Politics: What's Up With This?

Try to put aside your partisan tendency to blame one party, group or person for a minute if you can and think about all of these news reports. The notion that a sitting chief executive addressing many of the nation's school age children is an incredibly controversial event has to be one of the most extraordinary things I've witnessed while watching politics all these years.

Yes, push back from the Right against Obama likely feeds into it, as the Left will allege. As, I suspect, does an overly aggressive, inexperienced White House and a Democrat controlled Congress looking out of control right now. But I also think it probably goes much deeper than that.

That what once would have been a non-event is so incredibly controversial suggests to me that a great many Americans likely feel disconnected from the nation's political affairs right now, as well as extremely concerned about what the future's going to bring. The crisis Rahm suggested taking advantage of doesn't just cut one way, after all. And I doubt that any alienation, or all the concern came about from just 9 months of any one term.

For decades, we've been cruising along relatively content in an economic sense, even taking into account some real bumps in the road along the way. Now, I believe many people are genuinely worried and perhaps hyper-sensitive to just about everything political. I noted Kasich's take yesterday on the Tea Party movement that somewhat jibes with the above view.

Don't look for me to tell you where it's going. I'm not sure. However, I think that both 2010 and 2012 may prove pivotal to America in a very significant way. What, if anything, changes or transpires in American politics over the next few years will likely have serious ramifications for generations of Americans to come.

And while I won't predict how it turns out, I will say it's a fascinating time to be both a close observer of politics and politically involved. But then, they may be true for far more Americans than usual right now, if my instincts are correct.

And that, more than any one thing, may be why the address is controversial in the first place. People are watching in ways they might not have been for years. I doubt very much if they are going to like what they see, no matter what the short-term results happen to be.

Comments

[Jacksonian Lawyer]

While on the surface it might be difficult to conceive "...that any alienation, or all the concern came about from just 9 months of any one term," in this short amount of time we have seen a deliberate, systematic dismantling of our great nation, rapidly leading it down a path it has never seen within its borders. Thus, to be frank, it is not at all unimagineable that this "sudden concern" came about in such a short time.

That there are those who are concerned with Obama's intended plan to speak to schoolchildren about....well, that remains to be seen - is nothing new; the "left" went ballistic when George HW did much the same in 1991. Yet, now that the criticism is coming from the "right," it is suddenly the "right" who are fringe lunatics and/or extremists and "blinded" by "partisan rage."

[Jack Okie]

Dan, the long-simmering unhappiness of conservatives over the Left's ascendancy has combined with widespread anger over the economy to create the current furor. Many of us on the right now believe if we don't fight for the Constitution it will be lost. If we can't restore power to the states and eliminate the huge pile of money they're sitting on in Imperial Washington, it won't matter whether there's an D or an R beside the congress critter's name; it's just too much temptation and too little scrutiny.

As for speaking to the school kids, it's not the speech so much that has folks upset, its the creepy study guide and distrust of what the teachers will make of it.

[syn]

Over the last several election cycles more Americans were not involved in politics whatsoever, ie never voting, than those who were involved.

I imagine there are millions of Americans who were never politically involved now becoming politically involved; when your government is in the process of looting, pillaging and violating everyone and everything this only serves to motivate the otherwise apolitical into becoming political.

Most all the election cycles over the last two decades have focused on prior voting patterns within specific regions forgetting that there is a vast percentage of Americans who were never taken into consideration; I think many of those showing up to Tea Parties and Townhall meetings are those formerly known as apolitical non-voters who are angry by all the looting, pillaging and violating going on.

[Dan Riehl]

I hope so, Syn.

[section9]

The point is this: people are waking up to the fact that the political class in Washington, and that includes in BOTH parties, are not good stewards of the public monies. It is only now dawning on most voters that this government is actually teetering on bankruptcy, and it is a situation that was entirely avoidable. Social Security is a ponzi scheme. Voters are becoming aware that there's no Trust Fund there. That's it's all been looted and replaced with Script. Bush bequethed Obama a war and vast debt, and Obama has done what? Made the chasm of debt even wider.

People don't believe that D.C. has a clue. It scares them.

[Mike G]

The thing is, with any previous prez who would have done this, the assumption would have been that he was going to say a few unexceptional platitudes almost no one could object to-- Stay in school! Dream big! Floss!

