An Austrian-school writer in China, Lao Gu, “Never Introduce an Inheritance Tax,” Ludwig von Mises Substack (Nov. 13, 2026), on why an inheritance tax is never just a tax on the rich: it raises almost nothing, and enforcing it means monitoring everyone’s gifts, trusts, and transactions for life.

I’d add a deeper problem: it blunts one of the most important limits on state power, one that lies outside the state and its constitution altogether. Most discussion of limits on state power focuses on internal, structural checks: vertical ones like federalism and enumerated powers, horizontal ones like separation of powers and bicameralism, plus a bill of rights. But the state has also always been checked by independent centers of power in civil society: a free press, the church, and wealthy, long-established families (dynasties) with the means, connections, and long time horizons to resist the state’s encroachments. As Hoppe observes, “The fortunes of the great families have dissipated through confiscatory taxes, during life and at the time of death.” An inheritance tax is designed to break up these independent fortunes every generation, so that nobody outside the state is ever rich or established enough to stand up to it.

Lao Gu’s own case is mostly practical. He points out that in the OECD countries that levy them, estate and gift taxes bring in about 0.14% of GDP on average; even high-rate Korea manages only around 0.7%. But to collect even that pittance, the state has to track gifts, insurance policies, trusts, valuables, and transfers across the whole population, not just the wealthy, and every avoidance strategy (insurance structures, trusts, exemptions for art) prompts another layer of reporting rules. The result is a lifetime on trial: when you die, your past financial dealings are reopened and second-guessed, as in his example of a small restaurant owner in Seoul. Add the damage to family businesses and investment (Sweden, he notes, repealed its inheritance tax), plus the risk that the reporting machinery, once built, gets turned to other uses, and the conclusion follows: never introduce one in the first place.

From Austrian School Lao Gu, “Never Introduce an Inheritance Tax,” Ludwig von Mises Substack (Nov. 13, 2026), translated from the Chinese original at WeChat:

Written by Austrian School Lao Gu in Guangdong Province, China at 9:17 a.m. on 13 November 2026.

Someone is floating the idea of bringing in an inheritance tax. Make no mistake — this is a monumental blunder. Most people think it only concerns the rich. They’re wrong. If an inheritance tax were ever introduced, it would set off a convulsion that reshapes the whole of society.

You’ll say I’m crying wolf. That it’s just a handful of wealthy people paying up.

Hear me out.

Take Korea, where inheritance tax already exists. Suppose you run a small restaurant in Seoul. Over a lifetime you’ve scraped together a flat, a little savings, and a few old bits of furniture you rather prize. Then you die. Your child goes to sort out the estate and discovers the taxman isn’t merely looking at your bank balance on the day you died. He’s reaching ten years back: did you quietly transfer 50,000,000 won to your daughter one afternoon? Did you buy your grandson an annuity for his birthday? Did you spend 3,000,000 won on a Joseon white-porcelain brush pot at the antique market?

None of this is to catch some master criminal. It’s simply to collect a tax.

And in Korea — the OECD country with the highest rates and the most aggressive collection — that tax raises all of 0.7% of GDP a year.

0.7%. You turn a person’s entire financial life inside out, and what the state scrapes off the whole economy is less than seven-tenths of one per cent.

That is the dirty secret of inheritance tax. It looks like a levy on the rich. In reality, it extracts something far dearer from society as a whole: a permanent excuse to monitor everyone.

