The Imperfections of Victimhood

Posted on Comments

Well, this wasn’t a conversation I was planning to have today, but after some Twitter discussion on the Dana McCallum transgender lesbian rape story — it’s like the Rocky Horror Nightly News Show or something — the misunderstanding exceeded what could be accomplished in 140 characters or less. So I said, “I’ll blog it and get back to you, OK?”

Do I really care what a bunch of San Francisco liberals think about me? I do not. On the other hand, San Francisco liberals are never going to have Second Thoughts if they think that the alternative to their worldview is ignorant bigotry, so occasionally it is worthwhile to demonstrate that our bigotry is not ignorant, and perhaps not even “bigotry” at all. That is to say, one may have entirely logical reasons for disagreeing with liberals and, even if your reasons are emotional or sentimental, it may still be possible to persuade liberals, by means of an articulate discourse.

The accusation that male-to-female transgender Dana McCallum raped her lesbian (biologically female) spouse @MadMelvina is one of those stories that strikes at the intersection of multiple contemporary ideological crusades of the Left:

  1. Rape Culture — This is the idea, popularized by feminists, that rape is not an individual act perpetrated by criminals. Instead, we are told, rape is the result of social attitudes about sex. By this pretzel logic, the person who makes a sarcastic remark about rape is complicit in the crime, because such remarks represent a cultural attitude that makes rape possible.
  2. Anti-Homophobia — As fashionable causes go, fighting homophobia in 2014 is like being a Freedom Rider in 1963 or a draft-card-burning hippie peacenik in 1968. Liberals have convinced themselves that prejudice against gays and lesbians is an existential crisis, and anyone who doesn’t constantly denounce homophobia might as well go join Westboro Baptist Church.
  3. Radical Feminism — Little noticed by the mainstream media, hard-core radical feminism is staging a comeback. And these man-hating lesbian separatists are angry as hell about the attempt of some transgenders to include themselves in feminism. From the radical (“essentialist”) perspective, these XY-chromosome sex-changers are simply men — the Oppressive Patriarchy incarnate! — employing a particularly sneaky way of co-opting the Womyn’s Movement.

It should not be necessary for me to say that I think all of these people are crazy. But all crazies are not created equal and, as crazy as the radical man-hating lesbians may be, they at least have valid science on their side in saying that “female” is a biological category — genetically determined, rather than being a “social construct.”

Readers will recall the January item, “Feminists Accused of ‘Transphobia’: Competitive Victimhood Derby“:

So, RadFem 2013 was a conference in London, which resulted in a gigantic controversy because radical feminists insisted on excluding the “transgendered” from their female-only event, and one of the featured speakers, Australian lesbian feminist Professor Sheila Jeffreys, was about to publish a new book, Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism, that was deeply offensive to the “T” people represented in the LGBT acronym.
How crazy did that conflict become? At one point in April, the venue tried to cancel the event after discovering that “certain language was used and some statements were made about transgender people that would go against our equalities and diversity policy.” Another RadFem conference organizer, Cathy Brennan of Baltimore, was meanwhile all over Twitter announcing “transwomen are men” and comparing them to MRAs (men’s rights advocates). . . .
The Competitive Victimhood Derby is ultimately a zero-sum game, you see. There can only be one winner, and the transgender claim to equal victimhood is rejected by radical feminists, who view this as an attempt to usurp their own categorical claim.
It’s like a traffic jam on the Crazyville Road, where two politicized groups of wackjobs are compelled by the implicit logic of their arguments to fight each other for supremacy.

Strange as it is to say, however, I perceive in the RadFem position not only a basic scientific truth about who is a woman, but also an argument for the principle of free association.

What the RadFem organizers are saying is that transgenders wanting to attend their conference are like Nazis wanting to attend a synagogue or Klansmen wanting to attend an NAACP meeting. If the organizers of a feminist conference cannot decide who is invited (and who is not invited), whose essential liberty is being infringed?

Therefore, I accept that RadFems (who understandably do not want me and my oppressive patriarchal penis anywhere near their conference) also have the right to exclude XY-chromosome persons who present themselves as pseudo-females. And the only real argument that transgender “feminists” can make in response is that their exclusion from the RadFem conference hurts their feelings.

