I really wish people would stop cheering / booing after every other word. Also, Obama didn't do much more here than say "No I'm not." He didn't prove anything, he didn't define socialism for the hundreds or thousands of people in his audience who probably don't know what it is. He didn't use McCains words against him by pointing out the socialist aspects McCain's platforms. He didn't even explain why socialism is "bad". Disappointing.

That was great - there's some stirring rhetoric! I don't think I've ever heard Obama speak with so much passion. In fact, most of the time he's a little too aloof and calm.

jrbedford - McCain attacked his character (though only in the US is being called a socialist an insult). This was the perfect response to that. You don't go off on an academic discussion about the precise definition of socialism when someone attacks your character.

Have to say, I was really disappointed with this clip. It sounded to me like he was just rehashing talking points. I would have liked instead to hear him explain why his comparatively more socialistic policies are good things, compared to McCain's supposed universal tax cuts. I think Colin Powell does this very well in his recent clips, saying that nobody likes paying taxes, but that they are necessary for good governance. It bothers me that I haven't heard Obama say the same.

It's not really his place to educate the masses on the merits and faults of socialism. We have schools for that.

It's the same thing about atheist debating theists... theists always expect us to explain everything. "Well if God didn't do it, how did life start?"
I don't know, but God friggin didn't do it.

Obama sez, "I don't want to explain socialism.. I'm not one. Look it up."

bedford, socialism will come that you want it or not, what remain to be seen is of what kind it's gonna be : fascism or democratic. So better embark now before it's too late. And meanwhile you could read a little bit more about it, since you obviously know nothing except maybe from those who oppose it, and by more I mean more than the communist manifesto.

p.s. and this apply to all your Don Quixote libertarian sifters out here

>> ^gwiz665:
It's not really his place to educate the masses on the merits and faults of socialism. We have schools for that.

I think that might be wishful thinking. With the state of education in this country, I believe more than a few of us would benefit from a refresher, and with just days before the election, I doubt many voters will be cracking open an encyclopedia to check.

Obama IS a socialist.

That's the first thing McCain has got right in this whole joke of an election.

I came across this in my reading today:

Socialist: raising the top tax rate from 35% to 39%.

Free-Market: nationalizing the banks, massive investment in insurance agencies, limiting certain types of trades, raising the debt ceiling, and promoting government investment into stocks and bonds. And an emphasis on Red States.

It’s all so clear now!

^Social Socialism vs. Corporate Socialism

Is a change to the tax system to make it more progressive really a bad thing? The U.S is the largest consumer economy in the world. The best way to turn around this sort of economy is by increasing consumer demand. So is Obama's plan tax policy better than McCain's for America right now. Damn right it is. Don't let people trick you with this socialism crap. McCain's extreme capitalism will hurt America at a time when it least can afford it.

Ever see the movie Clue? One character's wife was being blackmailed because she had friends who were (gasp) socialists! Of course it's a comedy, but it shows the state that the US has been in for many years.

It wasn't until I was in my 20's that I realized that there was nothing inherently evil in Communism. It was just a system that hadn't worked out so well for those who tried it. Socialism carries a similar stigma, except for the fact that a number of countries are using aspects of it without imploding.

However, you can't teach people who have been trained not to think. If you allow even the smallest soundbite to sound like "socialism is ok", the media will run with it and McCain will get points. This stage of a campaign is too delicate for anything other than a strong rhetorical rebuttal.

If we ever get to a point where capitalist governments are collapsing and socialist governments are surviving, you'll see a change of attitude. Until then, don't expect it from US politicians.

Pretty good speech. I'm confused though: he slams McCain for wanting to give $300 billion to Wall Street, but didn't Obama join McCain in signing the bailout bill a few weeks ago giving them $700 billion?

Socialist: raising the top tax rate from 35% to 39%, then raising taxes on property, investments, estates, etc.

Free-Market: nationalizing the banks, massive investment in insurance agencies, limiting certain types of trades, raising the debt ceiling, and promoting government investment into stocks and bonds. And an emphasis on Red States.

Democrats were too busy with their social engineering projects and vote-buying with taxpayer money to heed fiscal warnings. Now they cry like babies and blame Republicans for their failed socialist schemes when the bill comes due.

