John Hodgman Endorses Hillary Clinton


Reads more like a defense of his position than an endorsement, or an explanation of why...
Haters start your hate engines
That was more "gut feeling" than math, at least "here's the math regarding my gut feeling."

@1 Not that I really care so much that Hodgman is endorsing Clinton but I am a little curious as to the "why" as well.
Well, that settles it! If this guy supports her, I'm totally willing to overlook Clinton's support for the mass-murder of Palestinian children.
@3, None of it was math because math involves numbers and logic. It's an endorsement. Endorsements are people explaining their feelings about things using words - in this case his feelings about who he would like to be president.

In another year or 2 when all of this is over I will probably look back on all this as an example of democracy (or something close to it) working the way it's supposed to, but right now it's fucking exhausting to see people qualify their political opinions with a wall of caveats because the internet is full of people who can't handle that other people think slightly differently than they do.
I wish it was the 1st Wednesday in November already.
Selling out the left to line up behind a warmonger and a neoliberal doesn't seem very moral or especially practical math. Who is the moron claiming that it is practical to NOT build the largest progressive movement we can to extract as many concessions we possibly can?
@2 Propagandists start your "bernie bros" smears.
I wish it was the 1st Wednesday in November already.

Yes. Then it would only be 6 more days till election day.
@6 Yes, math includes numbers but one would think that because he chose the expression, "I have my own math ..." would mean that there was some sort of logical explanation for his opinion but there wasn't really much of a logical explanation.

And it has nothing to do with "he's a celebrity so we can roundly ignore his position!" it has to do with the logic. Many people agree with Sara Silverman's logic behind the endorsement (I don't really remember what she said and I don't really care about celebrity endorsements myself.) In the case of Hodgman here, his rationale is he's grown up with her, she hasn't made bigger mistakes than anyone else, and she likes to make policy. Uhmm, ok.

So no opinion on fracking? Honduras? Being open to constitutional restrictions on late term abortions? Taking Glass-Steagall completely off the table? Increasing military presence in Syria? There's a lot of talk about continuing Obama's policies so does that mean she's going to increase/maintain drone strikes (which were increased over Bush)? Increase deportations (WAY increased under Obama)? What about appointing Wall St. veteran to run the Treasury? She said she's "open" to it, any opinion on that? How about Obama appointing a former telecom lobbyist to head the FCC, can we expect more appointments from industry lobbyists to head regulatory boards under a Clinton presidency? What about increasing prosecution of whistleblowers, will that continue? We know that she thinks that Snowden broke the law and that's the end of that story. Etc. etc.

Anyhoo, I know that, being bi-tanktual and all, you guys aren't concerned with issues like these but for some people they're pretty important.
@11, It's a metaphor. An endorsement is not necessarily an exhaustive treatise on all the reasons why candidate A is better than candidate B or else it would be 50 pages long. Those issues are all important to me but John Hodgeman's (or anyone else's) opinions about them aren't. etc.
More War Years! More War Years!

Hilary Clinton will be our Golda Meir. Our Maggie Thatcher.
As a Bernie supporter, that seems like a perfectly reasonable endorsement, and I look forward to voting for Clinton in the general as well.

Sorry to burst your bubble about Bernie Bros though.
@12 I realize it's not supposed to be an exhaustive treatise on all the reasons, or most of the reasons, or even some of the reasons but maybe just one substantive reason? I think that'd be appropriate. And Hodgman's or Silverman's or Clooney's or Spike Lee's endorsements aren't really all that important to me either in and of themselves but a good solid reason (or possibly two) can be thought provoking. Just my two cents but it just seemed weird to post an endorsement that didn't include much of a rationale.

"I'm Celebrity X and I support Candidate Y just because!"

Sure. Whatever's clever, I guess.
Neolibs love to use phrases that include concepts like "moral math" (the concept is ludicrous) to add weight to the persistent argument of the historical inevitability of whatever bullshit they're pushing this week.

We've talked about this and it's already settled, there's simply no alternative!
That's as good a case for Clinton as I've seen.

