What Else Can We Tax?

How about we tax dumb people? That way we could get some money from the politicians finally. But, no, instead the mayor of San Francisco would like to tax sugary soft drinks. Yes, people, the Dumbasses of America want to tax my Coca-Cola. Well, not mine, since I don’t live, and will never, at least until this idiot is gone, live in San Francisco.

Why? Well because the people are fat. And it would probably be against some law to tax people based on their weight. I mean, wouldn’t you hate to go down to the IRS office to weigh yourself to determine how much you owe the Government to spy on you? I have a better idea: why don’t we tax Vitamin Water, since that makes people healthy, thus making them go to the doctor less, and thus contributing less to the economy.

I hate dumb politicians.

It’s that good ol’ D.C. smartness…

It’s November and I don’t usually get angry in November. November is a nice month. Never done me wrong. Who has done me wrong? The United Dumbasses of America*. Together we’ve got two stories come in over the past few weeks involving dumb idiots and gun laws. The first comes from Washington D.C. The second I’ll talk about later. Way later.

The ultimate United Dumbasses (my bad, the Supreme Court) have got themselves a case to shred the Constitution with. They are going to decide on a suit against Washington D.C., in which the city has a law preventing it’s citizens from having guns.

Maybe the law is there because the government is afraid of the non-voting citizens of D.C. revolting. Wait, this is America, so they never will. But, that law should be unconstitutional. Of course, so should the citizens not voting.

Either way, the arguments are that “the Supreme Court will confront whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right of gun ownership or merely a collective right to keep and bear arms while serving in a state militia.”

Well, let’s play Supreme Court Justice: What does the Constitution of the United States of America say?

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, let’s play. “the right of the people” Notice something really cool: it doesn’t specify ‘those in the Armed Forces’, ‘the Soldiers of the United States’, or ‘Soulja Boy”. It says “people”. Got it? OK, so we can move on. Good.

“keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Let’s go over that for a minute. “Keep and bear arms” means “Owning and carring guns”.

OK, “shall not be infringed.”, meaning “don’t take away.” Clear? Sure? Really? Fine.

Boy, wasn’t that fun? If you understand what I just said, then why don’t you go and sneak a robe on, run into the Supreme Court building, and look all dignified. Run.

Oh How Things Change…

Even I like to be fair. If I’m not, some idiot sends me an email complaining, so it’s easier for me to just post corrections and updates. So I took the liberty of going back through several years of this blog and posted some corrections, or, more correctly, how my thinking changed. Think of it as a field trip, without the bagged lunches and First Student bus.

Let’s start in 2005, the first year of the Kevin’s Word (back when we were called kevin. word.):
March 23, 2005: Jack of all Trades.com

Thats what Google is becoming. An image sorter, an email service, and now a map service? Remember when it was just web searching? Me niether. There are rumers that they are working on a browser! What, Gbrowser::The searchable way to browse the web? I don’t know, but their becoming a monopoly. Most people will probably disagree. Tell me in the comments. Before Google buys out Blogger. (Wait, they already did!)

Dang, I was angry at a young age. Anyway, this was obviously back during the early days, and when I was covering technology and stuff. And I still agree with myself, although now there might be a phone involved.

April 30, 2005: Bad News…

[Gas prices] The’re still too high!

Suck it up, $1.60/gallon. Now it’s $3/gallon. Dang, what happened to early 2005?

November 4, 2005: Hey, hey, wait no, come back here!

That is not fair. Hey, Coca-Cola, I happen to like Vanilla Coke. You are mean. Anyway, I’m very upset about the discontinuation of Vanilla Coke, and I am stockpiling from the stores here in Baton Rouge. The’re replacing it with some “Blak Cherry Vanilla Coke”, Supposadly a mixture of Coke, vanilla and cherry soda, with coffee!

OK, this is a a case of bad reporting (and spelling. Firefox didn’t have built in spellchecker back then). Vanilla Coke was really discontinued, and you would have loved to see my closet from the Vanilla Coke I bought after that announcement. But just as a warning to Coca-Cola: Don’t introduce a product called BlaK and Black Cherry Vanilla at the same time! Clearly They both failed and Coca-Cola Vanilla is back on store shelves, but wasn’t that interesting?