So what? Since when was it a civil-rights violation to hurt somebody’s feelings? Where do people get the idea that, if you call me a “hillbilly,” I can sue you for not calling me an “Appalachian-American”?

People do not have a “right” to high self-esteem!

OK, so when it was reported that Dana McCallum’s ex-wife had accused her of rape, a radical feminist rejected the categories:

Conservatives don’t usually find themselves nodding in agreement with angry radical dykes, but it’s difficult to deny the basic point here: If radical feminism is about advancing the interests of lesbians, then it is sort of an insult to radical feminists to label Dana McCallum’s (alleged) crime a “lesbian rape.” Such an inaccurate label wrongly shifts the blame from one group (transgenders) to another group (lesbians).

Radical dykes have feelings, too, you know.

Apparently, however, Dana McCallum’s (alleged) victim has an overpowering sympathy for the, uh, transgender community. (The alleged victim’s identity is not a secret, by the way: Anyone can figure out that @MadMelvina is @DanaDanger’s ex-wife.) The rhetoric about McCallum’s gender was upsetting to the alleged victim:

 

Hmmmm. It certainly would have been the wise thing to bite my tongue and say nothing. But my innate propensity for irreverent sarcasm is sometimes just too strong to resist:


 

Was I trying to make a serious point here? Yes, because it would seem like to me that if a woman had been raped by a member of the transgender community, this event might cause her to have Second Thoughts about her sympathies. In fact, maybe this unfortunate experience would cause a victim and her friends to question their entire liberal worldview, which is based on the idea that moral virtue consists chiefly of striking poses of political sympathy toward Oppressed Minorities and Other Victims of Society.

Maybe — and hey, I’m just throwing this out there, OK? — it makes more sense to look at human beings as individuals, rather than as members of collective identity groups. Maybe people who chatter constantly about “critical thinking” could apply some skeptical curiosity to the liberal habit of categorizing people as either (a) Victims of Oppression or (b) Perpetrators of Oppression on the basis of group membership. Is it possible that some gay people, for example, have problems more important than “homophobia”? Yes, I think this is possible, and I even think that if you studied the situation carefully, you would find that the vast majority of homosexuals aren’t really Victims of Oppression at all.

Far be it from me either (a) to foment transphobic bigotry, or (b) to engage in slut-shaming and victim-blaming. However, I would hope that @MadMelvina‘s experience with @DanaDanger might inspire her to reconsider her apparent belief that all transgendered people are Victims of Oppression in every circumstance. After all, if @MadMelvina‘s allegations are true, then she is the Victim, and @DanaDanger is actually the Oppressor. And I will repeat what I said before:

Some people have a “rescuer” tendency that leads them to get involved with damaged personalities. So if McCallum’s ex fled one abusive situation, only to end up in another (allegedly) abusive situation, this is perhaps predictable.

One does not have to be a perfect victim in order to be a victim. When a teenage hoodlum gets gunned down by rival hoodlums, we are not “blaming the victim” (nor are we “pro-drive-by-shooting”) if we say that such crimes illustrate the danger of adolescents becoming involved in youth gang activity. By the same token, when a teenage girl is sexually assaulted after getting passed-out drunk at a party, we are not “pro-rape” for mentioning the role of alcohol in the crime.

Knowing absolutely nothing about the facts of “the incident in question” involving @MadMelvina and @DanaDanger, I am nonetheless predisposed to believe the victim in this case.

Why? Well, a careful reading of Dana McCallum’s August 2013 speech to a high school LGBT group indicates that McCallum has a long history of mental illness. The careful reader with a background in psychology might see elements of pathological narcissism, impulsive behavior and “boundary issues” in McCallum’s story. Would someone like that be capable of sexual assault? Certainly, I think so.

But wait a minute: Aren’t the mentally ill also an Official Victim Group for whom liberals are required to feel sympathy?

And if the alleged rapist is a mentally ill transgender, doesn’t that double victimhood trump the rights of a mere woman?

The logic of the Competitive Victimhood Derby has led us to this strange place, where a rape victim fears transphobia more than she fears that other women may fall prey to similar crimes.

PSYCHO-TRANNY RAPE RAMPAGE
Women Savagely Assaulted by Sex-Crazed Shemales

Yeah, that’s a tabloid headline that would sell some newspapers. And as crazy as the news has been lately, who knows?

