Air America Exits Stage Left
With all the other huge news stories this past week, from the devastation in Haiti to Scott Brown’s election, it could have been easy to miss one other item on the news feed. Air America, announced in 2004 as the liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh, closed its doors once and for all and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection. For all the sound and fury surround the launch, not to mention the huge amounts of money – both real and imaginary – which swirled in a tempest around the enterprise, the end came not with a bang, but a whimper. But how did it happen? What caused it all to go so horribly wrong? There are a host of reasons, ranging from their choices of on air talent to plain, old bad business decisions. I take a look at a few of them this weekend in my new column at Pajamas Media.
Take a look and share your thoughts with us here as well. Did you listen regularly? Or ever? What were some of the good points about Air America’s programming and why do you think they went under? And perhaps you can offer your views on what may be the bigger, meta-question surrounding this debacle… is there a place in the market for a liberal talk radio network? Or were they just doomed from the start?
43 Responses to “Air America Exits Stage Left”
Cons talk radio is based on personalities. I couldn't even tell you who was on Air America. Where cons even listening to refute their opinions? I doubt it. No one cared…on either side of the isle.
One could make the argument that all visual /audio media is based on personality. The best message in the world will be turned off if the messenger looks / sounds objectionable in some fashion to the consumer. Only print media and text conversations are truly immune to this in the strict “mind to mind” communications sense. If the voice, tone, look, image turns you off, you turn channel / station.
Liberal talk radio has too much competition from other liberal media, why would they tune in when they can turn on Olbermann or Maddox or read the Gray Lady or WaPo?
People mainly listen to the radio while commuting, I live on the outskirts of NYC, and Air America was available for a few month on a scratchy and static ridden station and then it disappeared… If you can't stay on the air in the NYC metro area, how are you going to stay in business?
PS. their website sucked, they had no podcasts nor any web radio…
Isvestia on the Hudson and Pravda on the Potomac are both center right pro-corporate rags that supported and spread the lies of the Bush Regime.
The Air America station in the Portland area, (KPOJ) will hardly be impacted. It is very successful. Air America went down because everyone knew it was going to. Most of the big stars had already left the network for syndication, Hartmann, Schulz, Rhodes, et.al. will continue to be heard.
The reality of running a business, which doesn't care a whit about your politics, is that you must find a need, and fill it.
It wasn't the poor quality of the talent, although overall Air America's stable wasn't top-notch and didn't help. It was simply that there was not a market need or demand for Liberal-oriented talk radio.
There are already plenty of outlets to serve that market. It is easy to forget that Rush established himself at a time when there was almost no outlets for Conservative talk shows. Today, given the variety of outlets for both sides, I am not sure Rush could succeed as a start-up.
You don't know Rush.
Well, with a name like Err America…
you have to have time to listen to a radio b'cast/podcast. Most dont have that time. Listening to a preacher like Limbaugh is church service. That's different than tuning in to hear two or ten guys yukking it up or discussing politics you see and hear everywhere.
Air America had lots of problems. One is that most liberals prefer to read, where they can look up sources, etc, as they go. If you want to be told what to think, go listen to Rush. That's what political opinion radio is good for. If you prefer a little more interaction with your media, you just can't beat internet blogs. It also made the mistake of assuming that everyone who was adamantly anti-Bush was also a progressive. That's how you get racist, transphobic/homophobic, and fauxgressive tropes bandied about on “progressive” radio, which, of course, leads to a bunch of pissed off progressives.
Anyway, while short lived, it did give us Senator Franken and of course the glorious Ms. Maddow, so it's served its purpose and has now outlived its usefulness, I suppose.
The problem with Air America is that they tried to accomplish in one fell swoop what it took conservative talk radio more than a decade to build. Conservative talkers like Rush and Dr. Laura started small and built up a network of successful stations over time. It wasn't purpose-built like Air America. Nobody said “hey, let's create a nationwide network of right-wing talk radio stations.” It happened that way because that's where the ratings and revenue led them.
Air America tried to put the cart before the horse, and it's not surprising that they failed.
ror80 –
Wow. What a bunch of elitist BS.
Ah yes. I shall go eat some dijon mustard now.