Alright. That was a wonderful trip to the past. Now, a little forward, let’s go to 2006. Yes, because didn’t we all love 2006.
(By the way, where was I when I wrote all of 2006’s articles? I went through the list, and didn’t remember any of them…)

First point:

Server Error

The server encountered a temporary error and could not complete your request.

Please try again in 30 seconds.

Thanks, Blogger.

Real First Post:
March 31, 2006: Raise your hand if you like Coca-Cola with coffee…

…hey, I think I see one in the back…
oh, wait, that’s the Coca-Cola product manager. Never mind.
Now maybe I’m speaking too soon, but that espresso I just finished was good. The Coke I had right before was great. Together… CALL 911! When CocaCola Blak reaches stores in Baton Rouge, I’ll try it. Saying that, I just hope I’m in good enough mental condition to right about it here.

I was very critical of Coke BlaK before it came out. If you remember also, I ended up liking it, before it was discontinued.

May 7, 2006: SUSE Ten Point One: Do I have to spell it out of you?
You don’t need to know the details, but I’ll just quote one sentence:

Oh, and ZENworks for updates.
Cool!

No, Kevin, not cool.

Note about the next one: They say, before you write an article, don’t be angry. I wasn’t angry, just bitter.
August 16, 2006: Enough is Enough, the Gloves are coming off, and it’s do or die, First Student!

This is First Student’s second year of contracting bus services here! After the trainwreck that was last year, you would think that First Student would get through their heads that signing the contract and then shooting the parish and school administrators, parents, drivers, and students in the foot would not sit well when their contract is up. Well, they didn’t. Over the past three days, every hope and every little percentage of optimism I had for this year was run over by a bus. Lack of communication, confusion, late or nonexistent service has become the new face of bus services.

On Monday, it started out better than last year. Buses came and got to school on time. But the afternoon was horrible. One kid was told that they would not stop at his house, even though they passed right in front of it, and instead was forced to get off at another street and WALK TO HIS HOUSE! What the heck is that?! This is not a game, as First Student seems to think.
Yesterday, the bus didn;t come at all, and instead another bus came around 15 inutes AFTER school started! The arrival at school was 30 MINUTES AFTER CLASS STARTED!! And even then, not many students were there. The majority came a few minutes later on other buses.Finally, our not last, but last I will talk about for today, turning around. How can First Student make students wait at the HIGHWAY! Sometimes, not even showing up, claiming they can’t turn around, even though that’s just another one of the FIrst Student Excuses. Ecspecially since there have been buses, both First Student and the previous public bus system buses (Oh, those were the days) have been turning down there for years. And the turnaround at the specific location has even been widened.
My recommendation to everyone who was affected by these non turnaround buses, if you have a turnaround, and buses have turned there successfully before, tell them that, and refuse to get off the bus.
I just hope, that when First Student’s contract is up, Corona and the rest of the school board looks at what First Student has done, and makes their descision on what is best for the students.

Actually, looking back, and at what’s going on now with First Student, I have nothing to correct.

Ah, 2006. Man it sucked. Oh, well, lets to to the current year, 2007. Dang, I’m still writing 2006 for the date…

January 1, 2007: Happy New Year

2006 sucked.
2007? If Vanilla Coke returns, it’ll be the year.Have a Yo New Year.

I am telling you, that was a coincidence.

February 8, 2007: The Krewe of Word

(no, that’s not a real parade) Alright, so Mardi Gras is just around the corner. Or, to be more technical, two down and two to the left. And because it’s been awhile since I’ve given advise in the form of a list (two years, actually), here’s some advise to keep you safe at the parades:

1. Don’t fight with me over beads. (For my Baton Rouge friends, of course.)
2. It’s not nice to call someone fat on Mardi Gras. Even if their name is Tuesday.
3. Don’t drink and drive. Don’t drink and blog. Don’t drink and set shows to record on the DVR.
4. If you’re in the parade, don’t throw your cell phone at someone, even if you don’t like them.
5. Get there early. Not too early, though. You might make someone think the iPhone’s being sold there.
6. Don’t tell DIRECTV. They might lock you in to a 2 year contract.
7. If you see a float that states “Mardi Gras is joining the new AT&T. Your world. Delivered,” you are at the wrong parade.
8. Indulge in what you’re giving up for Lent. If you’re not Catholic, indulge anyway and use that as an excuse.

