say that surprises me but it doesn’t. There are people who would do that even today if they could get away with it. Where they get the idea that imprisoning, threatening, or torturing LGBT people is going to change anything I don’t know. It hasn’t changed anything since the beginning of time so why would it work now? Gay people exist, and all of the efforts to repress us simply hasn’t changed anything. Sadly some notions refuse to die and I can’t help but wonder if people centuries from now will be having the same arguments as we are now thanks to personal bigotries and an ancient book known as The Bible.

Next up is this from VickiLynne who commented about Specialist Jeremy Hall:

What ashame a soldier goes to fight for freedom which includes religious freedom for others but doesn’t have any of their own.

It is indeed sad. Unfortunately the breed of people who believe religious freedom extends only to their religion have taken over the military as well as much of the government and it’s going to take some real effort to set things right. Fortunately the tide seems to be turning and the RRRW appears to be losing ground, though I’m not yet ready to throw my victory party.

Also regarding Spc. Hall, this comes from Ebon:

I’ve been hearing about Spc. Hall and similar situations for some time now, including at least one body devoted to converting the military.

For anyone who has some knowledge of history, the idea of the USA’s collosal military might presided over by religious fanatics (of any religion) is, frankly, positively terrifying.

Agreed. Anybody who believes that they must impose their way on everyone else–one way or another–very much disturbs me.

This last piece comes from Joe G. regarding Gay Panic Defense for Lawrence King’s Killer.

You’re right! The killer was unable to see any other way? What, he didn’t know about counselors or administrators or social workers at 14 years of age? Give me a break. I know kids half his age that could have made a better choice than this 14 year old did. The lawyer needs to work on getting this kid help (at the very least) and not getting him free of any responsibility for purposely killing another human being.

Any rational person knows that, as you and I do. But the assumption behind the “gay panic defense” is that it is normal for a person to flip out when a person of the same gender shows an interest in them, thus perpetuating the notion that gay people are dangerous predators. What ever happened to simply saying “I’m not interested” or “No thank you”?

Quest maintains that “this was a confluence of tragic events that could have been stopped”. I agree with that, though not with his assessment of how. Homophobia is the problem, and the cures are education and tolerance.

The mailbag is empty again and Seitan has gone off for a nap. Until later, dear readers!

I really couldn’t be more disgusted by the way the lawyer is simultaneously blaming the school, which was doing nothing more than upholding the rights of the victim, and the dead boy, for the actions of his client. But this is nothing new really, so I’m not surprised. I just can’t believe people still try to get away with this nonsense.

The lawyer of Brandon McInerney, the 14-year-old boy who killed gay teenager Lawrence King at a high school in Oxnard, CA, in February, claims school officials’ gay positive attitude is to blame for King’s murder.
…..
By allowing King to come to school wearing feminine makeup and accessories, school officials were so intent on nurturing King as he explored his sexuality that they downplayed the turmoil his behavior was causing on campus, Quest said.

Quest claimed McInerney shot King in the back of the head with a handgun as first-period classes were beginning because he was unable to see another way to solve his problem.

“Brandon is not some crazed lunatic,” Quest said. “This was a confluence of tragic events that could have been stopped. If there is partial blame in other places, let’s not throw away Brandon for the rest of his life.”
…..

School Supt. Jerry Dannenberg strongly disagreed with such allegations. “School officials definitely were aware of what was going on, and they were dealing with it appropriately,” Dannenberg said Wednesday. King was constitutionally entitled to wear makeup, earrings and high-heeled boots under long-established case law, Dannenberg said.

Shooting a person in the back of the head is a perfectly rational response to them flirting with you? What parallel universe is this lawyer from?

I hope the judge sees this outrageous defense as the garbage that it is. Quest needs to be thoroughly chastised for having the audacity to even propose it.

 

I’m always looking for worthy non-religious charities to add to my list. Thanks to Mojoey I now have another one. It’s donations, gifts in kind, lap quilts or you can help in in other ways including volunteering.

