My Father Had an Oldsmobile, and so Did I

I found this article -The Five Best Oldsmobiles to Come off the Line, while I was out surfing the net the other day. Not a bad piece, but, as always, I have some quibbles.

Number 5 car is the 1968 Hurst Olds. Without seeing the other 4 we can let this stand. But it does deserve higher ranking. The Hurst Olds was the hottest car in any showroom. Culminating in the 1970 version, they were a 5 passenger rocket ship. They handled like a late sixties car (meaning it cornered like Jello), but straight line, wow; what a ride.

Number 4 is the Toronado, the first front wheel drive car by an American company since Cord died during the Great Depression. An iconic car, it definitely belongs on the list.

Number 3 is the original Rocket Ship; the 1949 Olds 88. A small car with a big car engine; the same formula Pontiac would revive in 1964 with the GTO. As usual with Pontiac, following Oldsmobile's lead. definitely needs to be on the list.

Number 2 is a station wagon. A WHAT? Yep; a station wagon. available with a 455 cubic inch V-8 and a Hurst 4-speed, not exactly your standard depot hack. But what really set it apart was the raised rear roof and the glass roof over the back seat. we had a 1966 model Vista Cruiser when I was a kid. riding under that roof made you feel special; there wasn't another car on the road with a windshield in the roof. Yes, it deserves to be on the list, but higher than a Hurst Olds? I might have swapped the two, had I been writing up the list.

Number 1 is THE Iconic Oldsmobile; the 1901 Curved Dash Olds. Little more than a carriage with a lawnmower engine attached, this was the car that started it all for Oldsmobile.

And now; some quibbles. Limiting the list to 5 cars really is difficult, and because of those limitations some really special cars have been left off the list. Like the 1939 Oldsmobile; first with an automatic transmission; a design that was so sturdy, it was used in American tanks during WWII.

The 1978 Cutlass is also missing; the first downsized Cutlass, this car was so popular that for years it was the most-stolen car in the country; different years of the body series holding sometimes the top 5 spots. It's popularity was later eclipsed by the Honda Accord on this list, but still this body style Cutlass is a great car.

The article also disses the Alero; I have one and while I do find some issues with it, I do like it. Seats 5 comfortably, has the ability to get out of its own way, gets better than 20 MPG, and is still, at 15 years of age and over 200,000 miles, a good running automobile. And, again for its age, fairly trouble free. 

What are my issues? The doors seem a little tight, and getting in and out is troublesome, for somebody my size. The front cup holder is useless, except for change, and the middle armrest is a little short. The glove compartment is a little small too.

One last thing; it has a four cylinder engine; I wish it had a V-8. But it is a dual  overhead cam, fuel injected 4 cylinder. I would love to have that technology on an old 350 V-8 in a 78 Cutlass; that would be a Rocket.

Foot-N-Mouth; Right Up to the Ankle

Well, apparently a couple of severe cases of Foot-N-Mouth disease have broken out.

One involves the challenger to the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, Matt Bevin. The first question I have is why all of the hype?

At a rally to encourage the legalization of Cockfighting in Kentucky, Senate hopeful Matt Bevin spoke. Not about cockfighting, or even the legality/illegality of cockfighting, but on states rights and the over reach of the Federal Government. There was no cockfighting at the rally at all, and no one spoke about cockfighting while Bevin was there. If Bevin was a Democrat we would have never known about the incident.

But he's not. And he is probably beating Mr. Inside-The-Beltway himself, Mitch McConnell. So the media will, between now and May 20, find any reason to bad mouth Matt Bevin. If Bevin gave a 5 minute speech at a Baptist Nursing Home, the media would use that to say he was calling for a return to Prohibition.

This is where McConnell is going. No attack ads on Bevin's positions, no discussion of the problems in Washington; no debates on the issues with Bevin. Have a field day on the fact that one day he spoke to a group who are LEGALLY advocating for a relaxation of the rules on cockfights. And Bevin is right; historically cockfighting was the purview of the wealthy. Some of the Founding Fathers would have attended cockfights, and doubtless some of them raised fighting cocks.