People who are flipping out about a figure of speech should maybe reconsider their flipping-out priorities.
Hi from Canada: We had our election already. It was short and sweet and it's done already and no celebrity came out to give their support to anyone. Well as far as I can remember and we are supposed to remember celebs, thats their nature.
Actually if they did do that in Canada they would be laughed off the planet. Actually I think Neil Young did some posturing Not supporting). He was laughed at. Probably because we realize we can make our own decisions and not wait to find out what a JOHN HODGMAN?!?! or Clooney thinks. Geesh, why not vote based upon Teresa Giudice thinks. Probably has something to do with credibility but really your own credibility should be enough.

What a gong show! Just get it done already!
This isn't a celebrity endorsement, but maybe it will satisfy...…
Vote Blue No Matter Who.
@16, He did justify his endorsement, only he did so based on her process rather than a list of her opinions he agrees with, which is the "policy wonk" / experience argument I hear quite often from Clinton supporters, which is a perfectly cromulent reason to support a candidate since we're not just voting for a set of ideas, but also a plan of action and a leader to make them happen. I just think things are a little bit broken when someone can't say they support the candidate who has been leading the primaries since day 1 without feeling to compelled to apologize for it.

Again, democracy isn't always pretty and this is probably all good in the long term but it's a little tiresome when we're in the thick of it.
So I'm solidly blue, and solidly undecided among the two shades of blue. And my social media feed has been filled with completely moronic arguments from my fellow libs for their blue of choice. What's weird is that my otherwise intelligent friends keep repeating these moronic arguments, ad infinitum, as though making the same point using slightly different words is more convincing.

So being removed from the squabble makes the squabble sound ridiculous. Which makes me wonder if our American politics sound moronic to non-Americans. Maybe? My international friends on social media seem to agree that Trump is terrifying, though.
Since I want to see Democrats win -- both down ticket and for President -- I am voting for the Democrat in the race, not the Democratic Socialist. I can't see Sanders having the support to pass his revolution, and I am really turned off by his criticism of her. The latest snit is about her raising money for the Democratic Party (only a fraction of which actually goes to her), made right before the NY primary in hopes that the actual facts don't have time to get out. That is the kind of desperate stuff he is doing now, nasty and mean-spirited, unlike the kindly old grumpy grandpa persona that he started with. What began as a "protest candidate" has now shown his ambition as he thinks he just might be able to win this thing. So those who have criticized Clinton's ambition (not really nice for s woman!) can note that it is a fact in the make-up of all successful politicians.
@21: I'm more "Vote Against Red or We're All Dead." Trump and Cruz both have actual, blatantly obvious personality disorders (narcissism and sociopathy, respectively). Dems could put up a potted plant and I'd Vote Plant '16. Because a president who literally does nothing would be preferable to either of the GOP options. Plants can't launch nukes in a fit of pique.
Since we all agree that we like math, here's some numbers for you (WSJ paywalled but readily available elsewhere).

Among voters in both parties, 56% hold a negative view of Mrs. Clinton and 32% hold a positive view. That 24-point gap is almost twice as wide as in a Journal/NBC poll last month, when 51% viewed her negatively and 38% positively, a 13-point gap.

GOP front-runner Donald Trump continues to be the candidate in either party viewed most negatively, with 65% of registered voters viewing him unfavorably and 24% favorably, a 41-point difference. Unlike with Mrs. Clinton, those numbers haven't changed much over the past month.

Sanders (+9%) and Kasich (+12%) have net favorable ratings. People keep talking about Clinton's electability, but the reality is that she's only slightly less loathed than Trump--which is really saying something--and her popularity is moving in the wrong direction. Again, this is just math.

My totally armchair prediction is that we'll be welcoming President Trumpf and First Lady Melanoma into the White House if there's another terrorist attack or Wall Street manages to succeed in nuking itself and the eCONomy again before the election. It'll be Clinton if she wins the nomination and there's no Black Swan event prior to November. Either or them will be reviled by the majority of the population and CONgress, which certainly doesn't bode well for the near future.
@ 24, It's not her ambition, it's her compulsive lying, right-wing pandering, and blatant in-your-face corruption and dirty deals to which people object, along with her supporters refusal to care about any of it, despite it being well-documented. A Hillary Clinton presidency will make Brazil look like a PTA bake sale after she installs her various Wall Street cronies and neocon supplicants in her administration. She's been wrong on every issue of importance, and her repeated poor judgement shows she's unqualified for office.…
If you're under 40 he'll tell you he endorses Sanders.
@2: I read that in RuPaul's voice, so:
and may the best *whiner* WIN!