 

The National Day of Silence is a day LGBTs and their allies remain silent to bring attention to the LGBTs who are silenced by anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools. This year’s DOS is being held in remembrance of Lawrence King, the 15-year-old boy from Oxnard, CA, who was killed because of his sexual orientation and gender expression.

I’m not a student nor am I in any way affiliated with a school. However I am a lesbian so I obviously support LGBT equality and fight bigotry and bullying in every way I can. Accordingly I will honor the Day of Silence on The Gaytheist Agenda. All posts on April 25th will be made without text, save for the title, and without audio content. It will be somewhat challenging for me, and probably for my readers as well, but the goal is certainly worth it.

 

Off the fence with regard to Brandon McInerney, who I’ve finally decided should be tried as an adult. I’ve discovered that his lawyer is trying to peddle a version of the gay panic defense to deflect blame from McInerney and place it on the victim and the school.

It’s a tragedy, McInerney’s defense attorney said in an interview, but one he believes might have been avoided if someone had stepped in to help beforehand. Senior Deputy Public Defender William Quest said E.O. Green’s administration knew about tension on the middle school campus and allowed the situation to fester — allegations the school district says are untrue.
…..
Issues between McInerney and King seemed to start after students and teachers returned from winter break.

They had both been at E.O. Green and even had a class together previously, but Quest said he’s not aware of any problems until they came back from vacation.

It was then that King began dressing differently, becoming a focus of conversations on campus, Quest said.

Students have said they witnessed confrontations between King and McInerney in the weeks or days before the shooting, including King’s teasing McInerney and telling him that he liked him.

McInerney perceived King’s treatment as harassment, Quest said. Quest, however, declined to discuss any specific confrontations or issues between the boys. He also declined to say if McInerney ever sought help from an adult to deal with the issue.

Quest said he believes school administrators supported one student expressing himself and his sexuality — King — and ignored how it affected other kids, despite complaints. Cross-dressing isn’t a normal thing in adult environments, he said, yet 12-, 13- and 14-year-olds were expected to just accept it and go on.
…..

Sorry, you don’t get to shoot somebody in the head twice–with premeditation–because you don’t like the way they dress or because they say they like you, or even if they tease you. It’s simply not acceptable, ever.

Imagine if, instead of dressing in high-heels, wearing makeup and expressing a romantic interest in another boy Lawrence King had been wearing a crucifix and asking Brandon McInerney to learn about the Gospel of Jesus. Would anybody even think of claiming that the way Lawrence dressed, or what he said and did led to Brandon McInerney’s reaction? No. We’d be hearing cries of “Christian Persecution” from every state in the nation and people would be screaming for McInerney’s head on a stake.

It is far past time that the Gay Panic Defense in all its forms be laid to rest forever.

If you’re in California, and even if you’re not, it’s possible you’ve heard of SB-777. Chances are, however, that what you’ve heard is more propaganda and hysteria than reality. Some claim the bill promotes homsexuality, even “indoctrinates” children into homosexuality. Others claim that words like mom, dad, husband, wife, etc. would be banned from textbooks and that prom kings and queens would be prohibited. The most outrageous claims are that the bill requires bathrooms and locker rooms be unisex and that it encourages cross-dressing.

Well I’m going to tell you the unvarnished truth about SB-777. First I’ll present to you the actual text of the bill so you can read it yourself. I’ll leave out some of the most boring parts about teaching credentials, access to libraries and the like (the entire bill is quite mundane) but you’re welcome to read it in it’s entirety here. Now, on to SB-777.