I'm saying that makes the practice fine; I'm saying that the activity was once not only legal, but accepted.

Bear in mind, I am not a fan of cockfighting. I think it is cruel to the animals and should be banned.

But that doesn't mean the effort to have it legalized should be banned. You have the right to free speech, not matter how vile your goal.

Or your speech.

Which brings us to case 2 of the Foot-N-Mouth Club; Clive Bundy. He is our 67 year old Nevada Rancher who is locked in a fight with the Federal Bureau of Land Management.

Yes; he open his mouth way to wide. Yes; what he said was offensive.

Now explain to me how his opinions on Blacks, Slavery and The Modern Welfare State have any effect on his battle with the BLM? Mr. Bundy has the right to hold and express any opinion he wants to hold or express. Can we call those opinions crazy, offensive, out-dated and worthy of the KKK? Yes we can. Can we let his opinions, however bizarre, become an issue in a situation that has absolutely nothing to do with anything he has expressed a stupid opinion on?

I also have my issues with this quote. Just like with Phil Robertson a few months back, I think a left leaning reporter created a situation from whole cloth. Not that he has put words into Bundy's mouth, but I do think a lefty reporter- like there is any other kind-  took an old man who has spent weeks under incredible pressure and let him talk until he got himself into trouble.

That doesn't mean I don't think Mr. Bundy holds these opinions, and that doesn't mean I agree with him, but it does mean that a sneaky bastard got an old man to spout off without his filter. And now is using that quote to discredit him.

And its working. Bundy's support is dropping away like the fall leaves from a maple.

Why? Does his opinion on anything but the BLM case matter to the BLM case?

Or is it that easy for the left to win? Coax someone to say something not generally accepted as a mainstream opinion and then the fight is over?

Clive Bundy's opinion on Blacks, Welfare and Slavery may not make him a more likeable character,  but it doesn't change his fight over land with the BLM.

Agenda 21; Ever Heard of It?

Have you ever heard of Agenda 21?  How about the United Nations?

Way back in 1992 President Bush went to Rio de Janeiro and signed a non-binding UN treaty to basically outlaw private property.

Okay, that is a bit of a stretch, but it is pretty much a master plan to control everything. as Wikipedia says:

Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development.

How to define sustainable development is the next problem. Most, on the right and left, see this as expanding the cities and ending the idea of ever expanding suburbs. The left sees that as a plus; the right as a minus.

There are two things (well; at LEAST two things) wrong with city living; it limits your space and it makes you dependent on the government for basic necessities. I don't like either of those things. I want a yard- even if I crab about mowing it- and I want to be able to do as I please in that yard.

Monday night we had my sons and grand kids over for Easter dinner. It was a beautiful day, so we sat in the yard all day. I can remember the last time I ate Easter dinner at a picnic table. After dinner the kids ran in the yard and the adults sat around and shot the breeze.

Agenda 21 says that is wrong. Mowing that grass is now allowing for natural growth, and the flowers I have planted are invasive species that are killing off the native plants. We should have been in our 800 square foot apartment, or at a park if we wanted to be outside. we should leave the planting and such to professionals, trained in how to allow the native plants to thrive.

A few years ago I was watching This Old House, and as usual they were doing a home in the Boston area.

There was a controlled area at the rear of the property that was very restrictive as far as plantings, because it was near a navigable waterway. I have no idea why being near a waterway should determine what you plant, but this is Massachusetts. At any rate, the homeowner had to remove a common flowering plant (iris if I remember correctly) because it was not native, and could not touch the poison ivy, because it was a native plant. Yes; that's right. Flowers are verboten, but poisonous plants are not. Its all about the natural world, don't you see. Humans are interlopers. Humans have no rights. Poison Ivy does.

Another example; the Delta Darter. The state of California has restricted water rights to the San Joaquin River because low levels are endangering the smelt. Instead of endangering this 2 inch long fish, the state has instead cut off water to one of the most productive farming valleys in California. The smelt may eat, but we won't.


