BS: Nader for President - Part Two

Subject: Nader for President - Part Two
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 12:58 AM

The other thread was almost to 100. You can access it by clicking here

I got the following today and thought it was worth sharing:

A special election message from Working Assets

THIS IS NOT YET ANOTHER ENDORSEMENT OR PLEA FOR SUPPORT. PLEASE KEEP READING!

No topic has received more attention in recent days among our friends and fellow employees than the candidacy of Ralph Nader. Opinions are often stated in the strongest of terms, and in the heat of the last days of a campaign, not always in the most polite of manners. WORKING ASSETS DOES NOT ENDORSE CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT, AND THIS RACE IS NO EXCEPTION. We know that many of our customers are advocates for Gore and Nader, as well as other independent candidates Hagelin, McReynolds and Browne. This election matters immensely and your vote matters. Please vote and work to get all of your friends and neighbors to vote.

And when you vote, the issue then becomes very interesting. Newspapers, like the e-mail boxes for many of us, are being filled with debate on whether voting for Ralph Nader will lead to the election of George W. Bush, provide for public funding for the Green Party in 2004 with the change that implies, or energize disaffected voters and make a difference at every election level.

Many progressives, most affiliated directly with the Gore campaign, are calling on Ralph Nader to withdraw or at least to cease campaigning in close states. Many progressives are calling on him to hold the course and intensify his efforts.

Now it is your turn to let Ralph Nader know what you think - get out, stay in, or anything else for that matter.

If you want Ralph Nader to campaign everywhere and get as many votes as possible, visit: http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?ItemId=9007

If you want Ralph Nader to pull out or stop campaigning in swing states, visit: http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?ItemId=9006

While you are there, you can sign up to receive additional information from http://www.ActForChange.com , the daily activism site created by Working Assets to bring together actions you might take on the hot issues of the day. We work with hundreds of the best nonprofit groups running issue campaigns, and post some of the most valuable at ActForChange so you can read the paper, surf the web and then quickly act.

So, make sure you and your friends vote. Please weigh in on the Nader candidacy, and check out ActForChange.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: bseed(charleskratz)
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 02:04 AM

Thanks for starting a new one, kat. Not only was the old one getting cumbersome, it was loaded with postings from people who couldn't care less about the question under discussion. When I posted to the other one a couple of nights ago, several people were looking for or suggesting answers to the question faced by those of us who want to vote for Nader but who don't want to contribute to a Bush victory. I hope that that particular question will motivate future responses to this thread (I'm beginning to sympathize with Gargoyle here--except that he'd reject this entire thread...but post to it).

Anyway, I'm still as torn as before. I know that one or the other IS going to be president, and Bush is unthinkable. But I don't think Gore's record of support for Clinton's policies or his own voting and fundraising records give us any reason to believe he's any more likely to work to stop the transferrence of power from the people to the corporations than is Dubya. Two nights ago I was sure I was going to vote to send a message to the Dems that they're supposed to be the dems. Tonight I'm not so sure after getting this message from a friend:

Dear Friends... As you know, things have changed: it looks like my man may tip the scales and let Dan Quayle with a Mean Streak in. At one point I was convinced that we had a chance to develop a third party, that may still happen. But I'm afraid of what will happen if the worst

occurs: that we cause the election of this band of capitalist raiders and opportunists, with all the ensuing social repercussions such as:

November 2, 2000

IN AMERICA

Medieval Justice

By BOB HERBERT

When President George Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court in 1991, one of the other candidates on the president's very short list was a federal judge from Texas named Edith Jones. Ms. Jones, who sits on the Court of Appeals the Fifth Circuit, is now frequently mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee if George W. Bush is elected president. She is a right-winger in the mold of Mr. Thomas and AntoninScalia, the two justices Mr. Bush admires most.

Like Mr. Thomas, Ms. Jones is controversial. She was part of a three-judge panel that ruled on a gruesome sexual harassment case in 1988. The plaintiff had alleged that her supervisor and others had repeatedly propositioned her, that she was groped and grabbed, that obscene comments about her were played over the company's public address system, that pornography was placed in her locker and she was the subject of obscene graffiti scrawled on the company's walls.

That, according to the plaintiff, constituted a hostile work environment.

Judge Jones seemed to find it significant that some of the plant's employees were blue-collar workers, as opposed to "lawyers" or other "white-collar" workers. "We're dealing with people whose standards are different," she said.