…..
SB 777, Kuehl. Discrimination.
(1) Existing law states that it is the policy of the state to afford equal rights and opportunities to all persons in the public or private elementary and secondary schools and postsecondary educational institutions of the state regardless of their sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, or mental or physical disability and prohibits a person from being subjected to discrimination on those bases and contains various provisions to implement that policy.
Existing law prohibits a teacher from giving instruction, and a school district from sponsoring any activity, that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.
This bill would revise the list of prohibited bases of discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction and activities and, instead, would refer to disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes that is contained in the Penal Code. The bill would define disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation for this purpose.
(2) Existing laws relating to education refer to “handicapped pupils,” “handicapped adults,” “physically handicapped pupils,” “physically handicapped adults,” “the handicapped,” and “handicapped
persons.”
This bill would change these terms to “pupils with disabilities,” “adults with disabilities,” “pupils with physical disabilities,” “adults with physical disabilities,” and “persons with disabilities.”
…..
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the California Student Civil Rights Act.
SEC. 1.5. Section 200 of the Education Code is amended to read:
200. It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies therefor.
SEC. 2. Section 210.1 of the Education Code is amended and renumbered to read:
210.3. “Educational institution” means a public or private preschool, elementary, or secondary school or institution; the governing board of a school district; or any combination of school districts or counties recognized as the administrative agency for public elementary or secondary schools.
SEC. 3. Section 210.1 is added to the Education Code, to read:
210.1. “Disability” includes mental and physical disability as defined in Section 12926 of the Government Code.
SEC. 4. Section 210.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:
210.7. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.
SEC. 5. Section 212 of the Education Code is repealed.
SEC. 6. Section 212 is added to the Education Code, to read:
212. “Nationality” includes citizenship, country of origin, and national origin.
SEC. 7. Section 212.1 is added to the Education Code, to read:
212.1. “Race or ethnicity” includes ancestry, color, ethnic group identification, and ethnic background.
SEC. 8. Section 212.3 is added to the Education Code, to read:
212.3. “Religion” includes all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice and includes agnosticism and atheism.
SEC. 9. Section 212.6 is added to the Education Code, to read:
212.6. “Sexual orientation” means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
SEC. 10. Section 219 is added to the Education Code, to read:
219. Disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code includes a perception that the person has any of those characteristics or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.
SEC. 11. Section 220 of the Education Code is amended to read:
220. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.

SEC. 12. Section 220.5 of the Education Code is amended and renumbered to read:
221. This article shall not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.
SEC. 13. Section 235 of the Education Code is amended to read:
235. There shall be no discrimination on the basis of the characteristics listed in Section 220 in any aspect of the operation of alternative schools or charter schools.
SEC. 14. Section 260 of the Education Code is amended to read:
260. The governing board of a school district shall have the primary responsibility for ensuring that school district programs and activities are free from discrimination based on age and the characteristics listed in Section 220 and for monitoring compliance with any and all rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 11138 of the Government Code.
SEC. 15. Section 14058 of the Education Code is amended to read:
14058. (a) For all adults with disabilities educated by the county superintendent of schools, for all secondary schools maintained in juvenile halls, juvenile homes, and juvenile camps by the county superintendent of schools, and for all pupils enrolled in grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in opportunity schools and classes and all continuation schools and classes maintained by the county superintendent of schools, the Superintendent shall allow the same amount as he or she would compute for the foundation program of a high school district under Section 41712.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the total of allowances for education of adults with disabilities in classes established by the county superintendent of schools pursuant to Section 52570 or 78440 shall not exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in any one fiscal year. The Superintendent shall establish a system of priorities that he or she shall by rule or regulation adopt that shall give highest priority to those counties in which no program or an insufficient program for the education of adults with disabilities is provided by the school districts within the county, in order to comply with the
imitation prescribed by this section.
…..
SEC. 35. Section 66251 of the Education Code is amended to read:
66251. It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons, regardless of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other basis that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the postsecondary institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies therefor.
SEC. 36. Section 66260.5 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66260.5. “Disability” includes mental and physical disability as defined in Section 12926 of the Government Code.
SEC. 37. Section 66260.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66260.7. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.
SEC. 38. Section 66261.5 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66261.5. “Nationality” includes citizenship, country of origin, and national origin.
SEC. 39. Section 66261.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66261.7. “Race or ethnicity” includes ancestry, color, ethnic group identification, and ethnic background.
SEC. 40. Section 66262 of the Education Code is repealed.
SEC. 41. Section 66262 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66262. “Religion” includes all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice and includes agnosticism and atheism.
SEC. 42. Section 66262.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66262.7. “Sexual orientation” means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
SEC. 43. Section 66269 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66269. Disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code includes a perception that the person has any of those characteristics or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.
SEC. 44. Section 66270 of the Education Code is amended to read:
66270. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by any postsecondary educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls students who receive state student financial aid.
SEC. 44.5. Section 66270 of the Education Code is amended to read:

