Just look at the Numbers

Just looking at Atrios and saw his link to The Concord Monitor

Democrat's voter numbers are a bit high aren't they?

New Hampshire Primary - Clinton and McCain

The news has been unfairly giving more press to Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. In addition it has been shining a more positive light on Obama than on Clinton. In addition, the media turns every candidate into a juggernaut despite the nationwide polling that showed the only real juggernaut out there was Hillary Clinton. She showed up in the Cronkite, American Research Group, Quinnipac University, and Washington Post polls in the last quarter of 2007 as a sweeping candidate that controlled 40% of each polling. Yet the Times, CNN, etc. showed every candidate as having some type of potential equal to or greater than Hillary. In reality, every other candidate has been a media creation to push them as far as they have gotten. (I give exception to Obama who has the "O" factor on his side. Oprah Winfrey is the 5th column of the government.)

As I write this blog I Googled "New Hampshire" (without quotes) in Google News and I see 4 articles on Senator John McCain clinching the primary, 3 articles "punditting" away about the NH primary, 1 article on Senator Hillary Clinton winning the primary, 1 on Mitt Romney getting second in the Republican primary (are you serious?), and 1 on Fred Thompson's and how he is neglecting New Hampshire. Even though the people saw through the thin veil that was the media debasing Senator Clinton the news is still trying to save the face of the anti-Clinton, the great, white, male hope that can take down the Democratic juggernaut.

Events contradicted polling that led up to today's primary showing Obama ahead and now everyone will turn their guns away from Obama and toward Clinton again, just as they were pointed before the Iowa phase. The Google search shows that it is obvious the media is writing more about McCain to prop him up because he has received tens of thousands fewer votes than Hillary Clinton.

According to CNN Hillary Clinton has about 170k+ votes with only 83% of the precincts reporting. McCain only had 130k+ votes with a similar number of votes in for the Republican primary. The media will not mention this but it is obvious that there are many more Clinton supporters out there in itty bitty New Hampshire than there are McCain supporters. There are more Democrats out there period and McCain will need all the help he can get.

The itty bitty New Hampshire factor is another point I need to bring up. Why the heck is New Hampshire getting so much credit? I live on the border of a few cities where I could throw a rock into each city nearby and hit 3 or four cities that contain more people than voted in either New Hampshire or Iowa for that matter. It is ridiculous how much weight they put on these bleached, baby sized, "we voted first" people.

Stop propping up the underdog with undeserved praise. Start supporting statements with the numbers. Clinton won the New Hampshire Democratic primary. McCain won the New Hampshire Republican primary. Clinton had more votes. Period. This psycho-babble analysis needs to stop.

Undecided Voters

I read a comment on undecided voters by Atrios and he linked to a post in which Chris Hayes describes the undecided. The anecdotes were frightening (maybe I'm exaggerating) yet humorous (if you can overlook the severity of what it says).

To sum it up, undecided voters are irrational, sympathetic, irked by politics, "crypto-racist", and do not know what a political issue is. It is a must read to see the likes of which our country depends on. Be reminded that 250,000 individuals from the city of Iowa (oops, I mean state) have major influence in selecting our next two major candidates for president. Thousands of these few are the undecided. Atrios had it right when he summed it all up.

We're doomed.

Jena Six

Barry Bonds, Home Run King

In the United States it is a false notion that anyone is innocent until proven guilty. Allegations of steroid use by Barry Bonds are nothing more than allegations yet public opinion, largely fueled by one man's quest to sell a book and partially because of a natural tendancy of Americans to look down on African Americans, has ruled that Bonds is guilty.

The asterisk means nothing in a court that is extremely biased and leads a battle of injustice where one man is the "lightning rod" for scrutiny that belongs on a macroscale if at all.
Until focus is placed on all of major league baseball public opinion has no place judging one man, especially when allegations are the only thing it has to base its opinion.

While I don't expect those on the internet to decide to bestow the ball without an asterisk as it is largely a caucasian user base I do want to put my mark on the net so it is known that not everyone is prepared to blindly adhear to the prejudiced direction that manipulates the mindset of the western world.

I'm voting "A"

Incitement Made Easy

When I first created Aspiring Incitement I wanted to urge people to act. Therefore I am now making it easier to do so whenever I post a message.