With Obama, though, there are a lot of people who instantly assume some end run around parental authority to sell some East Germany 1956 agenda. Now, I don't know how realistic I believe this fear is-- Obama spouts plenty of can't-offend-anybody platitudes too-- but I think it's a legitimate reflection of both sides' impressions-- if the left wants to believe that he's going to wreak major change, the center and right can't be crazy to fear the same thing.

[Joe Miller]

This very morning I heard a clip of the President telling me that I should wash my hands frequently. I should sneeze into my elbow. And I should stay home if I feel sick. What will he say to schoolchildren? Stay in school? Study hard? Clean your plate, children are starving in Asia? Brush your teeth after every meal? He appears to be, among other things, a bottomless pit of trite and self-evident advice.

[Neo]

The real shame here is that everybody, both supporter and critics, believe in their hearts that the President of the United States would (or should) use this speech to pitch a political agenda to school children.

Has the office been debased that much in a mere 7 months ?

[htom]

Since the initial leaked plan was to have the children writing letters promising support for the President, rather than for the country ....

[Jeff Perkins]

We don't need a sitting president to exhort our schoolchildren to do well in school. Quite the opposite: we need the US federal government to get lost. The US Department of Education should be abolished.

In many dictatorships across the world, a portrait of the Dear Leader hangs behind the teacher. Schools have been and are used as instruments of indoctrination rather than places where one acquires useful skills. Here in the US, we have a collection of government schools, staffed by unionized teachers whose union contributes tens of millions of dollars to the Democratic Party and which dominates their national conventions. So when Obama's ruling clique proposes a nationwide address to our schoolchildren by the Dear Leader, the reaction of parents and taxpayers is predictable.

I do not recall any prior president trying to do this -- maybe I missed it -- but certainly not one around whom Hollywood and the mainstream media have built such a towering cult of personality, or one who so fervently believes that the State is the answer to all of our problems. I don't agree and I don't want our children so indoctrinated.

[Firehand]

I think there would have been less of a stink about this if not for the "Discuss with the children how they can help the President" crap put out as preparatory materials by the government.

[Matty_J]

Neo,

Yes, it has. At least there was some level of respect for Bush, but D's and R's both bear the brunt. If the Republicans think that the voter backlash is pro-Republican, as they appear to be thinking, they are wrong. I hope, and pray, that this is the beginning of a citizen activist movement, because, in the final analysis, we voters allowed government to get here. We were too busy taking care of business and our families to get involved. In other words, we were too lazy.

One other thing, though. The reason that there was no widespread outrage when G.H.W. Bush addressed schoolchildren is that no one really believed that he would attempt to blatantly indoctrinate children. There is no such lack of belief about Obama. The depth of this administration's leftism, and cluelessness about the people they are ostensibly to serve, means that student indoctrination is indeed (barely) within the realm of possibility.

[Jeffersonian]

Politics is always a procrustean bed, but the further up the greasy pole one goes the more one has to stretch or amputate from the bed's occupant. The central insight of the Founders was that of subsidiarity in government, implemented through enumerated powers. That has now been lost, with the Central State now arrogating total power. People feel alienated from their government because they *are* alienated from their government. Decisions that should be made at the local/county/state level are all now being made in D.C. The closest we ever come to having a meaningful say is when we, every two years, get to cast a vote for our Congressional Rep: One voice mixed with 689,000 others, to vote for 1/435th of 1/2 of 1/3 of the federal government. And they wonder why there's alternately apathy and anger?

Jack Okie is absolutely right. If we don't rediscover the genius of the Constitution and devolve power back to states and localities, this nation is sunk.

[Philip McDaniel]

The man's a Marxist. He has surrounded himself with Marxists. He is promoting Marxist ideas. Why would anyone want him to speak to our children?

[John]

I think that the concern about Obama's address to the schoolchildren is exacerbated by his ubiquitous cult of personality, which the media can't shovel at us fast enough. Four prime-time national addresses in only 9 months? The guy is everywhere, all the time.

So people naturally assume that Obama had decided it was time to conquer the last unclaimed sliver of our culture, the children. And judging by the original gist of his agenda, by tasking the children to "help him", there were correct in thinking so.