NOBAMA.

It wasn't until I was in my 20's that I realized that there was nothing inherently evil in Communism.

You must mean the theory of communism. Did you get to the part about the 100 million murdered (so far) by communist regimes worldwide?

Some of you are reading this for the first time:

NO NATION HAS EVER TAXED ITSELF INTO PROSPERITY.

If you ain't sure, read it again.

I wish Obama were a socialist.

I wish America were more socialist.

I'm tired of socialists being vilified.

America needs some good, wholesome socialism right now.

ehh... i'd be willing to guess that most folks simply associate socialism with communism. i don't agree with the first comment made here that obama had some burden at this rally to define and defeat an entrenched semantic issue. the problem is not at all whether obama is a socialist, but rather what labels are being applied to him. quite clearly, most americans think socialism implies taking away your guns and raising your taxes, and they are unwilling to listen to obama's actual statements.

shrug. it seemed like a fitting speech to make. mccain's campaign can just fall (quite easily) back on the "dems raise taxes lol" argument, and regardless of whether it's true to the relevant constituencies, it's somehow convincing. obama is left with having to reinforce his "no, god damn it" argument. people seem to have a hard time distinguishing between "Joe's Megaplumbing Incorporated" and "Joe's local Ohio 47k-a-year plumbing job".

i guess i'm just sayin there has to be equal noise on both sides, especially when most people don't seem to be listening.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Some of you are reading this for the first time:
NO NATION HAS EVER TAXED ITSELF INTO PROSPERITY.
If you ain't sure, read it again.


Yes, exactly. To tax itself a society must already be prosper. What you can tax yourself into is not poverty though. It's either into a healthier, safer life (by redistribution of wealth) or plain bankruptcy (by squandering). And as shown by History, the fastest way a society can tax itself into bankruptcy is by raising armies and waging futile and/or unwinnable wars. Spoils of war only compound the problem, making those belligerent societies dependent on a continuous influx of foreign tribute (e.g. the Romans), when not outright ruining their economies with massive inflation (e.g. the Spanish).

Of course, nowadays it is very slightly more complicated, but a basic truth remains: every kind of capitalism makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, in the long run. It's a pyramid. A pure hierarchy. You can choose to mitigate this fact or not through a form of socialism. America chooses not to essentially because every damn idiot "Joe the plumber" living there thinks he can make it big, if only (add whatever you think you need to make it big here)! But of course, reality being reality, for every person that "makes it big", many others must make do with less. If not your next door neighbor, then the women in Mexico or the children in Bangladesh.

Conservatives (neo-liberal economists in this case) think socialists are Utopians, but it is clearly they who are: they think they can run the "economy", the "market", as if there was no effective rarity. Sorry, but replicator technology does not yet exist. The only thing they're doing is playing make believe as if they were still in kindergarten: they look out from their sandbox and see a world of wealth waiting to be plundered and brought back to their sand castles. They know in their minds the plunder is not infinite, but they act as if it was because there's only one thing in their heart: "more plunder for me!". You may confront them, argue with them, even convince them intellectually that they are wrong; still in the end all they can retort is: "I can do whatever I want! After all, it's all make believe right?"

^ Well said.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Haldaug.

Of course, nowadays it is very slightly more complicated, but a basic truth remains: every kind of capitalism makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, in the long run. It's a pyramid. A pure hierarchy.

WRONG. Socialists keep pushing the "zero-sum game" bullplop, which claims that for one person to prosper another must lose. Total bullplop.

Socialists are in complete denial it's the free market system that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system. You're worried about who is getting what piece of the pie, when the reality is, the pie itself has gotten larger due to an overall increase in wealth.

In other words, as the rich get richer, so do the poor! Most American "poor" own their own homes, 2 cars, 3 TVs. Not to mention "free" college, health care in the emergency room, "free" fire and police protection, etc.

When the rich pay 60% of all federal taxes and the bottom 20% actually make money on the deal, there's inequity all right, against those who work the hardest.

And by the way, in the US, 95% of those considered wealthy didn't start out that way; they earned it. Very little is "old money" and inheritance.