The plaintiff's lawyer noted that her client had complained when "one of the guys pinched her breast."

Judge Jones replied, "Well, he apologized."

There were gasps in the courtroom.

Two members of the panel ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Judge Jones ruled against her.

Last week Ms. Jones was in the news again. On another three-judge panel she ruled with the majority that it's O.K. to execute a man even though his court-appointed lawyer slept through substantial portions of his trial. The decision overturned the ruling of a Federal District Court judge, David Hittner, who said the defendant, Calvin Burdine, was entitled to a new trial. "A sleeping counsel is

equivalent to no counsel at all," said Judge Hittner.

Texas's sleeping court-appointed lawyers have become notorious. George W. Bush was asked about the Burdine case not too long ago. He said the fact that Judge Hittner had overturned the conviction showed that "the system worked."

But Judge Jones and Judge Rhesa Barksdale, in their 2-to-1 ruling last Friday, reversed Judge Hittner's decision. They acknowledged that the lawyer, Joe Frank Cannon (who is now deceased), fell asleep at various times during the trial. But they ruled that there was no way to determine whether that was actually harmful to Mr. Burdine.

One juror testified that Cannon was asleep during "quite a bit" of the trial. And a court clerk testified that she had seen him sleeping "a lot" and "for long periods of time" during the questioning of witnesses.

But Judge Jones and Judge Barksdale said it was impossible to determine just when Cannon was sleeping. Thus, there was no way to know whether anything prejudicial to his client occurred while Cannon slept.

The opinion said: "In sum, on this record, we cannot determine whether Cannon slept during a 'critical stage' of Burdine's trial."

They rejected the idea that when a man's life is at stake, every stage of the trial is critical.

The third member of the Circuit Court panel, Fortunato Benavides, wrote a blistering dissent: "Burdine should be entitled to a new trial with the benefit of counsel who does not sleep during substantial portions of his trial. In my opinion, it shocks the conscience that a defendant could be sentenced to death under the circumstances surrounding counsel's representation of Burdine."

This is like something from the Dark Ages. To execute someone after a trial in which his lawyer doesn't even bother to remain awake is barbaric.

Mr. Burdine's current lawyer, Robert McGlasson, summed the matter up neatly. "Justice asleep is justice denied," he said. He plans an appeal.

Meanwhile, Edith Jones, her right-wing bona fides all but impeccable, is free to contemplate the blissful possibility of joining her judicial soul mates Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia on the highest court in the land. 

So... at the risk of sounding chicken, I will, in all probability, hold my nose and vote for Al, who, after all, is married to Tipper, and is, obviously, a good kisser. Better a goody-goody than a feather-light oil man from Texas. Politics is hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 02:17 AM

Charles, thanks for posting that. I feel such a backhanded luxury in being able to vote for Nader and NOT have it count towards Bush. Bush will get Wyoming's 3 measly votes no matter who I vote for.

The Internet is the way of a revolution which is already bringing about change; the populace is becoming aware of how to use it for grassroots movements and will take over politics, as we know it, sooner, rather than later, IMO. Any politician who wants to stay viable had better keep up on it or the revolution will be taken t the streets, eventually from what I hear from voters of all ages.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 03:12 AM

"I am a registered independent non-partisan voter. I often vote GREEN and someday, I believe, we will have a person like you in the highest office. This year, however, I see an alarmingly great difference between the two major parties and their nominees. If we get Bush in office, it will be the Reagan years all over again- and perhaps worse, because of the Supreme Court vacancies coming up, with their far-reaching implications."

This is what I sent Ralph Nader as a foreword to the form letter they had there in #9006. I hope we all make our feelings known to him, whether pro or con.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: GUEST,Stormy
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 09:43 AM

If everyone I know who says they'd like to vote for Nader but are afraid, would pluck up the guts to do it, he'd have one heck of a powerful showing and that alone would give him cause to be listened to by anyone who becomes president. We are the ones who put the hairbrains into office while 'wishing' someone else would have been chosen. When we are given that opportunity, we run like hell, afraid to risk anything in order to bring about something so much better. God help us all. Me? I'm voting for Nader!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: kendall
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 09:57 AM

sorry, I posted an answer to harpgirl on the old thread. So, SHOOT ME!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: kendall
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:14 AM

people who hate or fear guns remind me of the time I put up smoke detectors. My little girl began to cry, and as I was comforting her, I came to realize that she had not given any thought to the reality of fire. Also, do you have insurance on your car or house? Of course you do. We all hope it will never be used, but there is a good reason to have it just in case. Thats what my gun is...insurance.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: MiriamKilmer
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:20 AM

More reasons to vote for Neither, if you're not in a toss-up state.