Read more>>

Related

• Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State,” Mises Daily (July 21, 2006): heads of wealthy, long-established families once acted as society’s judges and peacemakers, independent of kings, until democratization destroyed them: “The fortunes of the great families have dissipated through confiscatory taxes, during life and at the time of death.”
• Kinsella, “Hoppe: From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy,” Property and Freedom Society (July 2, 2013): video of Hoppe’s 2013 Madrid lecture, “From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy: A Tale of Moral and Economic Folly and Decay.”
• Kinsella, “Constitutional Structures in Defense of Freedom: Are They Possible?” (Austrian Scholars Conference, Auburn, Ala., Apr. 3, 1998), StephanKinsella.com (June 25, 2021): structural limits on government matter more than enumerated rights; surveys federalism, enumerated powers, separation of powers, and bicameralism, and proposes new limits such as supermajority requirements and tax limits.
• Kinsella, “Structural Safeguards to Limit Legislation and State Power,” StephanKinsella.com (Jan. 23, 2015): a catalog of vertical checks (federalism, enumerated powers, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments) and horizontal ones (separation of powers, bicameralism, concurrent review), plus newer safeguards like sunset provisions and jury nullification.
• Kinsella, “The Unique American Federal Government,” StephanKinsella.com (Oct. 26, 2009): enumerated powers were the main restraint on federal power, the Bill of Rights a redundant backup, and state nullification the remedy for federal overreach.
• Kinsella, “Rothbard’s and Njoya’s Calhoun vs. McMaken’s,” Property and Freedom Society (Nov. 13, 2026): Calhoun’s concurrent majority, the state veto, and concurrent review are better checks on federal power than Supreme Court supremacy.
• Kinsella, “Akhil Amar on Jury Nullification and State Nullification (Converse-§1983 Laws),” Property and Freedom Society (Oct. 31, 2026): juries and states as checks on the central state, since “they are veto points staffed by people who don’t answer to the central state.”
• Kinsella, “Were the French and American Revolutions Libertarian?,” Property and Freedom Society (Aug. 23, 2026): the Framers tried to limit the new central state’s power by constitutional structures, though the Constitution’s real purpose was to create a stronger central state, not to protect rights.
• Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Small is Beautiful,” Property and Freedom Society (June 7, 2026; originally in Schweizer Monat, June 4, 2026): Europe’s political fragmentation let productive people escape excessive taxation by voting with their feet, and centralization threatens that check.
• Kinsella, “Say No To Tax Reform,” StephanKinsella.com (Aug. 7, 2009): tax “reform” and replacement taxes only grow the state; and in defense of loopholes, “A loophole is nothing more or less than a chance to keep your own money.”
• Kinsella, ““Tax Reform” is UNlibertarian,” StephanKinsella.com (Sept. 26, 2009): libertarians should back cutting or repealing taxes, never swapping one tax for another; includes Rockwell’s warning that a new tax like a VAT starts low and climbs.
• Alessandro Fusillo, “What Is a Dictatorship? The Historical Evolution of VAT and Personal Income Tax in Spain and Italy, and of Public Spending as a Share of GDP,” Property and Freedom Society (Aug. 6, 2026): Franco’s Spain and Fascist Italy left their subjects more fiscal freedom than today’s democracies do.
• Kinsella, “Slavery Still Exists,” Property and Freedom Society (June 21, 2026): the Thirteenth Amendment’s punishment exception lets legislatures create crimes like tax evasion and then imprison people for them.

We’re not one to brag here at HiT or Miss Central, but we’re okay with a little boasting.

To wit, the recent firing by DC Studios of creative honcho James Gunn. Gunn earned his comic book bona fides helming three fantastic Marvel Cinematic Universe films (“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1,” which remains my favorite MCU flick, its just-okay sequel, Vol. 2, and the excellent Vol. 3).

He moved on to DC to fix the smoking craters left behind by Zack Snyder.

(I’m not a Snyder Bro, but I loved the aesthetic he brought to DC).

On the surface, this seemed a perfect match. But to those of us who paid attention to such things, there were concerns about how he would handle such mainstream characters as Superman and Batman when he so clearly loved dwelling in the world of D-listers like the aforementioned GotG and Z-listers like Peacemaker and Polka Dot Man.

Right on cue, he kicked off the new DCU with an animated series no one asked for (the stupendous “Creature Commandos”), turned Superman into a supporting character in his own movie and made the bizarre decision to follow THAT with “Supergirl” (C-list, at best) and “Clayface” (a third-tier Batman villain that normie-norms had no idea was a Batman villain).