@20: Word.
The biggest issue I have with Sanders, apart from the fundamental unworkability of a lot of his proposals, is just how reactionary he is. Bank deregulation damages the economy? Break up the big banks! Education out of reach for many working-class adolescents? Free college for everyone! Irresponsible fracking taints groundwater and causes earthquakes? Ban fracking!
His impulse seems to be to find a scapegoat and say "if only we do THIS bold thing, everything will be fixed". Meanwhile we'd be better off regulating banks, subsidizing college only for those who can't afford it on their own, and putting actual environmental controls on fracking, but those proposals aren't as snappy and audacious, so they don't get people as fired up. He's an idealist, nothing more and nothing less, and as any student of physics can tell you, idealized systems don't exist in the real world.
At the end of the day there's only one candidate who's going to allocate the necessary amount of funding that The American People demand be put toward a strategic flying monkey defense system and time travel research and you all are a bunch of sanctimonious, hypocritical assholes for not supporting him.
@29 "idealized systems don't exist in the real world" -- true but politics isn't physics. Reach for the stars, get a few feet off the ground. Reach a few feet and Republicans will keep you mired in the mud. That's we've learned from Obama's 8 years. Plus, Europe shows that if you give EVERYONE a benefit then the rich no longer want to cut it. So free public college for everyone (not means tested) is actually a good idea to ensure continued support for it long term. Breaking up banks is a type of regulation.

@27 puh-lease, she's not as progressive as Bernie but for a career politician who's already been at the highest levels, she's pretty good, most of these "lies" are just par-for-the-course politics, and she's an order of magnitude better than any (R)

-- Bernie fan who prefers Bernie by far, but would also happily vote for Hilary in Nov.
@ 31 I respectfully suggest that you read the link and then get back to me about how "good" Clinton is. I honestly don't see how anyone with a conscience can support her.
27 -- Sounds really bad -- of course, name the instances that have you saying this (Sanders couldn't name one time her acceptance of campaign $$$ has been followed by a sell out in favor of the donor). Everyone agrees that we have a political election system tainted by money, especially since the Supreme Court's Citizens United opinion. So the answer is to unilaterally disarm and let the other party raise the money to smother you with political advertising? Maybe the answer has to be take the money and run -- on a progressive but doable platform -- and then fulfill your campaign promises once elected no matter who donated to the victory. I assume that you believe that every candidate with a PAC or who raises money from the fat cats is all the things you say against Clinton -- including Obama. Only Saint Sanders gets your vote? Really? I suspect that this is another case where a woman playing the hard ball role required by modern politics gets hit a lot harder than all of her male opponents.
@10: ugh, so far away. way to ruin my day!
@32: I think you'll get a very clear view of that once the primary is over, and the choice is Clinton or Cruz.
@33 "Sanders couldn't name one time her acceptance of campaign $$$ has been followed by a sell out in favor of the donor"

Enough of that canard. For example, Clinton not wanting to reinstate Glass-Steagall directly follows from her corporatist ideology and her getting paid globs of cash by corporations. It's not because the revolving door is out in the open and corporate media doesn't call it corruption that it isn't.
@27, That just goes to show how easy to be perfect when you are never required to make difficult choices. When I read through the "Where was Bernie?" bits, I see a list of how he voted or speeches he gave about controversial topics -- which, you know, when you're a Senator, you give speeches about things and then you vote on them, at the absolute minimum -- and while it's awesome that he was right about stuff when no one else was, he has fuck all to show for it: NAFTA passed, DOMA passed, we went to war with Iraq... and to boot has not sponsored and passed any noteworthy bills in his 25 years in the Senate.