There is no moral argument for liberals' punishment of success. The precious Big Government produces nothing and creates nothing, it's just raw, dumb force.

>> ^Irishman:
Obama IS a socialist.
That's the first thing McCain has got right in this whole joke of an election.


-2 on this? serially? what is incorrect about his statement. before reading a single comment in this thread that was the exact thought that crossed my mind. provide a definition of socialism and show how obama is not a socialist. if mccain is worth half a grain of salt he'll push obama as the socialist that he is.

what mccain doesn't know, is he is a socialist too.

if socialism isn't a bad thing, then why do you think its a dirty word that obama needs to deny (lie)? why aren't people proudly claiming to be socialist? rhetorical: because nobody in human history has even attempted to defend the basis of socialism! if you don't think this is true, please show me a single passage written by any of the billions of people who ever lived on this planet, or better yet please--please try to defend it yourself. seriously, please, someone in this thread try to defend it so I can publicly demonstrate how you are the most evil person who has ever been born.

it is a tool used by dictators. it is how one person can convince millions of people to willingly submit to oppression. nothing. more.

if you can't defend the basis of socialism (collectivism, democracy), why the f*ck are you advocating it?

this thread is evidence that collectivism is complete horsesh*t. collectivism is the purported backbone of socialism (the real backbone is tyranny). democracy (think socialism) is the oppression of the minority by the majority. comments which favor the majority and are completely incorrect are voted up, while comments which are spot on are voted down. the same process which leads the majority to favor slavery and lynching leads the majority to reinforce false ideas. it is a flawed, diseased philosophy and should be killed with fire.

f*ck democracy and the f*ck the collectivism behind it. if you want to find the incorrect statements in this thread just look at all the comments I downvoted. not the statements that differ from my opinion, nothing personal, just the undeniably incorrect statements.

real socialism teaches tolerance... something this forsaken country could stand to be taught.

@imstellar28
In defense of Collectivism: A family is a collective. The collective finances of a family are often put towards items that will benefit the family more than any individual within the family, and manual labour, such as chores, benefit the family as a whole. For instance, I buy plates for the family and when it comes to cleaning them I clean more than I personally sullied.
The members of a family are also interdependent, even parents come to depend on their children once they reach old age. All these aspects of family life are inherently collectivist.
To eliminate all collectivist elements from a family dynamic would likely result in an early death for any child born into such a household.

There, I have now formed a defense for the basis of socialism off the top of my head. Feel free to describe how I am evil now.

>> ^imstellar28
Additionally I think you may be confusing some of your terminology, if not outright contradicting yourself. Democracy certainly is not the majority imposing its will over the minority as many socialist, capitalist, laissez-faire and even anarchic society qualify as forms of democracy.
Perhaps you're thinking of majority rule in place of democracy, seeing as it is often used in conjunction with democracy, however even if such is the case although a socialist society could be formed through majority rule it could just as easily be put into place by a minority, an individual, or through completely unanimous means.

As for the rest of your two posts, I hate to break it to you but there are quite a few people that state proudly that they are socialists, not to mention a number of countries and political factions. That being said, inside the United States there is still a great deal of hate and fear for ideals and idealists with any views so much as resembling communism, I seem to recall Glen Beck pleading that someone remove the 'left-wing communists who are ruining our country' when referring to senators with left wing voting habits. It is this hate and fear which prevents many from claiming ties to socialist views, and is also the reason Obama needs to distance himself from socialism.
Not that Obama is socialist. Even if he gets everything on his platform put through the United States will still be far more right wing than Canada, which has a mixed but certainly not socialist political system in place.

As for the claim that no one has ever defended collectivism, besides the paragraph I wrote above this post, there's always(insert results of a google search for "defense of collectivism" here). If I am to, like you, down vote based on what I view to be an incorrect statement then I most certainly have to down vote your comments based solely on that.


I'm not about to attack your (I'm guessing Ayn Rand inspired?) beliefs, but the way your argument against socialism is framed... Well, let's just say it needs a lot of work.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Crosswords.

*dead ?

Only published videos may be flagged dead - ignoring dead request by Offsajdh.