I mean Nader.

This is an alarmingly good article by Molly Ivins, a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Tim Slattery (of Texas) says she knows her stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:49 AM

Molly Ivins is a partisan (which she wouldn't deny), but she is an intelligent and principled one. Based on her track record, I tend to credit what she has to say. And this one makes some pretty telling points.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: Troll
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:24 AM

As far ashe Supreme Court appointees go, I, personally, hope for strict constructionists. By this I mean those who look at what the constitution says and not what THEY think it SHOULD say.Liberal or Conservative, it makes little difference.
It is the function of the Supreme Court to judge the consititutionality of a law, not to make laws. That is reserved to the Congress.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: Troll
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 12:04 PM

Kendall, this is twice in a couple of days that we have agreed with each other and it has to stop!
I have staked my claim to the conservative side of the fence and you have the liberal side so STAY ON YOUR OWN SIDE!!!
The right to bear arms is MY issue and I don't like you posting statements that express my position. Especially when you do it so well. Makes it look like I'm falling down on the job.
On the other hand, it is rather nice to see that you are flexible and realistic. There may be hope for you yet.

troll **** chuckling evily****

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: kendall
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 12:45 PM

There is good in the worst of us..there is bad in the best, I wont apologize for taking your side of the street, you conservatives need help LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: Troll
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 12:57 PM

So come on over and help us!
(I just love it when they set themselves up!)

troll ***BG***

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: kendall
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 01:03 PM

Pull the other one!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: Kim C
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 03:22 PM

I think we should start settling Presidential elections with a round of good old-fashioned fistfights. All candidates draw straws to see who fights whom, and the winners will just keep fighting one another till there's one man (or woman) standing. This would show us who's got the most pluck and determination, anyway... pluck and determination will get you a long way even when you don't know what you're doing. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 03:45 PM

The Ivins article is good, but it's just one of many that echo the same sentiments. GWB is not ready to be our leader.

Trouble for all you Nader backers is that Ralph isn't ready to be our leader either. He is not a "leader" in the way that word applies to the Presidency. He is a voice crying out in the desert. He is an old testament prophet; and they don't get elected as often as they do stoned (with rocks, I mean). Someone in one of the political threads said (in essence)that it is time for youth to be heard and for a new generation to lead. And you are right. But that would be my generation (just turned 50, thank you very much).

It is easy at 18 to grab Nader's coattails and say "Let's smash the system!" My generation did that in 1968 and again in 1972. And we defeated Humphrey (who was a good old liberal) and got buried with McGovern (who was a good old college perfesser, totally out of his depth). Now you are making the same mistake with Nader. And you should. It's youth's job to try to "shoot the juice" back into a fossilized system. But Nader has not proven himself as a leader - just as a spoiler. He will have four years to prove me wrong, but that starts on November 8th.

This election has only one candidate running who is capable of leading this country (and I am considering the Libertarians, Reformists et al). He's Al Gore. He may be a stiff, uncomfortable, preachy candidate; but he paid all his dues and he will be a good president. Better than Reagan, or Bush Senior. Better than Ford or Carter. Better than Nixon. Maybe even better than Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: Troll
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 03:48 PM

Kendall. Why? Does it have bells on it?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: kendall
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 04:54 PM

Look, I'm a curmudgeon ..curmudgeons disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: northfolk/al cholger
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:21 PM

Bartholmew,

Sorry friend, you sound like you are good at reading the paper, but not at analytical thought...

Nader has accomplished more from outside of government, than Gore or that other twirp, have from inside, because he is a leader capable of inciting and leading people in their own best interest. Nader did not take on GM by himself...he did not lead the charge for OSHA by himself...or a number of other consumer issues... I submit, Nader can do what Gore or Bush will never do, use the presidency as a bully pulpit to teach and lead people to do the things that need to be done.

His record speaks for itself...don't discount it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: kendall
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 05:26 PM

The fact is, Nader would have no support in congress. They would eat him alive. Outsiders are always fair game in D.C.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 07:11 PM

Bartholomew, I always enjoy your postings, but please don't think that all of the Nader supporters are youngsters. Many of us are in our 30's, 40's, 50's and beyond.