It was always going to be an uphill climb for DC with Marvel cranking out critical and financial hit after hit. Going darker with Snyder seemed a reasonable antidote to the MCU’s (now very tired) quip-iness, but that ended with the tragi-comic circumstances surrounding “Justice League” and lame duck “Aquaman” and “The Flash” movies.

What a whimper.

So, where does DC go from here? Who knows?

There’s still, apparently, Matt Reeves’-now-Steven Soderbergh’s “The Batman II,” which is on pace to come out sometime in mid-2039, and Gunn’s 2027 “Superman: Man of Tomorrow.” Oy. Such a mess.

My take? Put out a “Batman” movie every 2-3 years, team him up with A-and-B-listers, build from there. How would you fix it? Share in the comments below.

MUST-WATCH SHOW OF THE WEEK IF YOU’RE AGED 45-55:

“The Shards” (FX) is an ’80s-set mystery-thriller based on the eponymous book by Bret Easton Ellis. Remember him? “Bright Lights, Big City?” “Less Than Zero?” Iconic ’80s movies based on his novels.

“The Shards” is adapted by Ryan Murphy (is there any FX show not produced by Ryan Murphy?), “The Shards” is extremely gay-coded when it isn’t flat-out being gay (is there any show produced by Ryan Murphy not gay-coded when it’s not being flat-out gay?).

So if that bothers you, you might want to avoid this. Like The Mighty John Nolte, watching two men kiss gives me the ick, but all of the sexuality here (homo and hetero) is in service of the story. Ellis has made a fictionalized version of himself the main character here, as he and his very close, VERY good-looking circle of friends traverse the pitfalls of senior year 1981; proms, grades and a serial killer.

The central mystery is a slow burn that ratchets up the tension nicely over its nine episodes. My only real issue with the show is that its writers, like the once-beloved-now-forgotten to the ash bin of history “Heroes,” didn’t trust themselves enough to end it.

So we’re left with a cliffhanger to be resolved in a season 2 that may or may not happen. (As of this writing, season 2 has not been confirmed. And “Heroes?” Sylar should have stayed dead.)

But if you’re my age (call it mid-50s), you’ll enjoy the hell out of the music we used to listen to, the clothes we used to wear, the drugs we used to d… I mean the cars we used to drive. They even cast a virtual clone of Cindy Crawford in a lead role; her daughter Kaia Gerber.

Man, it’s tough going through life being that good looking. I speak from experience.

DUH! OF THE WEEK:

For a couple of years I had a Substack, The Undertow, a sort-of continuation of my Exit Zero magazine column that ran in Cape May for 18 years. In it, I chronicled my Hate Watch of HBO’s because I refuse to call it MAX’s “The Pitt.” Oh man… there are few things in life I hate more than “The Pitt.”

1. Cancer.
2. Hangnails.
3. “The Pitt.”

That’s the order in which I hate things.

Somewhere in Hollywood, in the basement of some decrepit mansion, probably built on an old Indian burial ground, lies THE BIG BOOK OF TV PLOTS. One can only access this book by sacrificing 12 puppies at the shrine of Chthulu, and one must never deviate from these plots lest an original idea seep through.

And we can’t have that.

I watched with bemused contempt as it received every possible accolade from the Hollywood Back-Patting Society; BEST SHOW! BEST ACTING! BEST WRITING! BRAVEST USE OF 30-YEAR-OLD TROPES! MOST STUNNINGEST BRAVERY! MOST BRAVELY STUNNINGNESS!

And what have you.

Lawsuit claiming ‘The Pitt’ is an unauthorized reboot of ‘ER’ allowed to go forward | Read the story at the link in our bio https://t.co/alIQLoKz4D

— Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (@PittsburghPG) November 7, 2026

The love fest around this Woke Slop was not surprising. In a world where “Emilia Pérez” can garner 13(!) Oscar nominations, anything is possible. So, sure, give it a bunch of awards. Doesn’t mean it’s any good.

Most amusing? When shows like “The Pitt” lecture us Normal Americans how we’re so racist they have to put riders into their contracts to hire X amount of black/ brown/ gay/ trans/ disabled folx to even qualify for awards season WHEN THEY’RE THE ONES IN CHARGE OF HIRING!