>> ^Necrodancer:
@imstellar28
In defense of Collectivism: A family is a collective. The collective finances of a family are often put towards items that will benefit the family more than any individual within the family, and manual labour, such as chores, benefit the family as a whole. For instance, I buy plates for the family and when it comes to cleaning them I clean more than I personally sullied.
The members of a family are also interdependent, even parents come to depend on their children once they reach old age. All these aspects of family life are inherently collectivist.
To eliminate all collectivist elements from a family dynamic would likely result in an early death for any child born into such a household.
There, I have now formed a defense for the basis of socialism off the top of my head. Feel free to describe how I am evil now.


first you didn't even mention what the basis for that scenario was, so you aren't even talking about the basis (means) of collectivism (read my post again) you are talking about the goals of collectivism. very. big. difference. you aren't defending the basis of collectivism. nobody ever has in the history of mankind. you are merely defending the purported goals of collectivism which I myself will support. millions of people have done that--its nothing new. thats the problem with socialism, its easy to subscribe to it because the ends (goals) seem so noble and many people support them. nobody, however, considers the means (basis) of such a philosophy. nobody has and nobody ever will, lest they be branded the most evil person alive and likely lynched (in democratic fashion) by their peers. clearly you have succumbed to this common error by confusing "means" with "ends".

what if the mom and dad decide that it benefits the family to have the father rape their daughter, who is 5 years old. are you defending the rape of 5 year olds? explain what in collectivism (democracy, socialism) forbids the rape of the daughter. if the mother and father can make the daughter do chores and manual labor, why can't the mother and father make her have sex with the father? is there some fine print I am missing here about what is off limits with regard to collectivist decisions? if so, are you not invoking another system of morality? without invoking another system of morality, you are forced to support rape if you are a collectivist.

do you still want to defend the rape of 5 year old girls? now imagine that you were the creator of this idea. you didn't think it through and now millions of people are raping 5 year olds (figuratively and in some cases literally). all of that blood is now on your hands. maybe you should consider all outcomes of your philosophy before publicly advocating it. without even knowing, you have publicly attempted (to attempt) to defend a philosophy which encourages rape.

do you want to retract your statements (made out of naivety)?

Fixed.

And imstellar, Irishman's comment got my downvote because it was content-free, aside from what was obviously meant as a slur.

I gave your "fuck democracy" message the downvote it deserves, because I was strongly offended by you using objectivist bullshit to mount an assault on democracy, which so many people have died to bring about and protect.

I'm not defending your, or Irishman's straw man about socialism.

Learn to be somewhat moderate, because to you asshats, every government on this planet is socialist.

Mount a revolution if you feel like it's slavery to pay taxes toward programs that benefit everyone. Don't expect help from me.

Democracy gives you an equal voice to stop that from happening. Technically, voting could end democracy -- France voted Napoleon emperor once upon a time.

Conservatives are in a world of hurt in this country, and it's only going to get worse for you guys if Obama makes his "socialism" or "good governance" work (assuming some anti-collectivists haven't rigged the election, that is).

Don't worry, if you're right, it's going to be a crushing failure, and people will surely make Ron Paul president then.

Sorta like how I knew in 2004 that Bush's reelection meant that in 2008 Democrats would sweep into full control of government, or that democracy itself had been subverted.

Jury's still out, but I've got less than 2 weeks to go before I find out which one it is.

^who died to protect democracy? this country is (supposed to be) a republic.

call it a strawman, a slur, objectivist bullsh*t, call it whatever you want but i'm still waiting for single defense of the basis of collectivism, socialism, or democracy.

^ Propaganda. It's been called a democracy since the 1800's, until the neocons decided that sounded too close to "Democratic Party" and started a concerted effort to fill people's heads with a different word that sounds more like "Republican".

>> ^NetRunner:
^ Propaganda. It's been called a democracy since the 1800's, until the neocons decided that sounded too close to "Democratic Party" and started a concerted effort to fill people's heads with a different word that sounds more like "Republican".



HOLY SH*T are you serious i about lost my eyeballs out of my skull! i hate using caps but christ, you are calling the fact that this country is supposed to be ruled by law (constitution) semantic propaganda? this is not about party labels, these words mean very specific things, and have for centuries before the united states even existed. you need to watch this submission from farhad with HASTE

http://www.videosift.com/video/Basic-Forms-Of-Government-Not-Found-In-Public-Schools

its okay if you are mistaken, it really is. your a decent guy either way. please don't stick to your guns just for the sake of it.