66270. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any characteristic listed or defined in Section 11135 of the Government Code or any other characteristic that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by any postsecondary educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls students who receive state student financial aid.
SEC. 45. Section 66270.5 of the Education Code is amended and renumbered to read:
66271. This chapter shall not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.
SEC. 46. Section 66292 of the Education Code is amended to read:
66292. (a) The governing board of a community college district shall have the primary responsibility for ensuring that community college district programs and activities are free from discrimination based on age and the characteristics listed in Section 66270.
(b) The Chancellor’s office of the California Community Colleges shall have responsibility for monitoring the compliance of each district with any and all regulations adopted pursuant to Section 11138 of the Government Code.
SEC. 47. Section 66292.1 of the Education Code is amended to read:

66292.1. The Chancellor of the California State University and the president of each California State University campus shall have the primary responsibility for ensuring that campus programs and activities are free from discrimination based on age and the characteristics listed in Section 66270.
SEC. 48. Section 66292.2 of the Education Code is amended to read:
66292.2. The President of the University of California and the chancellor of each University of California campus shall have primary responsibility for ensuring that campus programs and activities are free from discrimination based on age and the characteristics listed in Section 66270.
…..

There it is. Not a word about indoctrinating children into homosexuality, teaching them to cross dress or allowing them to share bathrooms. There’s also nothing about outlawing terms like mother, father, husband and wife in textbooks. All it says is that discrimination against students based on disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, is prohibited. Now why is it that the bill prohibits discrimination based on so many factors, yet the RRRW is only launching a crusade against two, those being the protections for sexual orientation and gender identity? In all of the articles about SB-777 we’ve seen no concerns raised over the fact that it protects students based on race, ethnicity, nationality, or disability. Why is that?

Notice in particular that the bill prohibits discrimination against people based on their religion, yet nobody is raising concerns that children will be “indoctrinated” into religion while in school. (Mind you the RRRW would like it very much if children were indoctrinated into religion–their religion–in schools.) I’ve also not seen any articles claiming children will be harmed because their schools cannot discriminate based on any other factors. No, the only concerns anybody has is that students might have protections based on their gender identity and sexual orientation.

So in reality it has nothing at all to do with protecting the children, for they don’t care one whit about the children who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Children like Lawrence King aren’t worthy of having equal rights and protections under the law. Pushing their anti-gay agenda and keeping LGBT people permanent second-class citizens is far more important, apparently, than the lives and safety of the children they claim to care about.

Now you know the truth about SB-777. It prohibits discrimination in California schools based on disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. Nothing more, nothing less. If anybody tries to say otherwise, they’re simply not giving you the facts.

 

The handy chart from eQualityGiving will help you determine how your rights stack up in six different categories: Hate Crimes, Non-Discrimination, Marriage, Gender, Youth and Parenting. Hat-tip to Autumn Sandeen.

 

The score indicates the number of Equality Goals that have been reached in that state. Each “YES” gives 1 point. Half a point is given for partial achievement of an Equality Goal. One of the seven Equality Goals (repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”) can only be achieved at the federal level. Therefore, at the state level, the maximum score is 6.

ANALYSIS (50 states + District of Columbia):

* Half of the states satisfy none or just one of the 6 Equality Goals that are required to ensure that LGBTQ people have the same legal protections as everyone else.

* No state offers full legal equality. California would have been the first state offering full equality if it were not for the veto of marriage equality legislation by Governor Schwarzenegger.

* Only two states (California and New Jersey) achieve 5 of the 6 Equality Goals.