Maybe instead of San Joaquin Valley vegetables, were supposed to eat Soylent Green?

Your Offense Offends Me

I was on the internet looking for another article I saw today about London's Billionaires (yes, with a 'B'; apparently the Millionaires can't afford to live there any more) Row, where almost 20 percent of the houses are abandoned to rot and ruin. Apparently its a tax thing; its cheaper to let them rot for 20 years and then repair them (sales tax wise, on repairs the tax is 20%; on rebuilds its 5%). Wouldn't it be nice to be able to let your 70 million POUND house rot for a few years to save 15% on the sales tax on rebuilding it? More Dollars than sense if you ask me.

But while I as looking I found this article, going on up in New Jersey. Apparently 2 Senior boys wore a Confederate Flag to an after-school sporting event. And got permanently suspended for it. Apparently some other students found it offensive. Okay; fair enough. I can see that there may be some narrow minded folks who fail to see the historical significance of and what the Confederate Flag actually stands for, and have placed their own values on it. and those values offend them.

So what? Where in the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution, or any government document does it say you  have the Right not to be offended? If you find it, let me know; there are lots of things going on that offend me, and I want to start doing something about it.

But I said the other day, one of the things about rights is that they cost you nothing for me to exercise any of my rights. You exercising some right not to be offended, cost me my right to Free Speech; something enumerated in the Constitution, and not divined from some penumbral emanation.

Why would you have a right not to be offended? How would that right have come into being? How could you EVER exercise that right without trampling on someone else's right to something? And even if this right existed, who would determine whether your right not to be offended was greater or less than my right to Free Speech?

I know who decides; the left in this country have already determined these rules, and are working their damnedest to enforce them.

Wear a Confederate Flag and offend someone? You have no right to Free Speech. Wear a Gay Pride Flag and offend someone? You have no right to be offended. See how easy it is? So how WRONG it is?

Your right to Free Speech cannot be determined by what you will say with that right. There are limits obviously; the old Fire in a crowded theater chestnut applies. (Which is one of my goals. One day I want find a crowded Fire and shout "THEATER") but that is a safety issue, not a Opinion issue. If your right to Free Speech can be determined by those in power its not Free.

And why would you choose to never be offended? Galileo's ideas offended the Church; and he was silenced, before he was proven right. Martin Luther King's ideas offended those in power, and he was silenced, before he was proven right. Thomas Jefferson's and James Madison's ideas offended those in power, and the King tried to silence them. And failed.

And now the left is trying to silence them again.

Its up to us whether they fail or succeed.

Found! and Lost!

Take a good hard look at this picture. Do you see a couple of million dollars in this picture?

I'm with you; I see an episode of "Hoarders".

But buried under all of that random junk is a 1966 Ford GT-40; the car that beat Ferrari at LeMans. Not this particular vehicle, but the design. This particular car has been owned by a now retired fireman since 1975, and hasn't run since 1977.

So no; its not worth a couple of million now. But when it is restored, the sky will be the limit. Of course, the cost of the restoration will be more than your average 1966 Mustang fleet of 2 dozen cars, but still; worth every penny.

Still skeptical? Maybe Hagerty can convince you.

I found this article on Road & Track today; and the article leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Like how much the new owner paid for the car, and how was a firefighter able to afford on these back in 1975?

I can pretty much guarantee you this GT-40 will not wind up buried under a pile of garbage again. Te new owner, Tom Shaughnessy will take good car of her; he is a well known car collector. Although he usually deals in Ferraris.

But the point of this post is that this is a car collector's dream; finding a valuable old car in a barn. Several books have been written about barn find cars.

Jay Leno has even found two very rare Duesenbergs as barn finds. The first a Model X is one of three left; his other was a 1934 model that was in a New York parking garage for 60 years before he tracked down the owner and bought it from him.

ARRRGGGHHHH!!!!! I just went to Jay Leno's Garage, so I could link to the videos of him find and restoring these two classic cars and the entire site has been redesigned- something I was aware of- and all of the archived videos have disappeared- something I was not.