I will add the contact information, including physical address, phone number, and email when possible, to take a step or two out of the process of contacting others.

In the case of Congress I will offer a link to Congress.org. It is a site designed to write both private and open letters to the Congressional electorate. In most other cases a direct contact will be supplied.

I say all this primarily as a reminder to myself but also as a note for any reader that may cross this site. Maybe it will help you. Maybe it will help you help me. Hopefully, we will ultimately benefit from the new method.

My email: docjay8406-at-yahoo.com (The spambots have not gotten me yet)

The recent Supreme Court decision on Seattle schools will make it more difficult to achieve equal opportunity in education. It is up to Senators like Barbara Boxer who has introduced legislation that will help overturn the Supreme Court's decision.

Bill Moyers Journal: Buying the War

Bill Moyers asks the question "How did the mainstream press get it so wrong?" in regard to the media's lack of independence and skepticism in the months leading up to the attack on Iraq.

Moyers lays out a 90 minute story filled with interviews of two reporters, Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay, who had 40 years of experience and were working with Knight Ridder newspapers at the time. He also speaks with Dan Rather, formerly of CBS news and many others in a rare and most thorough dissection of how the media allowed the country to send its soldiers into another country without challenge.

If Not Imus, Then Beck, Boortz, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly: Let's Not Go After Hip Hop for Imus' Sake

Excerpt of Glenn Gamboa's "Imus Clouds the Debate"

First of all, a rapper would never have hurled racist and sexist slurs against the Rutgers team after their loss in the NCAA Tournament. Attacking people after such a difficult defeat is never funny. It's cold.

Second, rappers would differentiate between student-athletes working hard to rise to the top of their field and prostitutes or even promiscuous women. Do some hip-hoppers use sexist slurs too much? Definitely. But that should not be viewed any differently than the sexist slurs thrown around the boardroom or in workplace cafeterias. It's also no different than a business structure that pays women an average of 23 percent less than men.

Hip-hop should be judged like any other art form, on the merits of the many, rather than the actions of a few. There are examples of sexism and racism in country music and rock as well, but those genres aren't stereotyped in the same way.

The insults Imus and his colleague chose for the Rutgers women were designed to resonate with a certain part of his snickering audience - the ones who see everything in racial terms first. He was playing the race card then and, by trying to push some of the blame for his actions on hip-hop, he is doing it again.

This is a decent explanation of why the mainstream media is wrong in promoting talk against hip hop instead of going after Neal Boortz, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly

"Ho" Comes From European Language: Stop Pawning It On Black People

The word ho did not originate in the African American community. In fact, no word said by an African American has originated in the African American community. English is not an invention of Africans. It is an invention of the English. “Ho” is not a word that was pulled out of nowhere by the Black community; rather it is a shortened version of the word “whore” or “hooker” which white people have been using for centuries to describe women.

It is senseless and narrow minded to attribute this type of language to Blacks considering this Germanic language comes from Europe. These words have existed for centuries because of the flagrant continuous use of degrading language by White people. There is an article written by one Dave Wilton on Wordorigins.org on the etymology of the word hooker. His examples come from the mid 16^th and 19^th centuries, times when Africans and Blacks were being held in slavery. The absurdity in the notion that African culture produced the term whore is boundless considering white women were the ones capable of acting as prostitutes. Black women were subject to the rape of their masters and any projection of a whore onto that African woman could only have been an extension of the classification of a whorish White woman. Africans were stripped of their mother language and relied upon the slave owner to learn the Queen’s English. This entire depraved English vernacular has its roots in Europe not from the African or African American culture.

The word whore has a similar, if not more extensive, background. “Hore” as used to describe a prostitute or harlot came from Old English through Proto-Germanic language. This is similar to the Old Norse “hora” for adulteress, Danish “hore, Swedish “hora”, the Dutch’s “hoer” and Old High German huora for “whore”. This word originated in the Germanic language and was passed on to African Americans via United States slavery which bleached the original language of the Africans and instilled this new language, one that is known for the lopsided appearance of negative words toward women rather than men and people of color rather than Whites.