Air America failed, but it wasn't because far-lefty talk is a fringe copycat-response to conservative talk radio, which is more mainstream. The best-known lefty talkers are largely independent of Air America, although some, like Rachel Maddow, got their big start there, and others were known only for being on there, before leaving (Al Franken). If numerous talkers themselves, some of whom left or were fired or who left before they were fired, are to be believed, the organization itself was run by bad business people who were unfamiliar with radio. (One example one of the talkers gave was that the organization hired a remarkable number of writers for the programming.) Apparently there was something of a dictatorial kind of attitude among management of Air America, and those who didn't want to perform and say what they were told (what management preferred or wanted) got into substantial trouble with management.
Note that plenty of good far-lefty talkers (Maddow, Hartmann, Schultz, Rhodes) are known as personalities, rather than being part of Air America or any other organization. (There are lesser-known and lousier talkers, too, just as there are various personalities and “levels” of conservative talkers.)
As to the question asked, do righties or non-liberals listen to the lefties? Yes — I do all the time these days (as I've written, preferring Hartmann to Limbaugh and Rhodes to Hannity and Schultz to the local guy or guys — no real competition currently). As is true so often, we righties or non-lefties know more than the lefties know, even about their own sources and points of view.
” If you want to be told what to think, go listen to Rush. “
That's an amusing projection of leftist intellectual inferiority and defensiveness at being so often more wrong on the facts, as well as a possible exposure of a moral problem (in this case, lying) or mental problem (delusion), but we all know how poorly the Left is doing this week, in particular. (Those with the worst problems of various kinds have yet to learn or face the truth, and actually claim the Dems haven't gone too far left enough! You forgot to add that cliche' here.)
The problem with liberal talk radio and the reason is universally fails, with the exception of tax payer funded NPR, is that their message is always negative. We do not want to hear how much America sucks, or that we should tax the hell out of those rich fat cats. Like it or now, we are a center right country by nature, and the far left extremism of Air America was just not palatable to most people. Yes, I have listened to it a few times, but the message turned me off, as well as some of the insanity that came from people like Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, et al.
The reason that Rush, Hannity, and even conservatives crazy uncle, Michael Savage are so popular is that their message is generally very positive. They stress the greatness of the USA, the real hope and change that can allow the individual to succeed and prosper, as well as advocating personal responsibility, rather than focus group victimhood.
Thanks for posting this, Jazz. I feel much better after my rant
Oh come on, Rush even had his own crew of “dittoheads”. There is just a certain mindset that loves to hear its own preconceived notions fed back to them. It helps you support ideas based on nothing, to hear it over and over again. Lazy intellectualism is at the heart of it. Plus, every liberal I know listens to music in the car.
Of course corporations are not going to buy adds on a liberal program. They hate liberals.
They buy adds on the Rush Limbaughs and G-Gordon Liddy shows. They buy the add time even when these shows are local. Because corporations promote anti-liberal politics. False propaganda or not, thats what they promote and they do it through proxies.
What kind of meds do you take? You need to get the dosages increased, as you seem very paranoid.
There is more corporate money flowing to the Democrats than Republicans right now.
Oracle, Apple, Ben and Gerry's, Aflac, Amazon, Time Warner, The New York Stock Exchange, the credit card industry, the sugar industry, and the vast majority of law firms all give mainly to Democrats, just to name a few.
“Ah yes. I shall go eat some dijon mustard now.“
Ok… that made me laugh.
“Of course corporations are not going to buy adds on a liberal program. They hate liberals.“
Even if we *were* able to make some generic statement about “corporations” (as if they were homogenous) that wouldn't apply here. They give money to the party in power. That's who makes the decisions on spending it, handing out pork, setting regulation, etc. I think I need look no further than the number of Democrats currently getting huge chunks of cash from the health insurance industry.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV and Moonflower Starfire, Brandy Whittle. Brandy Whittle said: Air America Exits Stage Left: The Moderate Voice If you prefer a little more interaction with your media, you just… http://bit.ly/6KCkZk [...]
BS jazz.
That’s the dumbest political comment I've ever read. You don't give money to a political party in power, you give money to PUT a party in power. Donated money is not tax generated “pork”.
You are mixing political donations with annual budget revenue. One would have thought that you were smarted than that.
Only a few democrats get healthcare insurance industry money I’m sure. Like, the blue dogs or DINO democrats.