>> ^imstellar28:

I read your post again, as you suggested, and my post still stands. You asked for a defense of the basis of socialism and went on to say that the basis of socialism was collectivism. A defense of the ends of a component of a system is a valid defense of the component. You did not, however, ask for a defense of the basis of collectivism.
Collectivism is simply production and distribution being controlled by... Well, everyone rather than private production and distribution. In collectivism it is assumed that objects in their natural state belong to everyone in common, an individual that collects all wild potatoes, hordes them, and refuses to give them up unless he is given some sort of compensation can be considered to be stealing from society as a whole when operating under this assumption. The ends of collectivism is ensuring everyone has a fair shot at seeing a portion of what it is considered that they own, the means is preventing theft from society.

Rape does not deal with production or distribution. Even if we operate in a system opposite to collectivism, that is to say private production or distribution, there is STILL nothing forbidding the rape of little girls.

isn't it lack of government oversight that got us into this mess in the first place???

The constitution and the bill of rights are very adamant about defending individual rights, individual freedoms, individual choices, so long as they do not interfere with an individuals "Life, Liberty,and Happiness (or property, if you like Locke)" which are defined as inalienable.
Property - everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights
Socialism - a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.
Now, defenses aside, the constitution, the guiding force of the United States, seems very very explicitly against many of the policies that are reveled here on the sift.
If you feel that it is outdated, then maybe you should begin a campaign to disband the constitution. But I, and many many others will not allow it.

isn't it lack of government oversight that got us into this mess in the first place???

Were the riots of the 60s a result of government failing to enforce Jim Crow laws? Rather than put law enforcement under a single umbrella, you need to understand the difference between a good law and a bad law. Before you even make the jump to regulation, ask yourself if the regulators are being regulated by the constitution? Nope. Sort that one out first, there's your problem. "Regulation" is an extremely general term used by politicians to great effect to blame others for problems and changes in market behavior that they create. We have a central bank in this country that price fixes interest rates since 1913. This is a socialist idea that was passed on the basis of its objective rather than its result. It turns out that letting a pseudo-government agency set interest rates results in an artificial lowering to delay politically inconvenient recessions. This artificial price fix results in the wrong kind of investment decisions and incentives, leading to phony bubbles that carry with them the seeds of their own destruction. I'll explain below.

In order for credit to exist, savings must exist. That's what credit is, someone else loaning their money out to someone at interest rather than spending it. Everyone wants a low rate of interest as a borrower. Everyone wants a high rate of interest as a saver. By definition, savings is underconsumption. Someone, somewhere, has to be saving rather than spending money in order for real credit to exist. These two forces are at odds with each other, to find the happiest medium between savings and production. That's completely perverted by a price fixing system where the government is dictating the interest rate for political purposes. Too easy dictation in the 90s caused the tech stock bubble, worthless tech stocks were trading at hundreds time earnings. When that "growth" came crashing down in 2000, Bush didn't want to have the recession occurring under his first term or he wouldn't get re-elected. So he and Greenspan lowered interest rates to 1% for a whole year to keep businesses borrowing and consumers consuming. The problem is, where is the savings coming from to allow both to happen at once? Overseas. We are the world's largest debtor nation now, borrowing from everyone to consume products that they make. They accumulate our paper money. We get their products. 70 billion a month trade deficit and still going. That's our economy the last twenty years. We abuse a reserve currency of the world status gained under the gold standard to export our now inflationary currency all over the world. That's coming to and end at some point. The Fed is increasing its balance sheet like there's no tomorrow, trying to replace the credit no longer being loaned to us with a printing press. It won't work. It didn't work in Weimar, it didn't work in Argentina, it didn't work in Zimbabwe, and it won't work here. The inflation is in the pipeline, it will hit during Obama's term. Obama and McCain are both socialists, the pork filled bailout bill they voted on ought to be evidence of that. Neither one understands that the recession needs to happen like the druggie needs withdrawal, and the more you try to stop the failures and painful reallocations with more drugs, the longer you're going to be in rehab.