I've told my children that they should go along with the program but when it comes time to draw pictures or writes essays about "ways to help President Obama", their efforts should be something to the effect of "lowering taxes on the rich so they can create more jobs" or "increasing American freedom by reducing the government by half."

[kcom]

I think it was definitely the supporting materials that caused the stink. Using a captive audience of students to instruct them to write letters about how they could help a very controversial president (whether they or their parents are in line with his political beliefs or not) is injecting politics far too deeply into the classroom. If it was just an innocuous "Study hard" speech those materials wouldn't have been necessary. Either that or the White House is entirely tone deaf and incompetent. (There is actually a lot of evidence for tone deafness in this White House.)

Anyway, the bottom line is that if the president had been governing in the way he campaigned, as a moderate, post-racial, bipartisan, fiscally responsible, new kind of politics type, this probably also would never have happened. But since he's been none of the above, he's burned the bridges of goodwill he built during the campaign.

[Charlie]

Normally, who cares if the president wants to address school kids... or read books to them. In this case however:

1. This president is spending a hugely unprecedented gob of time just getting his face out there. Plain ol' self-promotion.

2. The tone of this particular ploy comes right out of the community organizer's handbook. You just know that receptive teachers' unionistas will continue to get pro-O strokes, materials and guidance to pass along to their students.

3. All coming at a time when his attention desperately needs to be focused on JOBS and the ECONOMY. (Or not, depending on how ept you think the cat is.)

[Sgt Mom]

As other commenters noted - it's not the speech itself, so much, or the fact that it's President Obama making it; it's the study guide. And even that wouldn't have brought out so much opposition, if President Obama hadn't burned through so much initial good-will. Parents might have been OK with a talk to students in January - but the last eight months have given conservatives and independents every reason to distrust him and his administration.

[stepper]

Oh the irony! The former Messiah of American Politics is becoming the new Herbert Hoover. The hapless economic fall guy of our times.

[ulno13]

The study guide is what concerns me. It reads of pseudo-worship that is out of step with a democracy, and more in line with worship of a king.

I live in the Oakland area, an area that is very leftist (I don't use the word liberal, because these people do not support liberals in any sense). In the Oakland Tribune website, they have an education blog. When they wrote their story on this topic, and I posted clips from the study guide, they deleted my posts.

It doesn't fit the narrative of a non-partisan event. The study guide shows that this is an attempt to create a non-democratic state based on the cult of personality.

[Wells]

I agree with many of the other commenters-- Obama has been relentlessly partisan and is politicizing everything he touches. Honestly, he's doing much LESS than the other democrats in Congress, but way more than we're used to seeing from a President. And certainly more than his "new era of bipartisanship" rhetoric during the campaign lead us to expect. People are in shock that he's running such an aggressively combative game from day one, and so of course they don't trust him on what should be a pretty bland non-event.

I'd add this: liberals piled it on WAY too thick during the campaign talking about Obama's transcendence as a public speaker. They've convinced themselves, but I think they've got republicans convinced, too. Did anyone truly fear the mind-altering hyponotism of either George Bush?

Add in the creepy lesson plan demanding that government teachers order children to write letters about how they'll support the President's goals, and of course people went ballistic.

Obama's not helped by his cabinet. Obama carries himself in a statesmanlike manner, but his advisors are just awful. Name a democrat leader in washington who isn't tainted by either radical ideology or political corruption or both. Even Rahm Emmanuel's own supporters aren't fooled for a minute. And for millions of Americans, Tim Geithner is quite literally a joke. His allies in Congress are even worse. So people are just generally shell-shocked.

Finally, Republicans (at least at the grass roots levels) have finally, belatedly adopted the "rules for radicals" or whatever you want to call it. The democrat strategies to demonize and attack and destroy worked quite well in 2006, and now they're on the receiving end of precisely the same tactics. Only this time, republicans have pocketbook issues on their side that pull in people who aren't politically active.

[David]

in response to John's instructions to his children to write about "lowering taxes on the rich so they can create more jobs". Why the rich? Why not put programs, funding, reform, etc in place so anyone can start a business, be successful, and create jobs? Should we lower taxes for corporate executives making millions and millions of dollars and having a net negative effect on job creation? This mindset that only the rich can create jobs is complete BS and part of the reason the right lost power in the first place. Time to evolve.