Father_Time – you need to do actual research. Corporate money ALWAYS shifts to the party in power. And as Jazz points out, and as did I, the number of corporations that support the Democrats in good or bad times is large.
Again, you seem so intent on hating corporations that you simply make up your own 'facts' based on your world-view.
DLS,
If most people on the right put as much thought into their responses, we might not be at the extreme divide that we are today.
I concur with your point. The network failed because of poor business decisions, lack of radio-business knowledge, and poor management of their talent. The exit of Randi Rhodes exemplified that. Whether or not it occurred over “racy comments” or contractual issues, the point is still the same: AAR Management wanted its own way regardless of whether it would sink its own ship or not.
Anyway, I was an avid listener from the launch in 2004. Al Franken's show was probably my favorite with Catherine L playing straight-”man” to Al, and the total wonk-fest that happened with Al's regular guests. Morning Sedition with Mark & Mark, Rachel Maddow, Randi were my other favorites. Everything quickly evolved at my local affiliate and other networks and syndicated hosts were brought in. I lived in Miami until 2007, and we had a great local host (Jim Defede, mornings) for a year or two.
Now I live in Seattle, and the only hosts I would notice being impacted are Ron Reagan, and Ring of Fire on weekends. I have the feeling that Ron will find a deal elsewhere.
Basically, for fans of the genre, not much changed this past week. I applaud AAR for getting the ball rolling, and mourn their loss as the flagship symbol of everything that Bill O'Reilly hates.
“If most people on the right put as much thought into their responses, we might not be at the extreme divide that we are today.”
Thanks. (I find it's even more true for the Left, but yes, it applies to the Right, as well.) Thanks in particular for taking the time to read and think about this; I was harsh with Roro, but she earned it with her remark about Limbaugh. It's been a bad week for lefties and they're failing worse than ever personally with Limbaugh — I saw what was one thread on here that constitutes either a complete lack of emotional control and intellectual substance, or outright fraud — “Limbaugh: Most of My Best Friends are Jews.” Anyone with an IQ above room temperature would never have attacked Limbaugh for saying what he did, that Jewish Americans, to name the Democrat voters most loyal after blacks as a rule, might be having buyer's remorse now over Obama, to the extent they are unhappy with how things are going (as exposed in the Massachusetts special election) and how he may be blundering or failing to exert more influence over the Congressional
Dems. “Buyer's remorse” is something that many liberals and Democrats are expressing, in fact, these days, and even discussing among each other as a subject in its own right. Yet this is the nonsense or fraud associated with Limbaugh-hatred we see on this “Moderate” [sic] Web site. They've earned my nastier remarks — if they don't like them, they should stop earning them. I'm kind and usually gentle or refrain most of the time from what's really earned.
(Limbaugh remains fine, and made wealthy through leftist misconduct. I still listen to him, when there are commercials on the Hartmann show, which I actually prefer. Where's the perceived slur against plain Gentile “progressives” like Hartmann, calling Obama a Third Way and even corporatist Democrat, at the least, a letdown these days? Where's the thread about Hartmann the “racist” on this Web site, for honest consistency? [scowl])
* * *
Back to more important matters now…
“Anyway, I was an avid listener from the launch in 2004.”
I believe I started listening in 2005 sometime. It was after Al Franken had become established there.
Note that I listened to talk radio as long ago as in the early 1990s when Limbaugh was already doing quite well. (That his show continues to do well surprises me, no doubt makes his sponsors happy, and is in large part due to the antics of the Dems this past year, so libs and Dems can add the “robustness” of Limbaugh and his show on the air as another “victory” for having gone too far left this past year.) I was listening to talk radio when liberals before Air America made their first vain Clinton-defending, Limbaugh-bashing feeble attempts at talk radio: Robert Reich (I wish he'd return!) and Mario Cuomo.
* * *
“Everything quickly evolved at my local affiliate and other networks and syndicated hosts were brought in.”
Yep — I wonder if it's due to a rise of the farther Left, and it's not necessarily due or all due to Dubya.
* * *
” Ron Reagan, and Ring of Fire”
Both are available where I'm at. (Ring of Fire — RFK, Jr., struggles with his voice more than Diane Rehm does on NPR.)
“The network failed because of poor business decisions, lack of radio-business knowledge, and poor management of their talent. The exit of Randi Rhodes exemplified that.”