I mean, 100% A+++ judgement and everything, but being right about shit doesn't count for much if you can't bring others over to your side, and his entire platform is predicated on ideas that no one in Congress besides Elizabeth Warren would support in a million years. This is why a lot of people (myself included) are 1000% behind Bernie's message but harbor serious reservations about how he would achieve any of it.
@37 it is very odd logic to somehow make it Sanders' fault that neoliberal Democrats in congress have betrayed hteir constituencies and voted with Republicans on most important issues of wars, trade, etc for decades.
I remember when liberals used to like Hillary, sort of. Funny how we lose the capacity for nuance when we play the sport of us-and-them.
@29 Yeah, these new dealers of 1933 were so "reactionary" to separate commercial from investment banking with Glass-Steagall. Fortunately, we have your commentary so who needs Glass-Steagall.
@38, Let's try this again: he is applying for a job where leadership is essential, and he is running on a platform that would require superhuman feats of leadership to achieve. In 25 years he has failed to demonstrate he possesses such skills, so while I agree with him on nearly any issue you can name, I have been given no reason whatsoever to believe he can translate any of it into policy.
@37 - But he has brought people over to his side. Despite being the remaining candidate with by far the least name recognition entering the race, he has brought millions of supporters to his side. He is labeled a socialist in a country that has decided the word "liberal" is a slander and yet he has been a viable candidate with millions of supporters behind him. Not convincing your 99 colleagues in the United States fucking Senate to go along with your ideas is not a failure to bring people to your side, its a triumph of refusing to pander to 99 of the biggest assholes on the planet. His courage to not blow with the prevailing winds, but to stand firm on his principles is not a weakness. Further more, without a democratic house OR senate, Hilary is not going to get a single worthwhile thing done either. This idea that Hilary some kind of whiz who is going to get all kinds of pols to join her in getting shit done is just baffling.

That said, Im with @15.
Thanks Dan for lecturing us 'bernie bros' about how to act civil in the comment section. Please provide more condescending comments and posts about how annoying we are.
@22 Process is important but only in as much as it leads to ideas. You can have the greatest process in the world but if it leads to bad policies then it's not really worth that much, imo. It's the ideas her process leads to that I'm curious about. He says that her ideas match his values, ok, but it's legit to at least ask what values/policies those are. No one's asking him to apologize, people are commenting on a publicly stated opinion. If you don't want people to comment on your opinion then don't state it publicly.

But that being said, I'm not really sure what her plan of action is. I've heard people say that she's going to be able to negotiate with republicans but what would that look like in this political climate? Reproductive rights but with transvaginal ultrasounds? ENDA protections but excluding trans people? Paying veterans benefits but cutting welfare to pay for it? These aren't really hypotheticals, these are literally the types of concessions that republicans are asking for.

Anyone who thinks either Sanders or Clinton can get anything passed in this congress is blowing sunshine up your butt. Paul Ryan can't even get basic procedural motions through his party at this point so you need to look at things the president can do that don't require congress; appointments to the FCC, SEC, AG, setting foreign policy, etc. I think Sanders is far less likely to appoint a Wall St. lobbyist to oversee the Treasury (for example), has demonstrated he's less likely to have a hawkish foreign policy, he is definitely more likely to have the AG prosecute corporate/Wall St. malfeasance.

And for the record, he's been in the Senate for 8 years, he was in the House before that and both he and Hillary have the same number of bills passed in the Senate; 3. She renamed a post office, renamed a highway, and had a building designated as a historical landmark. He's had two post offices renamed and extended benefits to military families. That last one actually stands out as pretty important.
@42, Hey if it’s enough for you that he can get ~45% of Democratic voters to support free college and breaking up the big banks then have fun with that, but to me that sounds like populist pandering that will leave voters extremely bitter and frustrated when zero of those things actually happen.
@45 What a very silly cynical argument.

Sooo... when those things don't happen under Clinton? Or one they don't happen under the smoldering ruin of a country left by Ted Cruz? I mean, c'mon.

There is no segment of the electorate that is ever going to be 100% delighted (or 100% bitter) no matter what is promised or who is elected.

The most frustrating thing about the politics in this country is that the Overton Window has been driven so far to the right that democrats have actually began to believe right wing propaganda.

One of the myths the Right has successfully sold is that Hillary —or even Obama —is a progressive. Hell. Their not even liberals. They're center right Republicans.

They're both very smart and very competent BUT they're — by default of just holding the status quo — are steering the ship to the right and with policies that just no longer work for the majority of people in this country. Only keeping a actual progressive in the race as long as possible — or actually even ELECTING an actual progressive — will we even have a hope of fixing this country.

I will vote for Clinton if she get's the nomination. Of course. You'd have to be an idiot not to.

She won't kill the country. But she won't fix it either. A Clinton presidency will not over turn Citizens United. A Clinton presidency certainly won't alter our insane foreign policies.