Maybe these musings won’t cause any San Francisco liberals to have Second Thoughts about their worldview, but I hope at least I’ve demonstrated that my bigotry isn’t entirely ignorant.

And perhaps it isn’t really bigotry at all. Think about it.

 

Transgender Lesbian Dana McCallum Accused of Raping Lesbian Ex-Wife

Posted on Comments

Accused transgender lesbian rapist Dana McCallum.

Maybe this proves the radical feminists right. Even after they get rid of their penises, men are still men and all men are rapists:

A prominent advocate for transgender and women’s rights in the tech world has been charged with raping her wife, The San Francisco Examiner has learned.
Dana McCallum, a senior engineer at Twitter who speaks and writes about women’s and transgender rights and technology issues, was arrested Jan. 26 and booked into County Jail on suspicion of five felonies, according to the Sheriff’s Department.
McCallum, 31, whose legal name is Dana Contreras, was charged Jan. 29 with five felonies, including three counts of spousal rape, one count of false imprisonment and one count of domestic violence, according to the District Attorney’s Office. She has since pleaded not guilty. . . .
McCallum’s attorney, John Runfola, says the case is simply about money.
“I’m just disgusted that, you know, this is going on,” Runfola said. “Dana is an employee [at Twitter] and is about to come into a large amount of money. … This whole thing is about money.”
The couple had been separated, he said, but were still having sexual relations. McCallum served her wife with divorce papers the day before the incident, Runfola said.
The incident in question, according to Runfola, happened in a small condo in the Mission district when four teenagers were in the house.
“No one heard ‘rape’ or fighting or anything,” he said.

Uh, why were four teenagers at this couple’s “small condo in the Mission district”? But never mind that distraction: Exactly how does a transgender rape her estranged lesbian wife? Can a woman be “raped” by her partner’s surgically created simulacrum of a vagina? One suspects that a detailed account of “the incident in question” would be an exceptionally strange story. Speaking of which . . .

The Daily Mail notices that McCallum has published “the text of a talk I gave to Bloomington High School South’s gay-straight alliance in Indiana on April 24, 2013.” Because, yeah, talking to high school kids about your sex life is the thing you want to do a few months before you’re accused of raping your lesbian wife while four teenagers are in your condo.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

UPDATE: A bit of research reveals that @MadMelvina is @DanaDanger’s ex-wife. She is about 15 years older than McCallum, and fled an abusive marriage to her previous husband. At least one of the couple’s friends is siding with the ex against McCallum:

Some people have a “rescuer” tendency that leads them to get involved with damaged personalities. So if McCallum’s ex fled one abusive situation, only to end up in another (allegedly) abusive situation, this is perhaps predictable. Speaking of which . . .

TERFs = Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists, i.e., lesbian separatists who don’t want trannies in female-only spaces. Weird to find myself agreeing with them, however limited the agreement may be.

 

The One Percent

Posted on Comments

Matthew Continetti recounts the luxurious lifestyle of two top liberal lobbyists in Washington whose marriage went kaput:

The stories begin in the fall of 2001. She was in her early thirties, working at a trade association, and on the rebound. Her second marriage had just ended. A friend, Dorothy Robyn, a Democratic policy wonk, suggested she meet Tony Podesta. Tony was decades older than she, and had been married once before, but he was young at heart. He took her to the opera for their first date. On the way, the story goes, they stopped by one of his homes to pick up a car. She noticed his art collection. “I don’t know why it is,” Tony said, “but I have artworks where the women have no heads.” The next day she sent him a note. It was signed, “Woman with a head.”
The woman with a head was Heather Miller, and soon she and Tony were in love. They moved in together. When they married, in April of 2003, Tony was 59, and Heather was 33. Nancy Pelosi witnessed their vows, as did Patrick Leahy, and Ed Markey, and Bill Richardson, and countless other Democratic bigwigs. According to the Post, which has chronicled the ups and downs of the Podestas’ relationships and careers, the noted D.C. chefs and restaurateurs Roberto Donna and Kaz Okuchi “personally cooked for the guests.” This was no ordinary wedding.
And Tony Podesta was no ordinary man. A longtime Democratic aide, a counselor to Teddy Kennedy, Tony had been one of the capital’s most powerful lobbyists for some time. As his lawyers would later put it, “‘Podesta’ was a widely recognized and well-respected name in the lobbying industry at the time of the marriage.” The lobbying firm he had established in 1987 was powerfully connected. His younger brother, John, was President Clinton’s chief of staff. Tony Podesta owned art and wine and real estate in Italy, in Australia, in northern Virginia, and in D.C. He was a major Democratic donor, a force to be reckoned with, and a cut-up, a character who wore loud neckties and red Prada shoes. . . .