[Fred]

We once had a Democratic President who said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

Compare and contrast with the current Marxist cult of personality and what he has done in a short nine months. He is closer to Chavez than Kennedy.

[Lummox JR]

The fact that the administration doesn't grasp that school hasn't even started in some places by September 8 doesn't help anyone's concerns; that's epic cluelessness. In my part of New York state, classes begin the Wednesday after Labor Day, which will mean the 9th. In some other parts I've heard they start on Tuesday, but aren't there a few more important things to get around to doing on the first day of school? And why would he be addressing them in early September if not in an attempt to push his health care message on the one audience who may not have been paying any attention yet? That a study guide is going along with this creeps me out too. The whole thing just smacks of indoctrination. With Obama's current standing it would likely come off that way even without the study guide, but with it this definitely sets off a lot of people's Orwell alarms.

Yes, I think the reaction is partly a result of a disconnect from the political class, but while it's been going on for a long time I think it has accelerated to ludicrous speed in the last nine months. People see a government that has increasingly been trying to pry its way into our daily lives in every way, which has been happening for years but is now taking on a fever pitch by messing with the relationship between a person and their doctor. But you can't generate hatred from someone any faster than by trying to get at their kids when your message has failed on the parents; it's an implicit challenge to their right to instill their own values in their kids. ("Mom and Dad say X, but a lot of really smart people say Y. You're smart too, right? Maybe Mom and Dad will see things differently when they know some more facts. You can bring them this handy list of talking points!") Whether Obama will actually do that is an open question, but it's one with a predictable answer given the known facts of the study guide, the bizarre timing, and his style of making as many appearances as possible to forward his ambitions.

[alanstorm]

As many commenters have already noted seperarely, it's two things: Our experience of the president so far, and the "study guide".

From what we've seen of Obama thus far, I can certainly understand that most people on the right would immediately think that it would be more than just a "study hard and stay in school" speech. Combine that with the multicultural and "save the planet" hogwash currently infecting the schools themselves, and it's very hard to give this speech the benefit of the doubt.

The second part, the "study guide" is more obviously bad, perhaps just because it's available while the speech text is not. If they had thrown in some questions such as "In what parts of this speech did the President go way around the bend?" or "What parts of this speech were composed of used food?" (suitably rephrased in a polite manner, of course) it would be less objectionable. But then, the purpose is to implement whatever he says, not to question it.

BTW, whatever happened to "Question Authority"? Why, on 1/20/09, did it become "Obey Authority"?

[Fen]

Short version: People don't trust Obama. And its not about his race, its about his associations with radical leftists and an agenda that appears socialist.

[submandave]

I am honestly torn. We did not support Obama in the election and my kids know it, but after his win we let them know in no uncertain terms that he was now the President and that we were proud that less than fifty years after the Civil Rights Act the country could put aside a deep history of racism to elect a black man. But when the White House tells me the President want to talk to my kids about "what we're trying to do with education," that tells me it's not just a parcel of good advice and encouragement to study but that it is advocating a political position and policy choice to a group of citizens who can't even vote, and it feels creepy.

[Andrew]

This President has a history, and despite the fact that the mainstream media has studiously ignored this history, it's there for anyone who's interested in seeing it.

It's a history that includes Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and perhaps most importantly Saul Alinsky. The last two (along with Antonio Gramsci) are consistent advocates of using our educational institutions as a way of modifying society towards radical ends.

Given that history, it should come as no surprise that many Americans are concerned that any speech by this President to every public school student in the United States would be informed by the philosophy of Ayers, Alinsky, and Gramsci. Such concerns were only reinforced by the content of the suggested activities proposed by the Department of Education, however similar they may have been to what George H. W. Bush did in his Presidency.

All I can say is that this incident has reinforced for me why my wife and I have chosen to homeschool our children...we don't have to be concerned about either administrators or the federal government deciding for us what content is educationally appropriate for our kids. That's our decision and our responsibility.

Perhaps if this President was willing to afford more Americans the courtesy of making their own decisions, we'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his intentions.

[Fen]

"assume some end run around parental authority to sell some East Germany 1956 agenda. Now, I don't know how realistic I believe this fear is..."