It’s like the NBA and NFL implementing a salary cap to save themselves from themselves. Like, I’m not the one giving a .220-hitting left fielder $35M/ yr. That’s all you, chief. And now a beer at the park costs $27.

Same deal with Hollywood. If you want to hire more black people, just hire more black people. You don’t need a Rooney Rule.

That said, my main criticism was that every episode felt like an old episode of “ER” dressed in a modern skin. Then, as now, racism runs rampant in the medical community. Then, as now, every black woman is a lesbian.

Then, as now, the only treatment available for pregnancy is AN ABORTION RIGHT NOW! And so on.

I Hate Watched it because my wife loved it and, admittedly, the “BABY JANE DOE!” lady is amusing. But, as much as I hate to say, “I told you so,” it appears I am telling you so…

‘THE RAINMAKER’ THUMBNAIL REVIEW:

The Rainmaker on USA Network is a pretty good show. Although the titular protagonist, Rudy Baylor (Milo Callaghan) is (GASP!) a straight white male, he’s pretty much a side character in his own show, as the extremely competent and sexy and don’t-need-no-man female characters orbit around him.

The other white guy is a “wacky” lawyer straight from a ’90s “oh no he dih-in’t” WB sitcom. And I am absolutely certain, without checking, that the character of Jocelyn “Bruiser” Stone, head of the Rainmaker’s law firm, is gender-bent from the source material, a 1995 John Grisham novel.

Go on. Check. I’ll wait here… (I was right, wasn’t I…?)

But, as network legal dramas go, it’s not terrible. Two episodes into season 2, Callaghan is compelling enough to earn a third episode, but I’m already a little worried; the Big Case this season involves a hyper-precocious 10-year-old kid who is a genius and also a David Blaine-level up-close magician.

So… we shall see. And what is it with all these British actors (Callaghan) playing all these American parts!?! DER TERK ER JERBS!!! (I only knew Callaghan was British from the very-very small part he played in Disney’s extremely entertaining “Rivals.” In fact, forget “The Rainmaker,” “Rivals” is 10x more entertaining.

Sorry for making you read this whole paragraph.)

LASTLY THIS WEEK: I recently recommended to you the wonderful “Doc Martin” (Roku, Acorn+) which I stand by. I also soft-recommended the American remake, “Best Medicine,” based mostly on the strong lead performance of Josh Charles (“Sport Night”).

But I must offer one caveat; in 80+ episodes of “Doc Martin” there were, maybe, three implied sexual encounters among the leads. In 10+ episodes of “Best Medicine,” no one can keep their pants on.

You’ve been warned.

Til next time, may your hits outnumber your misses.

The post HiT or Miss: Why James Gunn’s Exit Was … Inevitable appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Crime doesn’t pay, or so we’re told.

Society screams otherwise, from rampant fraud in states like Minnesota and California to accused killers who watch their crowdfunding accounts explode.

“How to Rob a Bank” argues the system in toto is corrupt and beyond repair. Its response?

Go. Rob. A. Bank.

Now.

Except that pitch is falling on deaf ears.

The film opened to a tepid $900K in its Thursday debut. Early projections had the crime caper reaching as high as $15 million this weekend. Those predictions are now in the $6-8 million range.

Reviews aren’t helping. The critical community, which leans aggressively to the Left, has trashed the film. “Bank” boasts a terrible 33 percent “rotten” rating at RottenTomatoes.com.

The film goes out of its way to celebrate the social media crooks at the heart of the story. It all but begs audiences to take up arms, rob the rich and downplays respectable ways to improve society.

Form a nonprofit. Run for office. Vote for the best candidates. Help your fellow man.

Instead, it glorifies violence. The main antihero even warns that violence is coming if societal ills aren’t addressed via a fourth wall breaking moment.

Here’s guessing he doesn’t mean shutting down fraudulent “learing” centers.

The bigger surprise here is obvious. The Left just swamped the nation in the midterm elections. DSA candidates are on the rise. The “eat the rich” message is resonating with voters, by all accounts.