I listen to her and others on FM as well as NPR (in addition to occasional AM reliance) when I'm on the road here in the Southwest. I didn't listen to Rhodes much back when I was in Upstate NY (2004-6) as back then I felt she was somewhat crazy (truly). I didn't care too much for Al Franken's show (there was NPR there in Upstate I could listen to, as well as AM) or Jeanine (special sp?) Garofalo and her partner Sam Sedar (sp?), who was strident and factually wrong about much. I will note that Garofalo was on the Hannity show when Hannity broadcast live from Boston and the Dem convention (Kerry nomination) and Garofalo really put up a great account of herself with Hannity.
“Basically, for fans of the genre, not much changed this past week. ”
I agree completely. The talkers have easily “achieved critical mass” or “gotten off the ground” and are really not associated, or have been for a long time, with Air America, which honestly to me seems to have become an afterthought now like … Smith-Corona (typewriters).
“I have the feeling that Ron will find a deal elsewhere.”
Yep. There could be a new syndicate that forms with a core of good talkers, or he could go independent like others. There are lesser lights (Malloy, whom I detest, for example, and others whose names I don't even know or recall, they're that obscure) whom Reagan easily betters.
“Now I live in Seattle”
Thom Hartmann is based in Portland, and I certainly hope he's available on the air where you are!
Yes, we have Hartman. We have recently lost Randi, to Norman Goldman.
There have been several comments made about talk radio being personality driven, and I would have to agree. I don't necessarily gravitate towards the best-researched host, there is definitely an emotional assessment there too. Perhaps IQ plus EQ times personal compatibility = your best radio.
That said, I like what Hartman bring to the table, and the debates he tries to engage in, but I sometimes find it boring or ineffectual. The exception would be Brunch with Bernie. Love me some Brunch with Bernie!
Lesser lights, second-tier talent. There are many different ways to describe those folks. I like Norman Goldman, but I would group him here. Replacing Randi with Norman seemed unthinkable to me, but there could be a lot going on there. I suspect pricing might have something to do with it, but who knows? Randi rubbed lots of people the wrong way. I hope that Premiere is serious about growing her affiliates. She is probably my favorite of all the top talkers who still have shows (not counting Rachel; if Maddow still has a 3-hour format it's unknown to me). Sure, sometimes she is in a particularly bitchy mood and randomly abuses callers. But she takes the time with belligerent callers as well, most days.
Malloy. Don't know quite what to say there. He's not for the masses, that's for sure. His ravings would put off most people. That said, he's never boring and I often share his vitriol for various people. It's kind of like, if every conspiracy theory was true, then maybe he is dead on. God help us if every conspiracy theory is true. It's hard enough living in a world where lots of shocking stuff exists that is well researched and documented, yet seems to remain outside the scope of “common knowledge”. I'm thinking of stuff like the various deplorable actions the CIA has been involved with during the past 50-70 years. Things that are barely mentioned, at least from any “mainstream” media outlet.
All in all, I think the next ten years should see an increase in diversity in radio. A tech friend of my said that the next “hot” thing will be the next generation of mobile internet. They are already testing prototypes that have download speeds that rival DSL. If that is available in 3 years, and I can currently listen to webstreams with my I-phone and WiFi, how much longer could it be before we have Shoutcast in our cars with I-phone ease and radio-quality sound?
Then its infinite bandwidth, which is bound to continue to shake things up. How to fund it all will also continue to be an ongoing battle.
“I don't necessarily gravitate towards the best-researched host, there is definitely an emotional assessment there too.”
Yes, style as well as content. Thom Hartmann often slips on some historical or other related details when he discusses various issues, or he doesn't know or struggles sometimes with what ought to be obvious (to anybody, and especially to anyone who approaches politics from a historical approach), but he means well even when he slips up, and I credit him for what I believe is what really counts.
It's similar to all the fuss about Ed Schultz saying he'd cheat in the Massachusetts special election had he been a voter there. It's not so much that he'd cheat that really is an issue. (Cheating is a trademark of the Democrats and their related interests!) Anyone such as I who listen (and enjoy listening) to Schultz knows that he was just being emphatic about the real point he was making, which was included in what he said — that he views the Republicans as “bastards.” He despises them, and was describing how much he despises them! (So much he'd even cheat — they're not a worthy opponent deserving of respect for the rules, that is. I'm surprised that he didn't say what a lousy enemy they are, and how “this is war.” That would be consistent with his style, too.)