Obama?: "...and remember, if you hear Mommy or Daddy saying anything about Me that sounds 'fishy', just contact whitehouse.gov"

There is a pattern to look to for a preview. We don't trust "community organizers" with our children.

[Bill in NC]

I am not aware of any prior President attempting to give such a "captive audience" speech to kids before. And, it's being proposed by the most partisan Administration the country has ever seen, complete with study materials evincing a desire to inculcate loyalty to the President. That's why.

And to Dan's point about voter "disconnect with the nation's political affairs," I would suggest a slightly different formulation. I think a growing number of people are not so much disconnected but rather worried that they are the "target" of the nation's political affairs.

[Doug Santo]

The backlash to the Presdient's speech to school children is not extraordinary. It is not the President's speech to school children that is the problem. It is the President's proposed study guide that goes with the speech. The study guide suggests lessons for teachers and students. Some of the suggested lessons are creepy and smack of totalitarian states. For instance, the study guide asks teachers and students to study previous Obama speeches on education and interpret and comment on them. The study guide asks teachers to have students write letters to themselves about how the students can help Obama improve his education goals. Later the teacher would redistribute the letters to see how much work in support of the President the students actually did. These lessons are more in keeping with the traditions and history of Red China than the US. For instance, school children in China during the cultural revolution were required to study the teachings of Mao Tse Tung

What if a student disagrees with the Presdiden's goals, or means to achieve them, and writes a letter laying out a plan to defeat the Presdident's goals on education? Would that student get a good grade? Would his grade suffer because he disagreed with the administration? Would teachers instruct students that opposition to government is an American right? Would teachers ask for dissenting views?

The study guide, or whatever it is called, is not consistent with American ideals or history. The study guide must of been prepared by inexperienced political operatives chosen for idealogical reasons as opposed to experence or merit. Van Jones is a perfect example of the type of people the President hires to advise him.

Once again, as with health care, the creepy nonsense coming from the administration is rejected by the silent majority.

Doug Santo
Pasadena, CA

[Trouble]

I read somewhere that most of the public already thinks President Obama is on TV too much; the public reaction to this speech is an outgrowth of that.

Somehow, I just can't picture Obama being content with giving a "stay in school, don't do drugs, work hard" speech like George H. gave back in '91.

[tom myers]

I think parent's concern about Obama's address relates not just to the current dissatisfaction with government but with the whole Obama is "the one" mystique. I remember how vehemently against Pres. Bush my 9 yr old son was last year, even though he wasn't even running, in the run up to the election and how pro Obama he was. I'm sure part of the pro Obama part was the whole first black president stuff but I'm also pretty sure he had been indoctrinated by the entire school staff for most of the year. Thus, today we parents are extremely sensitized to WH plan or any appearance of a plan, real or not, to have our kids help sell the Obama agenda. According to my son (5th grader) he doesn't know anything about Obama speaking to them on Tuesday but just in case I will be dropping by the school at 11:00cst on Tuesday. cheers to all and keep your chin up!

[Darius]

On the day after he was inaugurated, the first song I keyed up on my playlist was "Cult of Personality."

[Texas Pete]

For fun, try searching for "indoctrination" or "indoctrinating children" on the US Dept of Education's website. Until they memory hole it, these searches always seem pick up a reference to Obama's little indoctrination session next week or the prep materials for it. You can't make this stuff up.

Here's one search: http://www.ed.gov/results.html?cx=017789009494528204701%3Auzmeqn9qqxo&cof=FORID%3A11&hq=-archived%3A&ie=UTF-8&q=indoctrinating+children&sa.x=21&sa.y=12&sa=submit#245

[Hyphenated American]

Obama is becoming an easy target for mockery...
Read the entire article here:
http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-is-becoming-easy-target-for.html

[franglosaxon]

Holy crap! You are telling me the same people who think Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Kommunist who was hatched from a dragon egg now don't trust Obama talking to their kids???

Deluded idiots continuing to espouse deluded distortions. Film at 11.

[Mikey NTH]

Rahm forgot the other part about wasting a crisis - sometimes the crisis wastes you.

[Darth Venomous]

"I am not aware of any prior President attempting to give such a "captive audience" speech to kids before."