If you're in the tiny minority of people that LIKE the status quo, then by al means be excited to vote for Clinton. Just know it really just makes you a moderate republican in sheep's clothing not a liberal or progressive.

But if you want real political changes being shitty about Sanders is pointless cynicism.
@7: No kidding.

@7: Are you kidding?
Sanders looks at the structures of capitalism and unpicks them.
Many of us know it's all a sham. Our planet is groaning under the stupid blind pursuit of gross riches, so a few people get to live really comfy lives.
Thanks Bernie.
My heart is with Bernie, because he has articulated the truth, with compassion. I tried to be on Hill's team, doesn't sit right.
Cruz is one mad fuck, Trump a loud mouth thug.
Bernie or Hillary!!
@46, I don't disagree with anything you just said and I will be voting Sanders in the primary (and Clinton in the general) as well. I just find Sanders' entire platform to be unrealistic. Call it cynicism if you like but I think you have to be delusional to expect a single candidate to completely reshape the Democratic Party into something it's never claimed to be, let alone turn this entire country into an isolationist, quasi-socialist state, in a single election.
@50 FWIW I've never heard any Sanders supporters suggest that he'd be able to do it alone or that it would happen in this one election. It's pretty much universally described as a first (and important) step in that direction. Sanders himself has said that many times and is why he's been using his fund raising machine to help progressive candidates; namely Teachout, Flores, and Jayapal. And if those three do get elected to the house that still won't be enough but it'll be three more in the right direction.

It's taken us quite a while to get where we're at and it'll obviously take us quite a while to get out of it. Personally, I'm fine with someone holding the progressive ground, realigning expectations, and then slowly moving us in the right direction.
@32: Please keep your argument-from-incredulity at the kids' table where it belongs.
@40: Radical change isn't necessarily bad. What I am against is radical change for the sake of radical change, rather than basing policy on what will actually have a positive impact.
@ 33, There are countless examples of Clinton being unethically influenced by big donors, especially when she was at the State Department. Simply copy and paste that phrase into the Googles. About 20 seconds into her presidency, we're all going under the bus.

@37, If making the right decisions and choices rather than following all of the other lemmings over the cliff has no value, then you and I have irreconcilable differences on what constitutes leadership.

@ 51, Ouch. Feeling ethically bankrupt much?
@41 Sanders has been crystal clear that he wasn't just running for a job but that he wanted a political revolution (by definition involving the citizenry) because it is the only way to get rid of this corporocracy.. Anybody voting for Bernie and expecting legislation to follow without also having to vote out this corrupt congress hasn't been paying attention to what he says.

@51 Deregulating finance and getting rid of Glass-Steagall was the radical change. Reinstating Glass-Steagall to separate our insured savings from the casino so that we don't have to bail the bums out every time their speculative bubble burst is common sense. It is as true as it was ~80 years ago.
@9: While a lot of that breathless stuff is ridiculous, I'm seeing it plenty online. I wish there were less ostensibly "progressive" guys making sexist comments? Pointing that out doesn't make her a better candidate, hiding that doesn't make Bernie a stronger candidate.

Why not just aim to hold our "side" to higher expectations? Is that too much?
@51: "What I am against is radical change for the sake of radical change"

Sick burn on someone not present in the conversation, I gues.
@54 We should hold our side up to high expectations and there is significant sexism against Clinton as there is against all women in public life; however, I personally haven't seen very many misogynist comments by confirmed Sanders supporters and especially not in Slog. In fact, as far as I can tell, the "bernie bro" smear is mostly a smokescreen to avoid answering legitimate criticisms of Clinton and conflate all her critics as old white male (a constant theme coming from the Clinton campaign).
@19 (-B-):

[N]o celebrity came out to give their support to anyone.
That's not entirely true. Mike Myers came on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, dressed in a RCMP uniform and riding a Zamboni,* and urged viewers to vote against Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. John Oliver held up CAN$5000 in cash for the potential fine, and both Myers and Oliver declared themselves to be ready to do the six months in jail for violating Canadian law on TV endorsements. Ô Canada ! Terre de nos aïeux ...

[*I don't remember whether a moose and beaver were present. There might have been.]