“How to Rob a Bank” fits perfectly with that ethos. So why the lousy reception?

RELATED: HASAN PIKER WOULD LOVE THIS ‘BANK’

It’s not like the film’s trailers didn’t promote that hard-Left agenda. That’s exactly what the marketing team behind the movie assembled via those early teases.

The flaws featured in “Bank” aren’t make believe. Health care costs are too bleepin’ high (thank you, ObamaCare). Some effectively cheat the system, and it’s not just crooked illegal immigrants but often the very well-heeled.

There’s a great story to be told here, punctuated by Americans who feel the pain from these corrupt actions. Throw in a few shades of gray, and you’ve got yourself a movie that speaks to our current age.

“How to Rob a Bank” flirts with that reality but lacks the courage to dig deeper. It’s also one of the most morally irresponsible films in modern memory.

Luigi Mangione would eat it up with a spoon.

The post ‘Bank’ Jobbed: Far-Left Screed Bombing in Debut appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

As him a question about the economy, says Peter Schiff. 

I recently watched Louis C.K.’s mockery of Good Will Hunting, winner of the 1997 Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. Here’s Louis:

Here’s my issue with Good Will Hunting… Matt Damon also wrote the movie.* Okay? So he basically sat down, he’s like, “First of all, I am amazing.” [Laughter] “I’m a construction worker, I’m, like, working-class, and I drink beer and I get in fights, I get into so many fights. My friends are like, ‘You’re out of control, man, ‘ and I’m like, ‘Shut up this is the way I am.’ But then also, I’m a genius. Ooh! I’m not… I didn’t even go to school, I just know things, I don’t know why… I just know them. And all the nerdy geniuses that studied for years are like, ‘He’s so much smarter than us, it’s making us upset.’”

Which reminded me of Will’s paranoid populist proto-Trumpian monologue.

Why shouldn't I work for the NSA? That's a tough one. But I'll take a shot. Say I'm working at the NSA, and somebody puts a code on my desk, somethin' no one else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, cus' I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East and once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels are hiding... Fifteen hundred people that I never met, never had no problem with get killed.

Now the politicians are sayin', "Oh, Send in the marines to secure the area" cus' they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number got called, cus' they were off pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie over there takin' shrapnel in the ass. He comes back to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, cus' he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks.

Meanwhile he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so that we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the little skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. They're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, of course, maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and fuckin' play slalom with the icebergs, it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic.

So now my buddy's out of work. He can't afford to drive, so he's walking to the fuckin' job interviews, which sucks because the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin' cus' every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State.

So what did I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. I figure fuck it, while I'm at it why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected President.

Team America famously mocked Matt Damon’s intelligence.** What, though, was his intent as a writer? I asked ChatGPT “Is this monologue supposed to illustrate Will's genius, or show that while he's a great mathematician he's just a paranoid populist?” The answer is impressive and IMHO worth sharing. I hope you enjoy it.

Is Will Hunting a Genius—or Just a Paranoid Populist?

Primarily, the monologue is supposed to illustrate Will’s genius and moral independence. But there’s a strong secondary interpretation: Will is a mathematical genius whose understanding of economics and politics is remarkably crude.

I think the filmmakers largely intend us to admire Will’s response. Yet the scene also fits a deeper theme of Good Will Hunting: Will is brilliant at constructing arguments, but much less brilliant at deciding which arguments are actually true.

1. What the Filmmakers Want You to See

Will is offered an apparently prestigious job with the NSA. Instead of being impressed, he delivers a spontaneous, elaborate account of the possible unintended consequences of accepting.

The intended message seems to be:

• Will sees connections that ordinary people overlook.

• He cares about the human consequences of his work, not merely prestige or money.

• He refuses to be a cog in an immoral system.

• His intelligence extends far beyond mathematics.

The monologue is also designed to be funny. Its increasingly absurd chain of consequences is a display of verbal inventiveness, not necessarily a literal prediction.