White people are responsible for sexist words like whore, ho, slut, bimbo, and hoochie just as they are responsible for racist words such as gook, nigger, spick, and wet back. These are the inventions of a hateful White culture not Africans or African Americans. Imus, and everyone else for that matter, needs to bite their tongue before feeding everyone such tripe.

Addition: This article on CNN by the Associated Press does a decent job painting a picture of why what Imus said elicited a response from the Black community for those who have no idea.

Institutional Racism at Work: Whites Lost Imus so They Are Attacking Hip Hop

Imus used our airwaves for bigotry and sexism. After realizing he was in trouble Imus clouded the issue by targeting hip-hop. Unfortunately the media took his lead and have now began to attack the Hip Hop industry following the loss of one of their largest "bullet proof" bigots.

“White powerful” people are mad that Imus was taken down and now, in an act of vengeance, they are making institutional racism work by attacking Blacks via hip hop. Notice how they have changed the issue from Imus to Black people.

The issue is STILL Imus! Call your local stations and tell them that.

p.s. If you want to attack someone outside of Imus try the bigots listed at Media Matters here.

Imus is Dropped

Imus is dropped from CBS Radio.

Welcome to the unemployment office Imus.

Open Letter to Randi Rhodes of Air America in response to her segment "Why Imus and Why Now"

On April 10, 2007 Randi Rhodes asked her listeners "Why Imus and Why Now" after he has been spewing filth over the American airwaves for over three decades. For over an hour she took calls and shot down everyone's reasoning on "why now?" including those who said it's because of the racial slurs. Her conclusion was that this was a calculated attack on a "shock jock" who is supposed to be held less accountable for the things he says than such radio hosts as Rush Limbaugh. Randi's argument is that Imus is being attacked because it will send a message to others that they are not immune considering their words are not even said with as much "humor" as those of Imus.

It is my opinion that "why now?" is because we've had enough. He's been slandering everybody for much to long and after the racist and sexist attack on women who are trying to earn their degree, participate in school sports, and just go on with their lives we're finally telling him he has stepped over his boundaries.

While I am forever appreciative of the voice Randi provides to radio I am not going to let her hijack this issue so easily. I see too many people who think this is a complicated act against Republicans, or Democrats, or conservative radio, etc. Maybe it's just that America is learning to not tolerate racism, sexism, and degradation when it rears its ugly head.

Randi,

It is impossible for you to completely understand my position on Imus' racist, sexist, trashy, and uncalled for remarks. It is equally impossible for me to fully understand some feminine issues you may delve into because I am a man. While I appreciate your compassion for this issue you cannot go beyond intellectualizing it.

Imus attacked our Black children. In response, we are coming down on him with deserved negative attention. If you cannot fathom that Imus is being attacked "simply" in response to his racist attack on our children that is fine but do not show a lack of appreciation by quickly dismissing every person in dissention with your view who believes this is an issue of race.

Your claim of this being a complex move strategically made to make the less jovial, conservative radio hosts think "this could happen to me" is self serving. Whenever Blacks have striven for upward mobility White people have ridden on their coattails even though they already have more than enough. After the Civil War Lincoln tried to remove Africans and African Americans from the country and share-cropping took advantage of the newfound "freedom". In the 1960's the Women's Rights movement coupled itself on the phenomenal force of the Civil Rights movement. Today we see a less spectacular form of "How can I take advantage of this" in the form of liberal talk radio using the issue of Imus defaming these Black women via our national airways as a leaping point to shake up conservative radio. Others want to use the issue as an example of the "cunning" of the right wing where they are getting rid of yet another "anti Republican" rabble rouser.

Selfish is it not, considering Air America has one (?) or is it two (?) Black radio hosts who do not even have premium times. Your assessment and those agreeing with that assessment do not realize how much of a narrow base there is in that kind of thought. If you were Black you would not have your show and maybe then you would understand.

If you would entertain the thought for a moment, you would possibly consider that maybe, just maybe, Black people care deeply about what happens to their people, their sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers, and so on. Imus deserves to be fired for his transgression and should never see radio again. He must be punished for his disgraceful, derogatory statements.

What plans you and anyone creating issues outside of the main one do is your business. Let us respect our own motives though.