“Brunch with Bernie. Love me some Brunch with Bernie!”
It's far removed from me politically, but it's so far left and so honest — yep — Fridays…
“Lesser lights, second-tier talent.”
Just like the Right-side of talk radio. I even have a secondary AM station, on the Fox network, that I listen to maybe 5-10 per cent of the time, when there's nothing good on the main two AM stations or on NPR. (Here, there are two NPR stations, not just one, but they are heavily local with ethnic music; the syndicated shows and the news and commentary shows are sparse, which is a disappointment.) The “Other” AM station, the Fox station, has second-tier-and-below, lesser-light shows (often copycats of Limbaugh, GOP talking points, etc.). Limbaugh and Hannity (#2 but I don't like him) are on one station along with others who at least are interesting, like Michael Savage (actually the favorite to listen to of my liberal East Coast colleague here); the Fox lesser station has Boortz, Laura Ingraham, etc. When I was in Upstate New York I heard other, third- or fourth-tier guys (Michael Gallagher, Rusty Humphry or Humphries — don't remember, don't
care much, anyway).
“All in all, I think the next ten years should see an increase in diversity in radio.”
Yep — beginning with what likely is continued growth of lefty talk radio, which may reflect what I wondered about before, a recent rise of the Left (coincident with but obviously not dependent on the reaction of many to Bush-Cheney).
Then there's satellite radio — doesn't seem to be that popular among us road ramblers, but it seems to have found a niche in restaurants and such. What about places that are more political than the typical place where you'd otherwise sometimes hear NPR, such as bookstores?
“Ok… that made me laugh.
”
I'm glad I'm amusing, but I thought the “elitist” comment was funnier…it's just weird to come home after volunteering for a soup kitchen and see that term. Self-defeating in a way, though, as the implication of such a comment seems to be that the right has gotten so stupid that the mere act of reading ones politics makes one an elitist. Did the right forget how to read, or what? In addition, my comment is entirely self-evident; if liberals and progressives aren't listening to progressive radio (which they aren't), they must be getting their political commentary from other sources. Among the large group of progressive activists that I associate with, the preferred source is the internet. Why that's “elitist” is truly beyond me, considering these are folks who spend a great deal of time and effort fighting poverty and social injustice. Schadenfreude indeed.
And I'm hardly the first to note the overwhelming idiocy of Rush and his disciples.
DLS, sometimes I just don't understand why you have such a gut reaction to anyone's criticism of Rush. I mean, the man's so obviously a blow-hard, and so obviously just full of BS. You seem to consider yourself an expert at ferreting out BS, yet you seem to have such a blind spot to this guy. His entire show is a cult of personality, which seems odd to me, as his personality is so unpleasant. Oh well, I guess we all have those issues we get overly-emotional about. Why you've chosen Rush as one of yourse is beyond me, but whatever.
roro80 – I can only think you are purposely being dense, as you seem reasonably intelligent, to not be able to see how a comment like “most liberals prefer to read, where they can look up sources, etc, as they go. If you want to be told what to think, go listen to Rush”.
If you cannot, than I stand corrected on my assessment of your being reasonably intelligent.
p.s. – you next comment to DLS is true, that Rush is indeed a blowhard (and populist, within his target audience), and cult of personality. But then, so is Obama, and I will bet based on the slant of your posts here you think he is none of those things.
Oh, I can see how such a thing might be taken as elitist — if you're really looking for it. I was merely stating a fairly obvious fact that seems to have been overlooked and which, as I explained, is both upheld by a large survey of progressive activists, and must be deduced from the fact that there was exactly one “progressive” radio station, and it has gone out of business, much because of a lack of an audience. Unless you think there's no market for liberal political commentary at all, you have to deduce that the market is better served by other media. The post is about why Air America went bankrupt. The fact that most progressives prefer to read their politics is one of the reasons it did. The ability to check facts, etc, is something that's hard to do when in your car listening to the radio, and it's something that's important to a lot of progressives. Do you disagree with that? Radio tends also to skew to an older audience, and therefore to a more conservative group.
Now, from a poverty point of view, there is certaintly a great deal of privilege involved in having daily access to the internet, but it's pretty obvious that's not what you were talking about.