* Massachusetts scores only 4.0 despite that if offers marriage equality. This is because it falls short in transgender protections in hate crimes, non discrimination, anti-bullying, and providing new birth certificates.

* Passing federal legislation on an Equality Goal would increase every state score by 1.

The scores range from California’s high of 5.5 (Yay!) to the shameful low of 0.5 shared by Idaho, Mississippi and Ohio. Click here to see the chart and find out what your state’s score is!

 

Take a high-school student who failed a state-mandated test. Add one mother desperate to get the girl into a private school, and a school administrator willing to prey on that desperation. Now you have the makings of a scandal.

It’s the middle of the day when a white pickup truck pulls into the back of a motel on 1960. Then it goes to the very back to park for a long while. We already know who the driver is. His name is LaVern Jordan and he runs Parkway Christian School.

…..

The woman getting in Jordan’s passenger seat is a parent who’s been trying to get her 18 year daughter enrolled in Jordan’s school.

“She hadn’t passed the TAKS test and she hasn’t got all her credits, that’s the reason we are going to that school,” the mother told us.

A fee to the school and some course work can get students a diploma without passing the required state test at Parkway Christian School, where the Web site boasts, “a program based on Christian character, morals, values and integrity.”

Dolcefino: “How long were you talking to him before sex came into it?”

Mother: “No longer than five or ten minutes.”

Dolcefino: “What were you thinking?”

Mother: “This man has got to be crazy.”

Now back to Jordan.

Dolcefino: “There’s no tape?”

Jordan: “Will you get out of my way please?”

Dolcefino: “There’s no tape of you and this woman?”

Jordan: “No. Wayne will you please move? No.”

Dolcefino: “Well, you’re going to hear it.”

And so are you.

Jordan on tape: “Do you have sexual relationships often anymore? Are you seeing a man now?”

Mother: “No. Nuh-uh.”

Jordan had already promised to waive the $300 school enrollment fee for a much different kind of payment.

Jordan: “For the uh, enrollment fee and stuff like that, maybe you and I can do something, you think?”

Mother: “Yeah, what, I mean what, what, you gonna wipe out all the fees?”

Jordan: “All the enrollment fees.”

Mother: “All the enrollment fees?”

Jordan: “Three hundred dollars.”

Mother: “So you gonna wipe everything if me and you get together?”

Jordan: “The enrollment fee, yeah.”

Mother: “Ok.”

Jordan: “If you and I get together.”

Mother: “What you mean? I mean, what?

Jordan: “Excuse me and I don’t mean to be so blunt but I am talking about f—— you.”

Mother: “You talking about what?”

Jordan: “F—— you.”

“I couldn’t believe someone was saying such things like that,” the mother told us. “I couldn’t believe it.”

And the tape shows Jordan wasn’t just talking about a one time thing.

Jordan: “For the $300 I would expect maybe we could get together several times, you think?”

Mother: “Several times, whatcha mean several times?”

Jordan: “Well I don’t know, you might like whatcha getting.”

Jordan was ready for action right then.

Jordan: “If you’re not in like just a great big hurry, I know uh, of a place not too far that we can go and I can just do that we can just do some play around a little bit. Would you like that?”

Jordan: “We could go and we could do some t–ty play.”

Jordan wanted to make sure no one else would know.

Jordan: “Nobody else will know nothing?”

Mother: “Nuh-uh.”

Jordan: “Can I touch you?”

But our parent will make Mr. Jordan wait for his sexual rendezvous and this time she’ll be carrying our hidden camera and microphone.

“I was meeting with him specifically for y’all to expose him to the world and to those parents sending their kids up there,” the mother told us.

Thursday at 10pm, the rendezvous we caught on tape. You won’t hear it anywhere else.

See the exclusive video here.

Where are the RRRW sex-monitors when you need them? Oh yes, they’re probably too busy running off propaganda pamphlets for the “Day of (un)Truth” to pay attention to something this inconsequential.

 

This young man asks a very powerful question in this video he posted on YouTube.

Now that’s food for thought.