Read the whole thing. The swinish Podestas are suing each other and waging a tacky P.R. battle via strategic media leaks.

 

Marsha Blackburn, Steel Magnolia

Posted on Comments

The suggestion that Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee might consider a 2016 Republican presidential campaign is encouraging. One does not wish to see the GOP play a “Me, Too” game of identity politics with the Democrats, yet conservatives must be realistic and practical in our approach to electoral marketing strategy. The reality is that Republicans have been stigmatized as the Party of Old Rich White Guys and the optics of politics in the TV age require that this stigma be visibly counteracted. It will not suffice merely for GOP officials to say they are diverse; seeing is believing, and Republicans must provide the public visual evidence of their claim to represent all Americans.

Republicans actually are more diverse than the “Old Rich White Guys” stereotype would suggest, and the presence of Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain in the 2012 GOP primary field helped demonstrate that. Neither Bachmann nor Cain were tokens. Both of them were strong conservative voices, popular with Tea Party activists, and each at one point led the entire primary field. Bachmann surged immediately after her June 2011 entry into the race and in August 2011 won the Iowa GOP straw poll. In the debates, Bachmann inflicted some of the most damaging blows against one-time frontrunner Texas Gov. Rick Perry. And when Perry’s campaign sagged, Cain surged ahead in polls on the basis of his business-minded arguments and his populist appeal.

Well, what about Marsha Blackburn? She’s one of the most powerful Republican women in the House and has for years shown her mastery of policy issues in media appearances. And let me warn anyone who cares to know, that lady is tough as a hell.

We were in Tampa for the Republican convention in 2012 and Blackburn was a VIP guest at Blog Bash. During the pre-event reception, about five or six of us New Media types were in sort of an informal circle around Blackburn when I got the crazy idea to ask her about a controversy that had occurred during a meeting of the RNC platform committee on which Blackburn served.

Bad idea.

Blackburn cut me a glance that froze my blood. Her hostility to my question was so evident that Ali Akbar, who was part of the group clustered around her, just walked away in horror at my faux pas.

Exactly what Blackburn said in answer to my question, I’ve forgotten, but the underlying message was clear: Don’t ever ask me a question like that again or I will be forced to destroy you.

It seems unlikely  that Blackburn would actually enter the 2012 GOP field. She’s got a solid position in the House now, and the odds are against her winning the nomination, simply because House members don’t have the kind of broad-based political machinery that a Senator or Governor can bring into a presidential campaign. On the other hand, a White House run would help raise her national profile, and could put her on the short list for the vice presidency or a Cabinet post in a future Republican administration.

Anyway, it’s encouraging to see Blackburn’s name mentioned for 2016 and, if she does run, political journalists should consider themselves warned: Don’t cross her. That lady’s tough as hell.

 

Scapegoated for ObamaCare Failures, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Resigns

Posted on Comments

Thursday’s resignation of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is the biggest move yet in President Obama’s effort to rescue his signature government health-insurance plan, and to limit the political impact of the program’s failure.

The administration and its allies are trying to convince Americans that problems with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are just temporary technical glitches with a website — the “botched rollout” narrative — rather than fundamental flaws with the law itself.