So where did all that money from tech stocks filter into? With such low rates of interest and a removal of houses from the government's own inflation calculations, inflation shifted from tech stocks into real estate rather than being purged in a recession. So nobody but a few libertarian economists who learned a type of economics that isn't taught here could see the problem, one of them being Ron Paul's economic advisor Peter Schiff. In that mania, lending standards were abandoned to take advantage of the artificial demand created by the dictated low interest.

In other words, the market got drunk, but it was the FED THAT SPIKED THE PUNCHBOWL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucDkoqwflF4

You can see the austrian view (Schiff) directly in conflict with the pro-government keynesian/monetarist view that is predominantly taught in this country (Laffer/Swonk). That's why none of the so-called "harvard educated, brilliant, phd holding" managers of a these banks and investment firms were not only oblivious to what was going to happen, but regularly confuse weaknesses for strengths. It's that ass-backwards, we teach the economic equivalent of astrology. Why? Because who has the most to gain from a sexy interventionist theory that says inflation is necessary to prevent hoarding and politicians spending its citizens' money for them can stimulate economic growth? Why, it's the benefactors of inflation!

I'll address Necrodancer later, I gotta go. He seems awfully confused on what socialism is and how socialist we are.

You know i'm no expert on the economy (Greatest understatment ever to grace the sift perhaps?)

I confess i don't understand a lot of this... and find it frustrating to try... Don't get me wrong... I don't think any of you really do either... at least way more often than not... no matter how sophisticated the argument or point... More often than not I still find it more based in 'belief' than 'fact'...

I find all this incredibly discouraging... both for the future in this country and out...

I do know that I have absolutly no issue with anyone's income over 250k being taxed at a slightly higher rate... I've seen nothing that makes me think that is not both appropriate and justified... the term socialist gets tossed around like an insult...

If it's a correct application of the term... and i don't know that i agree it is... then i suppose i'm a socialist.

^Necrodancer:
>> ^imstellar28:
I read your post again, as you suggested, and my post still stands. You asked for a defense of the basis of socialism and went on to say that the basis of socialism was collectivism.

The basis of socialism is collectivism. Do we really have to break down language? "basis of socialism" = "collectivism" I asked for a "defense of the basis of socialism" substitute the first into the second and you are left with "defense of collectivism" . This is what I am asking for, and you haven't attempted it.

>> ^Januari:
You know i'm no expert on the economy (Greatest understatment ever to grace the sift perhaps?)
I confess i don't understand a lot of this... and find it frustrating to try... Don't get me wrong... I don't think any of you really do either... at least way more often than not... no matter how sophisticated the argument or point... More often than not I still find it more based in 'belief' than 'fact'...
I find all this incredibly discouraging... both for the future in this country and out...
I do know that I have absolutly no issue with anyone's income over 250k being taxed at a slightly higher rate... I've seen nothing that makes me think that is not both appropriate and justified... the term socialist gets tossed around like an insult...
If it's a correct application of the term... and i don't know that i agree it is... then i suppose i'm a socialist.


Januari, there is nothing wrong about not being an expert on something, or not fully understanding an issue. I can see why it is frustrating--it is very counter-intuitive. I have written several blog posts on economics in an attempt to flesh it out, feel free to give them a read:

http://www.videosift.com/member/imstellar28/blog

Excellent analysis, Banshee, on point as usual. rgroom1, welcome to the fight! nice post.

I would like if your Libertarian could read chap VIII to X of Herbert Spencer book "Social Static" and give me your thought about it. I found it to be a major flaw of Libertarian theory. It's only about 10 pages in lenght

# Chapter VIII.: The Rights of Life and Personal Liberty.
# Chapter IX.: The Right to the Use of the Earth.
# Chapter X.: The Right of Property.

here's the link to the book : http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=273

>> ^imstellar28:

Yes, we do have a breakdown in language. I'm not sure what, precisely, is giving us the most trouble, but I agree that the problem with our argument is, indeed, one of semantics.
I suppose we'll just have to agree to not quite understand each other.

I'll leave off adding that I seem to recall something I read in my 19th century literature course defending collectivism. I'll see if I can't track it down.