In reality, I think AT&T, given the chance, would buy the entire holiday of Mardi Gras.

March 20, 2007: Blanco ain’t coming back!

YES! Not that I’m biased, or anything…
The governor of Louisiana announced at 6:00 pm Central that she won’t seek election in 2007. Not that it mattered anyway, who would vote for her, Michael Brown? Maybe if he was a Louisiana citizen. Unfortunately, this won’t help the Katrina/Rita recovery effort, at least not by a noticeable margin. Why? Because, the stupidity wasn’t just in the state government (although Pandora’s Box had to have been somewhere…), it was in FEMA, in the local governments, as high up as Washington, D.C. Of course those brainwashed Americans, ahem, Democrats (and Kanye West),would have liked for Americans to believe that the Source of All Evil(TM) was directly in President Bush’s administration, but, of course, they’ll leech on any bad story or tradegy and spin it to blame everyone else. No shame, Repubs to it to, but for some reason (Iraq?) Americans are believing it this time. What was I talking about? Oh, yeah. Vote Jindal. Not that I’m biased, or anything.

See, things change a lot. By the way, congratulations, Mr. Arrogant.

April 8, 2007: From the people that killed the DIRECTV/Dish Network merger of 2003…

…The Carmel Group, the research firm whose analysis helped kill the 2003 merger of [DISH Network's parent company] EchoStar and DirecTV, will release a new report today that outlines the strongest arguments yet against merging satellite radio companies Sirius and XM. Read the full thing here.Read the last line: With all due respect, this proposed merger [of XM and Sirius Radio] should not be approved – under any conditions – by the U.S. government.”

With all due respect, the US government needs to realize that this is a free and open market… and companies should be able to merge and buy each other out as much as they want and any legislation against that is stifling freedom.

And if you’re going to bring up the 1980’s AT&T breakup, may I remind you how well that went?

Of course, considering how much I hate AT&T, I guess I still stick to what I originally said about the Federal Government keeping their hands out. Remember: Companies do learn.

June 29, 2007: The iPhone…

OK, I know that if I say that the iPhone sucks here, then the Apple fanboys will go “Oh, but Kevin, you haven’t even played with the phone.” So, I have refrained from criticizing the phone until I had one in my hands and played with it for myself. I did just that at the Mall of Louisiana’s AT&T store today, so now that I’ve played with the phone for about 9 minutes, I would like to tell you what I like and hate about it.

I didn’t copy the whole thing, because who cares, but anyway. One reader commented to me through email that “u didnt really twxt it cause u treid a demp phone”. I”ll presume this guy was using the iPhone keyboard, so I’ll excuse his horrible spelling, but if you wish for me to have an unbiased review of the phone, send me one.

September 1, 2007: Go to jail, Go directly to jail, Do not pass Go, do not pull up your pants…

I realize that there is a reason I get up in the morning. Why? Well, aside from the fact my iHome clock blaring Evanescence off my iPod at seven o’clock hampers my sleep, it the knowledge that there will always be stupid laws made somewhere in the world. Today’s comes from our friends in Mansfield and Delcambre, Louisiana. (Somehow I knew the first stupid law of the month was going to be from here, I just figured it would be south Louisiana)
There shall be no sagging pants.
Yes, for those not familiar with the United States, we have nothing like education or drugs or a war to worry about, so we like to regulate pants. The International Herald-Tribune has this to say on the issue:

Behind the indecency laws may be the real issue — the hip-hop style itself, which critics say is worn as a badge of delinquency, with its distinctive walk conveying thuggish swagger and a disrespect for authority.

I really hate hip hop, but I like disrespect for authority. Escpecially when authority is taking advantage of power and money to help themselves.

Also at work is the larger issue of freedom of expression and the questions raised when fashion moves from being merely objectionable to illegal.

Sure, sagging pants could be construed as indecent exposure. But then, if that’s true, then wouldn’t current indecent exposure laws take care of this? I agree (remember that, I don’t say it often) that there should be a line from where it goes to making you look stupid to making you look stupid, and indecent exposure; but then current laws should fix that right up.
I should mention, and I really hate saying this, because I say it so much, but this is America (make yourself a note, lawmakers). What does that mean? You have a right to look stupid! Is this fad harming our children? Well, think about it this way, now they think real hard as to whether to choose boxers or briefs (Because that just isn’t right.)