Open Call to CBS RADIO Re: Request for Imus' termination

We want Imus off the air. He has spread his offensive rhetoric over the airways long enough. Stop aiding the perpetuation of racist, sexist, gaudy and hateful language.

There is no defense for this man’s words. His lifespan on radio is no excuse. It just means his removal is overdue. The language of others whether it be Jay Z, Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh is not the issue. They are not Imus. Imus’ compassion for his wife does not excuse his sexist language. Her tolerance of his misgivings does not reflect mine. Besides, many sexist individuals have cared for their wives and daughters. Even Strom Thurmond took care of his Black daughter. Celebrities saying he is a “good” man are no defense. If he is such a good man then why is he in this mess? Imus has no excuse for staying on air.

I hope you recognize the severity of the situation and deal with this promptly. You have higher quality programming available that can replace his. I urge you to remove Imus in the Morning from your programming schedule.

CORPORATE ADDRESS

CBS RADIO
1515 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
212-846-3939

Obama garners youth with social website

Just visited Barack Obama's presidential website and it's definitely youth oriented. At the bottom are links to facebook.com, a social website like MySpace; YouTube, the infamous video stash of everything there is to find on the net that hasn't been removed because of copyright; and Flickr, the picture portal. Obama for America has even set it up so supporters can create a member ship at "my.barackobama.com" where they can blog, meet others interested in campaigning and even create their own personal online fund raiser. Decent, nice job Obama camp.

Supporting Unions

American workers need help - and there's something you can do about it.
Regardless of where you live or what you do, labor unions are our first line of defense for worker's rights. What do they fight for? Raising the minimum wage. Improving labor standards. Expanding health care benefits. Protecting retirement security.

And these fights don't only make a difference in the workplace: They are critical to providing economic security for families, strengthening our communities and rebuilding America's middle class. Every day, millions of Americans work hard and play by the rules but are still struggling to get by. Democrats understand the important role that labor unions play to fix this crisis.

The House of Representatives is set to debate and pass a bill that will restore American workers' right to freely choose whether or not to form a union. Join the Democratic majority in the House and show your support for the Employee Free Choice Act:

http://www.democrats.org/StrengthenUnions

Research shows union members earn 30% more than nonunion workers. What's more, union workers are 63% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are four times more likely to have a guaranteed pension.

The benefits of union membership are clear. That's why nearly half of American workers who are not currently represented by unions -- 60 million people -- say that they'd join one if they had the chance. But every year since 1981, union membership has declined. And a major reason for that fall-off is the many obstacles workers face when they try to form a union or negotiate a union contract.

The Employee Free Choice Act is a simple, effective solution to restore the right of workers to form unions and bargain for better wages and benefits for themselves and their families. It has three key provisions:

Require employers to recognize a union if a majority of workers sign authorization cards saying they want union representation.

Provide mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes.

Strengthen penalties for companies that illegally intimidate employees to prevent them from forming a union.

No management coercion, no waiting period, no stacked deck -- just the freedom for workers to stand up for their rights.

Democratic leaders in the House overwhelmingly support the Employee Free Choice Act. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called it a "top priority." House Labor Committee Chairman George Miller called it "an important step towards strengthening America's middle class." Now you can join the leadership in calling on Congress to pass this critical legislation:

http://www.democrats.org/StrengthenUnions

Big business is scared of the Employee Free Choice Act -- and that's why they're doing everything in their power to stop it.

75% of companies hire consultants or union-busters to fight organizing campaigns. And their tactics work: every 23 minutes, a worker is fired or discriminated against for supporting a union. All in all, over 22,000 workers each year are illegally fired, demoted, laid off, suspended without pay, or denied work by their employers as a result of union activity.

Why have our leaders in Washington allowed this to happen? Follow the money trail.
The public opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act is funded in large part by GOP-allied corporate lobbyists and interest groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Conservative Union, and Americans for Tax Reform. The dozens of groups that make up the "Coalition for a Democratic Workplace" spend big bucks each election cycle buying Republicans' votes on bills like this one.

This is nothing new. Big Business always gets what it wants from the Republicans-- from an energy bill written by Cheney's oil industry pals to a prescription drug bill full of giveaways to Big Pharma.