Actually, Bush 41 gave such a speech back in 1991. And was bitched at long and loud for it by one Richard Gephardt, a...wait for it...Democrat.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/04/us/financing-for-a-bush-speech-is-attacked.html

"And the House majority leader, Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, said, 'The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the President.'"

PotKettleBlack™ much, leftards?

[franglosaxon]

Ooooh, Dick Gephardt did something in 1991 and therefore wingnuts are justified in being idiots today.

Great life program, wingtard.

[Luke Venomous]

Darth, perhaps you could post the study guide from Bush 41?

Darth? Darth? Bueller? Anyone?

Nope, no study guide. No request for teachers to have students prepare lists on how they would help Bush be successful, and no requests for teachers to hold students accountable for these goals.

[Bob]

"That what once would have been a non-event is so incredibly controversial suggests to me that a great many Americans likely feel disconnected from the nation's political affairs right now, as well as extremely concerned about what the future's going to bring."

Oh bullshit. It's just the latest phony, manufactured "controversy" of the usual cynical Republican operatives. Wing nuts have no shame. They're proud to act like ignorant hypocrites.

[Charlie]

Bob and franglosaxon--

Even as Obama supporters, you don't think he's taking his eye off the ball too much? Should he really come across as trucking with the kids right when unemployment hits highs unseen since Carter? For that matter, should he be adding staggering sums to our debt revamping health insurance (when almost 9 out of 10 are content) even as his Stimulus and bailouts start looking to be backfiring? It's been one boner after another. You do remember what happened after the Carter debacle, yes? Five Republican presidential terms and two moderate Democrat terms in the White House. You aren't concerned about paying such a steep political price again?

I think if I were you, I'd be writing him saying, please, Mr President, quit chasing the cameras and start getting something done!

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Ooooh, Dick Gephardt did something in 1991 and therefore wingnuts are justified in being idiots today."

When you call Dick Gephardt and the Obama Party idiots for doing that, then you may make the comparison.

In the meantime, it's just another classic example of how Obama Party members have no principles, no morals, and no values, and honestly believe they can get away with attacking people for things that they themselves were doing.

[Hyman Roth]

What's the difference between a dead liberal in the road and a dead skunk in the road?

The skidmarks in front of the skunk.

[Paul A'Barge]

Folks and Dan,
There is a long history of making a US President's speech to school children into a controversy. Here is documentation of leftys doing it to GWB:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/03/flashback-1991-gephardt-called-bushs-speech-students-paid-political-a

Frankly I agree with the leftys then and the rightys now. We have a long overt tradition of not indoctrinating in public schools. Of course that's violated on a regular basis by the leftist school teachers, but we do at least have this overt tradition.

No American school children should be lined up and forced to listen to the US President. Ever.

Remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8

[Bob]

"I think if I were you, I'd be writing him saying, please, Mr President, quit chasing the cameras and start getting something done!"

What a stupid argument. Chasing cameras? He's president -- all he has to do is give a speech or a press conference and the cameras come to him. I'd argue that hiding in a bunker like Dick Cheney seems to have done during much of the Bush administration is the opposite of actual leadership. This is the most contempt-worthy phony controversy that wing nuts are stupid enough to have yet proposed. It's beyond ridiculous. You've now moved into the territory of pure, unadulterated idiocy. Congratulations.

"What's the difference between a dead liberal in the road and a dead skunk in the road?"

Answer: You're a contemptible a$$hole. Kiss my a$$, wingnut.

[Darth Venomous]

"Darth, perhaps you could post the study guide from Bush 41?"

Luke, my point was not to bash Bush 41 for the speech. It was to call out the Demoscum for their blatant hypocrisy in bitching about it then and supporting it now. I thought I'd made that clear, but perhaps not.

Please do try to show at least a _bit_ more intelligence than, say, Roberta. (grin)

[Darth Venomous]

"Answer: You're a contemptible a$$hole. Kiss my a$$, wingnut."

Come say that to our faces, Roberta, you pansy-a$$.

[Bob]

"Come say that to our faces, Roberta, you pansy-a$$."

You're a stupid punk, DV. A REALLY stupid one who had to apologize to Dan Riehl for acting like such a jerk when you showed up a while ago. Now mind your manners, sonny-boy.