I also want to make one other law: White guys can’t have sagging pants. Seriously.

September 24, 2007: John Georges: You ARE a politician, Get over it!

The governor’s race in Louisiana is heating up. It should cool down once Blanco figures out how to turn that crawfish boiler in her office off, but the election ain’t over ’till the fat lady sings (not that anyone will hear her, since she won’t get out of her recliner to go vote). One of the not-so-front runners is an ant, but also John Georges. Unfortunatly, I do believe his campaign ads might be misleading. In these ads, he says to “save Louisiana” we need to not elect another politican. Well then Georges, who do you suspect we should elect? A shrimp? Fred Thompson? The Mac guy in those commericals? Because you ARE a politican. How do I know? Well, since my Yo Dictionary is gone from the top of the page until Get It Straight gets it legs, this is the definition of politician

One primarily devoted to his own advancement in public
office, or to the success of a political party; — used in
a depreciatory sense; one addicted or attached to politics
as managed by parties (1913 Webster)

You are devoted to your own advancement in public office, right? That’s what I thought. You, my friend are a politician.

Finally, let’s look at it this way: If you stubbornly refuse to market yourself as a politician, are you sure businessman is the best way to go? I mean, people hate politicians, but boy do they hate businessmen too.

I just wanted to say: I’m surprised that picture of him in front of the Coca-Cola sign didn’t at least get him into a runoff.

So, as you can see, I have a lot of corrections. Now, don’t bring them up again.

Rolling Updates about that thing…

Jindal winning over 50%. Somebody owes me $20.

WAFB now predicting Bobby Jindal winning.

• Georges thanking his supporters, conceding to Jindal.

• Campbell now conceding, leaving only Boasso.

OK, Campbell, stop talking.

• Somebody tell Jindal his party isn’t a debate, he can show up. His brother looks just like him, he might have well as said he was him.
• Wait, Boasso is coming to conceed. I wonder if he has a cardboard cutout with him.
• Look who decided to show up. Hello Jindal. Got a watch or something?

He asked to give Blanco a round of applause… and crickets…
“See folks, I have a heart after all” Against the attack ads claiming “Bobby Jindal: Big brain. No heart.”
“Don’t let anyone talk bad about Louisiana” Louisiana sucks.
OK, Jindal, we get it. You’ll do stuff. You can talk tomorrow. I’m tired.
Jindal: I’m asking you to look straight: There IS nothing you can do about corruption.
What idiot is chanting in the background? This isn’t a rock concert, it’s a politician speaking!
That’s right, chase the American dream. All the way to Mississippi.
I can change the channel, I must change the channel, I will change the channel.
21 Minutes of talking. Well, it’s over.

You (Don’t Really) Decide 2007 Elections

It appears Jindal might avoid a runoff. Good. I don’t know if he can run. Either way, there are several interesting things going on tonight:

• Did you know NBC 33 could do live shots?

• Georges: Forget the Plan. Most people don’t read.

This isn’t really going to be interesting. It’s just more of the same crap from politicians. Now if my boxed edition of openSUSE would hurry up and show up. Yes, it’s that exciting.

This is our informed public…

Oh hell.

Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go, do not pull up your pants…

I realize that there is a reason I get up in the morning. Why? Well, aside from the fact my iHome clock blaring Evanescence off my iPod at seven o’clock hampers my sleep, it the knowledge that there will always be stupid laws made somewhere in the world. Today’s comes from our friends in Mansfield and Delcambre, Louisiana. (Somehow I knew the first stupid law of the month was going to be from here, I just figured it would be south Louisiana)
There shall be no sagging pants.
Yes, for those not familiar with the United States, we have nothing like education or drugs or a war to worry about, so we like to regulate pants. The International Herald-Tribune has this to say on the issue:

Behind the indecency laws may be the real issue — the hip-hop style itself, which critics say is worn as a badge of delinquency, with its distinctive walk conveying thuggish swagger and a disrespect for authority.