There are certain groups of people who use the buzzword “elitist”, and the term just strikes me as very funny.
“You seem to consider yourself an expert at ferreting out BS, yet you seem to have such a blind spot to this guy.”
That's where you're wrong. The key is the BS and often the sources of that BS, not Limbaugh, who's all too often just the handiest demon-object excuse to generate and hurl the BS. I suspect you're defensive about the BS being identified as such.
I'll continue to listen to him in preference to commercials on the Thom Hartmann show, when there are commercials on Hartmann's show.
“I suspect you're defensive about the BS being identified as such.”
Don't you think it should be?
“> I suspect you're defensive about the BS being identified as such.”
Don't you think it should be?”
??? The BS is what is being directed at Limbaugh, by those who demonize him. (They and their behavior are the bigger, worse story than Limbaugh ever has been, real or imaginary).
“about the BS”
It's not limited to Limbaugh, either. Thom Hartmann (who loves to gripe about Reagan) was aboard the big Ship of Fools Friday, and saying that the Supreme Court issued another Dred Scott decision, and I'm heading out for a break on the road, and will be curious if he continues this silliness or has something to say instead about Plouffe and what Obama's administration might do next as part of its recovery effort.
Ah, I misinterpreted your comment. Apologies. In this case, I would just let my original comment stand as-is.
You remain incorrect about this:
“I guess we all have those issues we get overly-emotional about”
I do admit to being indelicate when correcting misbehavior I observe, which includes misbehavior related to Limbaugh. (I am correct in noting aloud that it easily outdoes anything Limbaugh says or does.)
“I like what Hartman bring to the table, and the debates he tries to engage in, but I sometimes find it boring or ineffectual.”
He was largely lost today, sadly, going on and on with the silly corporation-bashing and complaining about the Supreme Court ruling. He joins many lefties in being neurotic about corporations and the “personhood” issue. (It was just a note by one of the Justices back in the 1800s, and how else do we view anything other than individuals that are parties to a legal action or dispute?) He joins many other lefties in failing the most basic thinking skills challenges and elementary logical reasoning, that it is speech (notably political speech) that is the issue, that whatever interferes with it may be seen as an unconstitutional infringement of it (which obviously includes the means employed to produce it). The source of the speech, be it individuals (which Hartmann made a fool of himself with today, using invalid arguments about this in particular), or any organizations, be they corporations (object of idiotic leftist behavior today, still), labor
unions, or (something obvious that people like Hartmann are too overheated to grasp, it seems) political parties, or other organizations like Greenpeace, for example. All of them would be banned from politics along with the evil corporations if illogical lefties had their way, consistently. Obviously this would be wrong, and is wrong.
He engaged in additional hype, like saying corporations would buy political campaigns and government, and that this would be the end of medium-sized as well as small businesses.
Hopefully Hartmann and others will regain their composure and behave more logically and intelligently once this issue has subsided (which it should have, already — wrongful shackles on political speech for PC reasons were correctly broken; issue closed!).
“I am correct in noting aloud that it easily outdoes anything Limbaugh says or does.”
First, declaring oneself correct is kind of silly and circular. I would hope that you wouldn't write something if you didn't think it was correct.
As to the content of the statement, my view is that a powerful radio host with millions of listeners who regularly lies blatantly and uses his platform to espouse hateful rhetoric certainly is much further in the wrong than those lowly folks like myself who criticize him. The man clearly deserves all the criticism he takes, but I think this is the case even if I am totally and entirely wrong in my assessment of him.
In addition, indelicacy is never anything I would shy away from; in fact, while I'm rarely as indelicate as you, I can certainly give you a run for your money. My comment was directed at your knee-jerk reaction any time anyone criticizes Limbaugh, regardless of what assinine thing he's said. The man seemingly can do no wrong in your eyes.
“declaring oneself correct is kind of silly and circular”
Someone I know was confusing or wrongly disputing the obvious, though.
“The man seemingly can do no wrong in your eyes. “
More confusion or wrongful dispute of the obvious — like my reported response, “No, no…” when he started abusing the caller who was doing nothing wrong (other than poking holes in what he had been saying). But I suppose this, too, is not permitted to disturb your slumber and dreams. So, oh, well, never mind.