On the merits of Hodgman's endorsement, well, name me a media outlet that employs comics/commentators like John Hodgman and that isn't a big backer of Hillary and a big opponent of Bernie. (I suspect even Rupert Murdoch's networks would end up supporting Hillary over Trump if that's what it came down to. She's more predictably neoliberal in economic matters and neoconservative in military affairs.) Several years ago, I got the distinct feeling that something or someone had Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on an increasingly tight leash. Attacks on wealth inequality and dark money in politics were reined in, genuine lefties were blackballed, and there was a palpable increase in gushing over establishment, neoliberal Democrats. It turns out the controlling shareholder of Viacom (which owns Comedy Central) is a longstanding supporter of pro-big-business New Democrats, of which Obama and Hillary are perfect exemplars. (The same guy holds a controlling interest in CBS as well. Incidentally, he supported Dubya in the 2004 election, "for wartime continuity.") Anyway, it takes a certain amount of financial courage to publicly endorse a candidate most of your potential employers loathe, and not everyone has it.

As for me personally, I'm one of those people who wouldn't vote for Hillary under any circumstances. Her long history of exceptionally poor judgment in foreign affairs, alone -- supporting the bombing of Kosovo, supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq, threatening to annihilate Iran, validating the military coup in Honduras, urging the destruction of Libya, urging bombing in Syria, helping instigate the neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine, waiving human rights requirements to provide KSA and the Gulf States tens of billions of dollars of American weapons to use in the Yemeni civil war -- terrifies me. She shares responsibility for hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, and the utter destruction of at least three countries, and she has been doing her utmost to force Russia into a new Cold War. But her disastrous military policies aside, there is almost no area I agree with her on, from taxation, to bank regulation, to trade policy, to healthcare. I see her as a secular, mildly pro-contraception, mildly pro-woman version of your average Republican. If Bernie doesn't win the Democratic nomination, I hope he has the balls to run as an Independent, in which case I'll vote for him. If he doesn't, my vote is going to Jill Stein of the Greens. You see, Jill Stein is my quixotic ideal; Bernie Sanders is my viable lesser of evils (he's still a little too gung ho on the whole military adventurism thing for me); and Hillary, like Obama, is what Bruce Dixon called "the more effective evil." If you want to urge people to vote for a Democrat, give them an old-school Democrat like Bernie. Don't give them a warmongering corporatist spawned by the DLC, who consorts exclusively with plutocratic oligarchs except when absolutely necessary for campaign purposes, and whose daughter is married to a fucking Wall-Street hedge-fund manager. There's no amount of lipstick that can prettify that pig.
@52: No, but thanks for asking.

@53: Passing Glass-Steagall was a radical change. So was repealing it. Each was a major change to how the banking business fundamentally works.

@54: My latest one-man-crusade has been on that theme. If we succumb to angry rhetoric and ignore the facts, prizing ideology over impact, we shall be no better than Republicans.

@55: My point here has been that a lot of Sanders's more eyebrow-raising proposals are rooted more in a sense of outrage, that something must be done!, than in a coolheaded analysis of the situation.
What Hillary has shown, time and again over her time in public life, is that she's at her most unpopular when running for something, and her most popular when actually doing something. Her most unpopular moments in '96 ("running" for first lady), '00 (running for senate), '08-'09 (running for president/trying to get confirmed as SoS), and now. Her most popular was in '98, '05-'06, and '11, when she was in the midst of holding the jobs she got.

All of this is a bit unsettling going into the general election, but makes me confident that many (certainly not all) of those who are dubious now will be pleasantly surprised if/when she's elected.
One thing that has amazed me about this election cycle so far is how many liberals talk about how free/heavily subsidized college needs to be a priority, and how the big banks need to be broken up, yet when a candidate comes along who wants to pursue these things, they suddenly become impossible and foolish ideals.

Someone has to get that ball rolling at some point, or it will never happen.

Also, can someone point me to a presidential candidate in our history who has delivered on his campaign promises, or not promised his potential voters everything they wanted? I never saw Obama criticized so heavily for having lofty goals and promising the world.
I respect John Hodgman, I respect his opinion, and I respect his right to speak out for what he believes in. That said, I disagree with his opinion, and won't be voting for Hillary now or ever.
@7 FTW
That Hodgman didn't need the words "foreign", "war" and "tax" tells you a lot.