I really hate hip hop, but I like disrespect for authority. Escpecially when authority is taking advantage of power and money to help themselves.

Also at work is the larger issue of freedom of expression and the questions raised when fashion moves from being merely objectionable to illegal.

Sure, sagging pants could be construed as indecent exposure. But then, if that’s true, then wouldn’t current indecent exposure laws take care of this? I agree (remember that, I don’t say it often) that there should be a line from where it goes to making you look stupid to making you look stupid, and indecent exposure; but then current laws should fix that right up.
I should mention, and I really hate saying this, because I say it so much, but this is America (make yourself a note, lawmakers). What does that mean? You have a right to look stupid! Is this fad harming our children? Well, think about it this way, now they think real hard as to whether to choose boxers or briefs (Because that just isn’t right.)

Our friends across the pond: Doing it the right way (or better than we are)

I’m up late, and that wonderful “Latest Headlines” button on the web browser’s toolbar was calling my name. And so I found this article from the BBC, which says that schools in the UK now have the same right to violate students rights as here in America. Yeah, not 1984-ish at all…

Schools in England have been given the legal right to search pupils who are suspected of carrying knives.

Suspected? What’s suspected mean? If you don’t use MySpace, your suspected, right? (Actually, I’ve heard BeBo is popular in England.) Seriously, I’ve always seen an issue, in that a student that doesn’t like another can go up to someone and say, “Hey, insert student name here got insert name of dangerous weapon, ” and run. Then, well you can imagine what happens next.

Head teachers will also be given guidance on how to use airport-style metal detectors to screen young people. The guidelines state that a pupil can be refused entry to a school if he or she refuses to be screened.

Wow. Unfortunately, they’ve been doing that in America for, oh, 6 years. And what I find is amazing, is that they catch most kids with knives gossiping to their friends, and what do the metal detectors, paid for with your tax dollars, catch? Oh, cell phones and iPods, maybe? Oh, and only denied entry. Good for them. If you refuse to have your Constitutional rights taken away in America by not going through with a screening, that’s probable cause to suspect you’re hiding something and the police officer on duty will arrest you before you can whip out your pocket Constitution.

Education Secretary Alan Johnson said knife-carrying in schools was rare, but it was illegal and a message it would not be tolerated must be sent out.

Surprisingly rare in America too, but that doesn’t stop the friggen’ searches.

For example, the guidelines suggest that randomly selected groups of pupils could be searched in order to send out a strong message of deterrence

I would guess the definition of “random” would be
“Hey, you see that group of outcasts? They might want to hurt somebody. Go search them.”
Yeah. Random.

The DfES also sets out limits for schools.

There is something we should have thought about. If only we had a document. A document that states our rights. One that limits what the Government and governmental institutions like public schools can do and search us for… oh wait….

Only members of staff authorised by the head teacher can undertake a search.

They have that here too. Doesn’t help when the principal (head teacher in UK) says “everybody join in!”

Suspicion has to be reasonable and not based on stereotypical images of certain groups of pupils.

Well, good start. Now if only people would pay attention to these rules.

Two members of staff should be present for a search and both must be the same sex as the pupil.

Same sex? Um, I’m not going to even ask why.

And students can only be required to remove outer clothing, such as coats or jackets.

That’s actually a good rule. Now, if only they follow it…

Note: I’m going to skip ahead a little bit…

“Where possible it should take place outside of public view, so that we are again respecting the individuals who clearly may have a perfectly innocent explanation for being suspected of carrying a weapon.”

Good. We need to learn that.

Overall, I’m just trying to say this: We need to stop this nonsense now. I’m writing this so us Americans can learn from our mistakes, and to hopefully keep the idiocracy from spreading. We’ve let it spread to the UK, but let’s keep it from Germany. SUSE is from there. We like SUSE.

Link to article

News article analyzed is (C) 2007 BBC

Funny, I thought the United States was based on freedom…

…and I bet you did too.
Before I begin, I would like to say hello to everyone at the NSA, FBI, CIA, or anywhere where this blog is being scrutinized to make sure I don’t say anything ‘politically incorrect’ or criticize anyone. Yo.
So, as many of you know, I have always been a firm supporter of Pres. Bush. I still am. But his buddy Alberto Gonzales has decided to, um, with no outside influence (we’ll presume the RIAA and the MPAA are government agencies) bring a new bill which takes copyright infringement (what you do when you download a song off of LimeWire) to a whole new level. I will post the CNET article and explain it point by point.