Sebelius’s resignation fits that narrative, permitting Democrats and their media sympathizers to claim that problems with ObamaCare were caused by the former HHS secretary’s incompetence, and not by any basic problem in the president’s program. This is likely to become a key issue in the campaign for the fall mid-term elections, in which Republicans seeking to capture the Senate majority will argue that ObamaCare is a complete failure that should be repealed, while Democrats will say the policy is successful, but simply had a few early glitches that have now been fixed. Liberal blogger Ezra Klein offers the Democrat spin:

Obamacare has won. And that’s why Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius can resign.
Calls for Sebelius’s resignation were almost constant after Obamacare’s catastrophic launch. The problem wasn’t just that Sebelius had presided over the construction of a fantastically expensive web site that flatly didn’t work. It was that she didn’t know healthcare.gov was going to instantly, systemically fail. And so the White House didn’t know that healthcare.gov was going to instantly, systemically fail. The demands that Sebelius to step down — or be fired — were as deafening inside the building as outside of it.
But President Obama refused. As National Journal’s Major Garrett reported, Obama believes that “scaring people with a ceremonial firing deepens fear, turns allies against one another, makes them risk-averse, and saps productivity.” Moreover, there was too much to be done to fire one of the few people who knew how to finish the job. Sebelius would stay. The White House wouldn’t panic in ways that made it harder to save the law.
The evidence has piled up in recent weeks that the strategy worked. Obamacare’s first year, despite a truly horrific start, was a success. More than 7 million people look to have signed up for health insurance through the exchanges. Millions more have signed up through Medicaid. And millions beyond that have signed up for insurance through their employers.

In Klein’s pro-Obama narrative, then, not only is ObamaCare a successful policy, but the president’s handling of problems with the website’s launch demonstrated his competence as an executive.

Ben Domenech offers the conservative interpretation:

Kathleen Sebelius is resigning, and Rachel Maddow is right to not be happy about it, not one little bit. For once, I completely agree with Maddow’s analysis. This surprise resignation presents Republicans with an unexpected opportunity to refocus the conversation on Obamacare’s negatives, offers a chance to force vulnerable Senate Democrats to take a hard vote on Obamacare six months before the midterms, and serves to disrupt what had been a positive few days of media spin for the health care law into another conversation about its many failings.

Domenech sees the upcoming confirmation vote for Sebelius’s appointed successor at HHS — Office of Management and Budget Director Sylvia Matthews Burwell — as a “golden opportunity” for Senate Republicans “to reignite their crusade against Obamacare,” forcing Democrats to give an up-or-down vote on a nominee who will serve as a “proxy” symbol for the program’s failures.

Domenech should caution his GOP friends on Capitol Hill to tread carefully, as Democrats and their media allies may be luring Republicans into a “War on Women” trap, setting up a situation in which a bunch of old white guys are seen attacking a female nominee.

This trap could best be avoided simply by calling attention to how the administration is deliberately setting up Burwell.

Having made one woman (Sebelius) a scapegoat for ObamaCare’s failures to date, now the White House disingenuously shoves another top female administration official into the political meat-grinder, hoping to obtain a short-term political benefit from Burwell’s public humiliation in Senate hearings. Considering how Hillary Clinton was scapegoated for the Benghazi massacre, Republicans might well ask, “Why does Obama always blame women for his failures?”

 

In The Mailbox, 04.11.14

Posted on Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: LA Daily News Runs Doom & Gloom Article On Tim Donnelly
Doug Powers: Deer, Meet Headlights – Six People On “Morning Joe” Try To Cite Hillary’s Achievement
Twitchy: Sebelius “Released From Job Lock”, But Did Obama Ruin Her Chance At A Mozilla Gig?


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Ayaan Hirsi Ali – Here’s What I Would Have Said At Brandeis
American Thinker: Voter Fraud – The Left’s Tool For Social Justice
Blackfive: Arlington National Cemetery Flyover Update
Conservatives4Palin: Kirsten Powers – Liberals’ Mob Rule
Don Surber: 2nd Congressional Race Reflects A New West Virginia
Jammie Wearing Fools: Incompetent Hack Sebelius Resigning
Joe For America: Up To 5000 Armed Militia Members Arriving In Bunkerville, Nevada Today
Pat Dollard: Federal Judge Slams Holder For “Unprecedented” Action That Executive Branch Had “No Authority” To Take
Protein Wisdom: Jesse Ventura – “Dan Snyder Is Trying To Buy The Right To Be Racist”
Shot In The Dark: Guess They Got What They Deserved
The Jawa Report: Red On Red – ISIS And Al Nusrah Continue To Kill Each Other In Syria
Lonely Conservative: House Republicans Might Arrest Lois Lerner If DOJ Doesn’t
This Ain’t Hell: Chandler & Stevens Give Congress The Go-Ahead To Slash Personnel Costs
Megan McArdle: Our Bodies, Our Dry-Cleaning Bill