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: thosp
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 07:20 PM

thosp a Nader supporter at 56 and counting

peace (Y) thosp

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 07:30 PM

I have the luxury of liking a few of Nader's positions, and not particularly liking or trusting Nader, so my vote for Gore, whom I actually DO like and respect (for 12-14 years now) is pretty easy. Gore sure could make it easier for more people to like him if he'd study a few of Nader's rhetorical techniques.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: thosp
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 08:14 PM

BillD-- i'm just curious -- i can understand not liking Naders' personality --- but what don't you trust about him? ---- i'm not trying to be arguementative-just curious

peace (Y) thosp

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:13 PM

I just am not satisfied that his stated reasons for this campaign are totally sincere....he is to the left of Gore, and helping Bush win will cost HIM in the long run....I have just a feeling I can't logically explain that he has a hidden agenda and is looking to make the Green Party a personal platform to promote HIS ideas, rather than a real 3rd party alternative....

I know,...not a "good" answer....but, I think we will find out IF he gets those matching funds next time.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: thosp
Date: 04 Nov 00 - 12:03 AM

Hi BillD --- i just checked back in - and read your reply -- i've been thinking about it -- i'm pretty tired so i want to think about it some more -after i've gotten some rest -- but if you could expand on ----------------------"and is looking to make the Green Party a personal platform to promote HIS ideas, rather than a real 3rd party alternative...."----- i'm adding this thread to tracer ---- anyway thread you later!

peace (Y) thosp "

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: bseed(charleskratz)
Date: 04 Nov 00 - 12:10 AM

Nader certainly doesn't expect or even hope to win, nor do any of his supporters--what he hopes is to get enough votes to get federal campaign money for the Green Party in the next presidential election--and to jolt the Democrats into recognizing that in too many ways they have abandoned their constituency in a quest for the middle of the road and especially for campaign contributions. I agree that he would be a disaster as president, not because of his abilities or character or lack thereof, but because he would lack any congressional support.

--seed

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: MiriamKilmer
Date: 04 Nov 00 - 08:21 AM

..."the Democrats... in too many ways they have abandoned their constituency in a quest for the middle of the road and especially for campaign contributions"... and because the word "liberal" is being used as if it were a bad name. Nobody likes to be called names.

Like my father, I'm proud of being a liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: GUEST,Luther
Date: 04 Nov 00 - 08:58 AM

BSeed, I won't presume to sway your decision. You would know who Bob Herbert is, who he works for, what their agenda is. You would know, by now, who George W. Bush is, who Al Gore is, and what led you to support Nader in the first place. Whatever your decision, I trust it will be made on the basis of what you know, what you have known for some time now, and not on reflex to a transparent scare tactic.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: MiriamKilmer
Date: 07 Nov 00 - 04:41 PM

I haven't seen anyone posting about this site yet, so here it is:

www.winwincampaign.org

Just in case you're still undecided.

In Virginia, the polls close at 7. I'm waiting for Tim to get home; we always vote together. I almost wrote "fight together." Well, it would be difficult for us to fight apart, now, wouldn't it. Or maybe not.

Perhaps I should take this discussion to the thread about how those who ask us to get along are secretly trying to incite more fights.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: GUEST,voyager
Date: 07 Nov 00 - 09:07 PM

I voted for Nader twice today.

Once at the ballot box & once with my heart.

The key to my vote was finding a 1972 Video of the old TV variety show - The Mike Douglas show.

For one week, the show was hosted by John Lennon and Yoko Ono. Their guests that week included the indefatigable Mr. Nader.

Give Chance a Piece!

voyager FSGW Ghetto

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 00 - 03:33 AM

Are you Nader people happy now? It turned out that a vote for Nader WAS a vote for Bush...