“To meet the global challenges of IP crime, our criminal laws must be kept updated,” Gonzales said during a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington on Monday.

His contract with the MPAA and the RIAA is up.

The Bush administration is throwing its support behind a proposal called the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007, which is likely to receive the enthusiastic support of the movie and music industries, and would represent the most dramatic rewrite of copyright law since a 2005 measure dealing with prerelease piracy.

You’re doing good with the war, don’t screw up now, George.

The IPPA would, for instance:

* Criminalize “attempting” to infringe copyright. Federal law currently punishes not-for-profit copyright infringement with between 1 and 10 years in prison, but there has to be actual infringement that takes place. The IPPA would eliminate that requirement. (The Justice Department’s summary of the legislation says: “It is a general tenet of the criminal law that those who attempt to commit a crime but do not complete it are as morally culpable as those who succeed in doing so.”)

If you even simply visit LimeWire.com, and don’t download the program or download music, you are subject to 1-10 years in prison.

* Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software. Anyone using counterfeit products who “recklessly causes or attempts to cause death” can be imprisoned for life. During a conference call, Justice Department officials gave the example of a hospital using pirated software instead of paying for it.

What do they consider “pirated software”? The difference between pirated and legal software, except in Windows, which a hospital shouldn’t be using anyway, is none. Who cares about murderers? Get IT managers!

Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations. Wiretaps would be authorized for investigations of Americans who are “attempting” to infringe copyrights.

What’s that little piece of paper that says you can’t do that? Oh yeah, the Constitution. Oh, ya’ll don’t know what that is.

Allow computers to be seized more readily. Specifically, property such as a PC “intended to be used in any manner” to commit a copyright crime would be subject to forfeiture, including civil asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture has become popular among police agencies in drug cases as a way to gain additional revenue, and it is

Great. I don’t even have to commit a crime and they’ll take my PC. Gotta love freedom.

Increase penalties for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anticircumvention regulations. Criminal violations are currently punished by jail times of up to 10 years and fines of up to $1 million. The IPPA would add forfeiture penalties.

So, I can’t play DVDs on Linux anymore. Thanks, Microsoft and Apple (and Linspire).

Add penalties for “intended” copyright crimes. Certain copyright crimes currently require someone to commit the “distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period of at least 10 copies” valued at more than $2,500. The IPPA would insert a new prohibition: actions that were “intended to consist of” distribution. *

Innocent until proven guilty. This is guilty even if he didn’t do it yet.

Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America. That would happen when CDs with “unauthorized fixations of the sounds, or sounds and images, of a live musical performance” are attempted to be imported. Neither the Motion Picture Association of America nor the Business Software Alliance (nor any other copyright holder, such as photographers, playwrights or news organizations, for that matter) would qualify for this kind of special treatment.

HOMELAND SECURITY? Really? Why, because all the terrorists are in Gitmo already? Your tax dollars at work.

So, what can you do? DON’T BUY ANY CD OR DVD until these leaders of this idiocracy get straightened out.

I’m Sorry, we don’t sell guns to crazy people, Mr. Cheney…

From Digg:

Gun Owners of America wants crazy people to get firearmsThe NRA is supporting a bill to ensure that mental-health records are entered into a FBI database that is used for background checks of gun buyers. Virginia-based Gun Owners of America warns that the proposal could “block millions of additional, honest gun owners from buying firearms.”

OK, so, lets not give guns to crazy folks, right. Well, it’s not that easy. If you said, “Lets not let convicted felons buy guns” a lot of people would agree with you. But, what if you were exonerated from your charges years down the road? What then? And how would you feel about not letting someone buy a firearm for protection because they maybe had a breakdown twenty or so years ago, and then that person was killed. They could have protected themselves if thy had that firearm. What if we turn it around, and right after that someone comes in, passes a background check with not as much as a parking ticket or a fight in school, and commits a mass-murder with that weapon?

I know that it will come as a shock to many kids, teens, and young police officers, but a computer can’t catch everything. Sometimes, ya gotta use your gut.