2. But the Reasoning Is Terrible

The first link is reasonable: breaking an enemy’s communications could facilitate a military operation with civilian casualties. Everything that follows becomes increasingly dubious.

Will’s claim: The NSA might use his work to kill civilians.

A legitimate concern, though he ignores the possibility of preventing attacks or saving lives.

Will’s claim: American soldiers are fighting to install governments that sell cheap oil.

A simplistic account of American foreign policy.

Will’s claim: The soldier’s former job moves to the country he fought in.

Possible in principle, but an extraordinary coincidence treated as a natural consequence.

Will’s claim: His former enemy takes his job for fifteen cents a day.

An almost cartoonish version of the lump-of-labor fallacy and protectionist thinking.

Will’s claim: Oil companies exploit the war to increase gasoline prices.

Confuses the effects of disrupted oil supplies with deliberate price manipulation.

Will’s claim: An oil tanker crashes into an iceberg and contaminates the fish supply.

An increasingly ridiculous series of unrelated contingencies.

Most importantly, Will never weighs the potential benefits of working for the NSA against the potential harms. He imagines one catastrophic chain and treats that as sufficient justification for turning down the job.

That’s a particularly strange kind of reasoning for someone who is supposed to be extraordinarily gifted at mathematics.

3. The Film Actually Provides Evidence for Your Interpretation

Immediately after the monologue, Sean does something revealing: He doesn’t debate Will’s politics. He challenges his tendency to imagine catastrophes.

Sean tells Will that he’s afraid to take chances because he sees “every negative thing ten miles down the road.” He then presses Will to explain what he actually wants to do with his life.

This strongly suggests that the speech is partly an exercise in rationalization. Will doesn’t want the NSA job, and his extraordinary verbal abilities help him construct an elaborate justification for rejecting it.

In other words, the filmmakers recognize that Will’s intelligence sometimes serves his psychological defenses rather than his search for truth.

4. Matt Damon Has Explained How They Wrote the Monologue

In a 2014 Reddit AMA, Damon said that he and Ben Affleck were laughing so hard while writing the speech that they were in tears. They kept performing it for each other and making the argument more elaborate.

That’s important evidence that the escalating absurdities are intentional comedy. But Damon also expressed sympathy for criticism of the NSA, so this isn’t evidence that the writers regarded Will’s political worldview as foolish.

My Conclusion

I would distinguish three things:

• Mathematical intelligence: The movie treats Will as a genuine genius.

• Political judgment: The movie largely treats his anti-establishment instincts sympathetically, without seriously examining their accuracy.

• Psychological maturity: The movie explicitly portrays his tendency to construct elaborate arguments against taking chances as a major character flaw.

The strongest interpretation is that Will is an intellectual prodigy who uses his gifts to rationalize his fears. The filmmakers understand this psychologically but don’t seem especially interested in exposing his economic misconceptions.

Indeed, the monologue is almost a perfect illustration of the difference between being brilliant at constructing a possible causal chain and being brilliant at estimating its probability.

Will can imagine fifteen things going wrong in succession. What he never asks is how likely those fifteen things are to happen. That is a serious intellectual failing, and one the filmmakers may not have fully appreciated.

*Technically, Damon was only the originator and co-screenwriter of Good Will Hunting. Ben Affleck did more of the actual writing.

** Credit where credit is due: Matt Damon’s reaction to Team America was surprisingly fair and reflective.

I was always kind of bewildered by Team America, I think because it's hard for us to understand what our images are in public, I think we're not good judges of that, and when I saw myself on screen just only able to say my own name and not really that well, I kind of wondered "Wow, is that how people perceive me?" At that point I just kind of was like, I'm a screenwriter and an actor, and like really? I can barely say my own name? So I was always bewildered by that, and I never talked to Trey and Matt about that. And incidentally, I believe those two are geniuses, and I don't use that word lightly. I think they are absolute geniuses, and what they've done is awesome and I'm a big fan of theirs, but I never quite understood that one. But I will say this. Those of us who were parodied in that video were parodied because we were against the Iraq war, and we went on the record against that War, and so history is on my side not theirs.