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 08 Nov 00 - 03:45 AM

Uhhh, yeah. Even though Gore still won my state. Nader got something like 6% here, which is great. :)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: InOBU
Date: 08 Nov 00 - 07:35 AM

Polar Bears turned black
Roe v Wade turned back
Nader gained a little ground
and the world turned upside down...
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: kendall
Date: 08 Nov 00 - 08:47 AM

He was wrong about the Corvair too.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 08 Nov 00 - 06:31 PM

Damn straight he was, Kendall, and I'll never forgive him for either

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 08 Nov 00 - 06:32 PM

Damn straight he was, Kendall, and I'll never forgive him for that mistake or this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: Troll
Date: 08 Nov 00 - 08:29 PM

That was cold, Kendall.

troll *LOL*

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: Gern
Date: 09 Nov 00 - 04:47 PM

MY vote for Nader was a vote for Nader, and I am not sorry. I chose my candidate carefully and make no apologies. I supported him thruout the campaign, and if he had asked us all on Election Eve to vote for Gore, it would have been a shameless sellout. Nader was simply too sincere for such a sham. If Gore loses, he can blame himself for failing to compel a majority to support him. After a two year campaign of utter and cynical worthlessness, billions of bucks spent with strings attached and a determination to censor the debates, if Gore can be unseated by a piss-ant 3% candidate like Ralph, he deserves unemployment. We need to break out of this two-party bias that leads us to think that only entrenched Republicans and Democrats matter.Both parties reside in the center of the road now, and those of us who haven't sold out see little difference between Bush and Gore.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: Fortunato
Date: 09 Nov 00 - 05:19 PM

As Liebniz has said each of us is living inside our own monad. It is a sphere lined with the slogans and systemic beliefs we have absorbed.

If you wish to peek outside your monad you must stop listening to ALL the voices.

Indeed, you must silence your own. Then LISTEN and SEE.

regards, Fortunato

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: John Nolan
Date: 09 Nov 00 - 09:21 PM

Gern:I thoroughly agree with what you say up until the last sentence. But looking at American politics through European eyes, I could never describe the Republican and Democratic parties as "center of the road." As one illustration of dozens, any party leadership that allows 45 million of its citizens - from young kids to poor sick folks in their 60s - to suffer the anxieties and misery of no health insurance, is an extremist and dangerously heartless organization.
I say "party leadership" because the majority of rank and file Democrats and Republicans, in their personal lives, are usually caring people on a local level. But while they have may have remained true to their parties, their parties have abandoned many of them - not just at national, but at state level, by trekking, sometimes stealthly, always steadily to the right.
Corporate monothiths like Westinghouse, General Electric, Disney and Time Warner (apart from being large political donors)largely control the nation's views and access to information through their holdings in the country's major radio and TV networks. They are continuing to buy up local stations, just as the newspaper sector is being concentrated in alarmingly few hands. How long will the Internet window of freedom last?
The Mudcat forum is extremely healthy, in that people loosely bonded by a common love of international folk music, have freely exchanged a range of viewpoints, mostly absent of rancor. And I would judge that many Mudcat/Gore folks have more empathy with the Greens and their positions than with the Democratic Party. One reason perhaps is that the Greens are still grassroots in their structure, while the National Democratic Committee's body is now inhabited by a monstrous form of corporate Stalinism.
I cannot claim to have voted Nader (merely being a taxpaying non-American)but my wife did, and felt "clean" afterwards. We were two of 52 campaign workers for Nader in NH and our only regrets are that Ralph got just 4 percent in the state rather than the target of 5 percent. But in the words of Joe Hill, "Don't mourn - organize!" And do I care that Gore lost New Hampshire by 1 percent? Not a bit! A smiling snake is still a snake.
Anyway, to those Mudcatters heading for Barry Finn's party on Nov. 18, and ready to take me to task, I am an aging, shortish, tubby guy with glasses and a Scottish accent, sometimes playing 12-string guitar.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 09 Nov 00 - 09:21 PM

Fortunato - Did you get that all down right? I lost the track somewhere.

Here's a thought, possibly for another thread. Maybe it's a good thing for our government to nominate guys who are middle of the road. Having a good, strong, middle-of-the-road society allows us to explore the ditches (so to speak) as individuals. That is - as long as society tolerates activity on the fringes (which I believe the Dems do more than the Repubs).

Oh well. . .

Subject: RE: BS: Nader for President - Part Two
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 00 - 10:14 PM

I seriously doubt that Nader had ANY expectations of being elected president at this time. I believe his real intention was to wake up the American public to the fact that the Democratic and Republican parties are ideologically and morally bankrupt, and useless, and that people must embark on a whole new path politically, if they are to restore any semblance of genuine democracy in the USA.

If so, his intentions were entirely realistic and very laudable, and I would recommend that people vote for anyone other than the elephant or the donkey.

Nader is looking down the long road to the future. The others are only looking as far as the end of their own self-interest, which extends no farther than winning this year's election, and then cashing in.