Violent Teenage Tranny Provokes Connecticut Youth Jail Crisis

Posted on Comments

A 16-year-old boy who wants to be a girl has a history of violently attacking staff at juvenile facilities. After the latest attack, the teenage transsexual was transferred to a prison for young adult offenders, and a variety of activist types have become outraged:

Lawyers for the youth who was transferred out of the care of the Department of Children and Families and into an adult prison pressed for a court order Thursday barring the youth’s placement at the Manson Correctional Institute for males up to the age of 20.
Prison officials on Thursday were still evaluating the female transgender youth at the York Correctional Institute for women in Niantic. A federal judge dismissed the request for a court order “without prejudice,” meaning lawyers for the youth can immediately re-file the request as soon as prison officials decide where the youth will be housed. That could happen by Friday. Through its history, the Department of Correction has always placed transgendered inmates by their biological gender.
There is no criminal charge against the 16-year-old, and DCF said it took the extremely rare action of pressing for a transfer to an adult prison because of the youth’s history of assaulting staff members at juvenile facilities. But advocates for children said DCF deals with many assaultive youths, and said the transfer endangers the youth’s life and sets an intolerable precedent. A state judge on Tuesday approved the transfer of the youth out of DCF care.
Attorney Aaron Romano, one of the youth’s lawyers, said the legal team would oppose any move to place the youth at Manson, saying her life would be in danger. And Romano said any move to put the youth in an isolation or seclusion unit at York would also be opposed — as a violation of the her constitutional rights.

Read the whole crazy thing. There are multiple angles, including the accusation that this teen tranny’s case was dishonestly used by Connecticut officials in lobbying for additional funding:

It turns out that Jill, the ultra-violent girl cited in testimony by DCF Commissioner Joette Katz in February 14th hearings regarding the need for a Connecticut facility for ultra-violent female juveniles is in fact a male transgender.
The 16 year old “girl” and “female” cited in multiple reports as an alleged serial violent batterer of women and girls across several foster care placements was revealed to be a male “transgender teen” yesterday when gay activist groups revealed he has since been remanded to an adult prison facility for evaluation and placement by the state.

It can be hard to keep track of the pronouns in a story like this, but there is no doubting the teen tranny’s propensity for violence:

DCF argued before a judge that it could not care for the youth at any of its programs, including the high-security Connecticut Juvenile Training School in Middletown. The youth had assaulted a staff member at a Massachusetts facility in January. . . .
In this case, the youth was arrested at a juvenile facility in Needham, Mass., but the assault charge was not pursued by prosecutors. No criminal charges are pending against the youth, who was placed in the Needham facility by Connecticut DCF.
The police report in Massachusetts said that the assault resulted in “apparent minor injuries” to the staff member, said Connolly, who reviewed the report.
However, the incident report prepared by staff at Meadowridge Academy in Needham, describes a violent outburst by the youth, who was upset, insubordinate and attempting to walk off campus when confronted by two staff members.
The assault occurred after one of the two staff members attempted to restrain the youth by bear-hugging the youth around the chest.
The youth broke free and punched the victim multiple times, bit the staffer on the top of the head, and kicked the staffer at least six times in the head, arms and face, according to the report.

The ACLU has gotten involved:

Sandra Staub, legal director of the ACLU of Connecticut, said the effect of the transfer is to single out the youth for unjust treatment.
“DCF asked for and the court approved a plan to treat this girl as if she were an adult and a criminal, although she is neither,” Staub said.
The agency pursued this action “simply because she is a transgendered girl,” Staub said. “No other girl in DCF custody has been endangered in this way. The result, if not the intent, is clearly discriminatory.”

Hey, wait a minute: If you put this “transgendered girl” in a juvenile facility for females, don’t the violent tendencies of this biological male — who is likely taller and stronger than nearly all the female inmates — put those girls at risk? Also . . .

Well, penis?

Having an inmate with a penis in the juvenile girls dormitory might be kinda problematic. Supply, demand. Just sayin’ . . .