This time, though, the Democrats in Congress can stop them. Show the House that you will stand with America's workers:

http://www.democrats.org/StrengthenUnions

Do you believe in the right to demand a raise? Health care coverage? A pension? Do you believe workers should have a voice in their workplaces?

The fate of the Employee Free Choice Act depends on your work. Help score an important victory for worker's rights and for rebuilding America's middle class.

In Solidarity,
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

Venezuela is a democratic state

I'm not kidding you. I feel this needs to be said. As of February 23, 2007 the CIA Factbook says Venezuela is a "federal republic".

I recently came across a thread on the BlackPlanet.com forums where someone gave praise to China for aiding African nations. He heralded it as the end of European domination, which is true if the west doesn't get its act together, and ended by blessing Hugo Chavez.

A resident righty that patrols the forum who types much and often says nothing accused the thread creator of supporting all communists and dictators across the globe. The guy had an African user name with no location under it so I thought he might actually be from Africa. I posted a link to a story about China's mishandling of copper fields in Zimbabwe asking his opinion on it. I also replied to righty by saying Chavez helps low income people in the United States with low priced heating for homes and said Venezuela is not a Communist country, which it isn't. No Big Deal, right? *rolleyes*

A brainwashed military blow hard asks me why I don't move to Venezuela and "be a Commie". I "politely" tell him I'm a patriot (Actually I say I'm the most patriotic human being on the Earth. Though that is not true as long as Jack Bauer lives) and I speak against ills this country perpetrates. In fact think of it as a relationship between 24's Jack Bauer and his father. Jack loves his father but does not want him to harm innocent lives. Then righty returns practically saying nuh uh telling me "get with the program".

I responded by accusing him of being the same type of person who thought FDR was Communist. I supplied a link to the CIA Factbook showing Venezuela is a federal republic and an article by Josef Cohen showing why Venezuela will not be a Communist country any time soon. It in fact leans capitalist and the country's people favor democracy more than any other nation in South America.

I've invited the righty several times to state his position on political candidates in the 2008 elections and he never accepts my invitation. He just likes to roam around making baseless statements a la Rush Limbaugh.

How do you get through to these people?

Obama Criticizes Australian Prime Minister

Barack Obama rips Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, after Howard suggests Obama would be popular among terrorist leaders because of his promise to recall troops from Iraq if he wins.

The Democratic presidential hopeful said if the Australian prime minister was "ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq," he needs to send another 20,000 Australians to the war.

"Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric," Obama said.

In addition, Australian political opponent Kevin Rudd warned Prime Minister Howard that he should take care not to strain the 65 year alliance that has existed between the U.S. and Australia. Kevin Rudd. The ACNielsen poll in the Age and Sydney Morning Herald newspapers has found Mr Rudd is the most popular Opposition leader in the past 35 years.

Criticism toward Howard has come from both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S.

Senator Jon Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said Howard should have kept quiet. "I would prefer that Mr. Howard stay out of our domestic politics, and we'll stay out of his domestic politics," Cornyn said. Ron Wyden, Democratic Senator from Oregon said "We'll make our own judgments in this country with respect to elections" after saying Howard's comment is at best "bizarre".

I'm disgusted a world diplomat would assume directive in a situation where his contributions, even as "significant" as he claims them to be, are meager compared to the 140,000 troops the United States has allocated to Iraq. Australia currently has 1,400 troops in and around Iraq, mostly in non combat roles. Even at the height of the Iraq war Australia had fewer soldiers than we've had die in Iraq to date.

Howard tried to claim 1,400 troops is significant considering the Australian population. Unfortunately he understands ratios just as well as he understands staying out of another country's politics. We a population of 300 million people vs his 20,000,000. 15:1 ratio right? We have 140,000 troops to his 1,400. 100:1 ratio. Does anyone see me not smiling? He owes us 8,000 more troops before I'll declare a "significant contribution". Even that won't be enough after Bush's surge.

Howard doesn't seem to understand that he is interfering with the election process of the United States. When critics from his own country said it was inappropriate for the Prime Minister to comment as he did Howard mistakenly drew parallels to Opposition criticism of George Bush in 2003, when he was already an established national leader. Considering the Prime Minster's ties to George Bush, his similar lack of discerning and status as a national leader, he has no business making comments pertaining to our elections.

The Prime Minister of Australia Criticizes Barack Obama

The Prime Minister of Australia criticized, wait? Australia? The Prime Minister of Australia....The Prime Minister of Australia...The Prime Minister of Australia..The Prime Minister of... Australia?

What does the Prime Minister of Australia have to do with American elections? I think he's supposed to butt out and pay attention to what's actually happening with his own country. Everyone knows he's chummy chum with George Bush on the Iraq war and anyone with that type of mindset has no credibility anyway.

If Mr. Prime Minister is interested in letting the few number of people he has provided to occupy Iraq get shot at, go ahead. But stay out of the United State's business. Australia? Really?

The Value of Black Life in General

The Value of Black Life in Maryland

By Parris Glendening
Sunday, December 18, 2005; B07

In the eight years I served as governor of Maryland, I found the power to decide which condemned prisoners would live and which would die the most awesome and emotionally grueling of all my duties. I faced this decision four times.

I believed in the death penalty when I became governor and took seriously my constitutional responsibility to uphold Maryland law. I presided over two executions, those of Flint Gregory Hunt and Tyrone Gilliam. Both were black men whose victims were white. I heard from many civil rights leaders who rightly pointed out that this racial combination dominated cases on our state's death row, even though African Americans were and continue to be the victims in nearly 80 percent of homicides.

So in 1999 I commissioned a study of race and death sentencing from the University of Maryland, believing it my responsibility to ensure that justice was truly blind when applying this ultimate punishment.

A few months later I faced yet another execution of a black man with a white victim -- that of Eugene Colvin-el. I was not yet convinced that a moratorium on executions was necessary. But I was also not 100 percent certain of Colvin-el's guilt, so I commuted his death sentence to life without the possibility of parole.

The last execution I faced was that of Wesley Baker -- whom Maryland ultimately executed on Dec. 5. His was the fourth case to come before me in which an African American man was condemned to die for the murder of a white Marylander. And as with two of the three condemned men before him, he had been sentenced to die in Baltimore County.

I could not, in good conscience, go forward with another execution of a black man for killing a white person. I stayed Baker's execution in May 2002 and imposed a moratorium on all executions pending the results of the University of Maryland study.

Days before I left office in January 2003, the study was released. Examining the records of more than 1,300 death-penalty-eligible cases between 1978 and 1999, criminologist Raymond Paternoster concluded that both geographic and racial disparities existed.

Baltimore County was singled out as having a significantly higher rate of death sentences than other jurisdictions in the state. Murderers in Baltimore County were 26 times more likely to be sentenced to death than killers in Baltimore City and 14 times more likely than murderers in Montgomery County.

The significant racial disparities are troubling. Cases in which the victim was white were almost twice as likely to result in the death penalty as cases in which the victim was black, and blacks who killed whites were 2 1/2 times more likely to be sentenced to death than whites who killed whites.

These results lead to the unfortunate conclusion that we value white life more than black life. Intentional or not -- and I believe it is not -- this is an indefensible and untenable position for the state. Whether one supports or opposes the death penalty in principle, all reasonable people understand that before we exercise the ultimate sanction, we must be confident that the system is, at a minimum, fair and accurate.

The University of Maryland study received a great deal of attention and should have been a call to action for state leaders, but no solutions have been implemented. The General Assembly, despite conducting hearings on the issue, never passed legislation to deal with the inequalities highlighted in the study.

Gov. Robert Ehrlich, who lifted my moratorium on executions after assuming office despite acknowledging that race "plays a part all the way through the process," named Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele as the new administration's point man on the issue. The lieutenant governor promised to conduct an assessment of our state's death penalty. To date, he has not.

Despite being ignored by the current administration, issues raised by the study remain. Maryland still faces serious questions about the impact of race and geography in capital sentencing.

I implemented the moratorium to allow for the thorough and fair study of our death penalty system and to allow for action to be taken to prevent racial and geographic discrimination. The study was completed, but the corrective action was not. It is time for our state to honestly and openly consider these findings and to find constructive remedies. To carry out executions under this scenario is simply wrong.

The writer was governor of Maryland from 1995 to 2003.