And that SUCKS. Here I was all up; only two more this week, a classic GT 40 has been found, and then BAM! everything hits the dumper.

Well, you'll have to just take me word for on the Jay Leno videos; they were real, and they were SPECTACULAR!

No Law West of the Pecos

There is a lot wrong with this story. Nobody comes away with clean hands, but the Federal Government's are by far the dirtiest.

It almost reads like one of the old pulp westerns I read so many of in my youth: Honest, hardworking rancher gets attacked by a hoard of villains who isolate his ranch, steal his cattle and beat up his children.

The only thing the haven't done yet is poison his well.

YET.

The trouble is, in the old westerns salvation always appeared in form of a few cowhands, some of whom helped out the rancher- and his pretty young daughter- while one rode 'hell for leather' to bring in the US Marshal; the only law in the territory. In this case, it is the law doing the terrorizing.

Not that Mr. Bundy is blame free; the story doesn't get into why he stopped/never started paying the fees for grazing on Federal land, but he did; that was the nexus of his current predicament. $1.35 a head per month doesn't sound like much, but with 1000 head that's $1350.00 a month; $16,000.00 a year. To graze on public land that the family has used for 130 years.

Fine; so he owes the Feds money. Do they come after him with a court order? A judgment maybe?

Nope; they come after him with 200 armed agents and proceed to evict his cows from the land. Do they run them back onto land owned by Mr. Bundy? Nope. They IMPOUND the cows. At an estimated cost of $3,000,000.

Yep; the Federal Government is spending over $3 million to collect on $300,000. Do you know now why we are TRILLIONS in debt?

But just like an infomercial at midnight; Wait; There's MORE!!!!!

Not content with wasting a small fortune to make a point, and not content with harassing a man and his family over what is essentially a trifle, they have also closed a public highway and the airspace over the ranch (that $3 million to impound the cattle is starting to sound cheap, ain't it?), but they have also co-opted the local sheriff (well, he was usually crooked in the pulp westerns too) into creating and enforcing a 'free-speech zone', so the folks protesting this atrocity can't get close enough to see what is actually going on.

But WAIT; There's STILL MORE!!!!!

This is just part of the story. They are also closing almost 187,000 acres of land to grazing permanently- one of the reasons for the bovine eviction- to reserve the ground for a 'critical desert tortoise'.

If you have been following the news lately, you know what has been happening to the price of beef. what do you think the closing of 187,000 acres of grazing land will do the cattle herds? And to the price of beef.

So the next time you hit McDonald's and your Big Mac costs more than your first car, remember what the Feds did to Clive Bundy.

Proud of Them Kids, Are You?

Do you think we live in a civilized society?

How deep do you think that veneer of civility goes?

I suppose you have heard about what happened last night in Connecticut?

These are college students; the supposed next leaders of the free world. And they descended into anarchy because some people they probably don't know won a game.

Why is that? What about this game was so special it required drinking to excess, rioting, property damage and arrests? What about this game required these 'adults' to 'celebrate' by descending into mobs?

The worst part is that this is not an isolated incident. College and pro sports team seem to have a rabid group of followers who seem unable to celebrate a teams success without violence and destruction. I could prepare a list- a very long list- of all the incidents in the last 10 years where things like this have occurred. I'm sure you could too.

Yet we call ourselves civilized. What will the punishment be for these thugs and hooligans? How many will be expelled from school? How many will do jail time? How many will pay a fine large enough to dissuade future nights like this?

Yes; I know you will point out that this was a special occasion; that this was only a few students; that alcohol was involved.

So I suppose when I next receive a promotion at work I should get drunk and destroy my neighborhood? Why would that not be appropriate? After all, I have something to celebrate.

Walter Williams has said many times; support behavior you wish to encourage, and tax behavior you wish to discourage. By not punishing severely the 'children' for their crimes we are only encouraging them to behave this badly next time.

Why put up with this? What gives them the right to not only destroy property but also break the civilized veneer and create chaos in its place?

James Naismith developed basketball as a way to control a group of rowdies; to give them a controlled way to burn off energy.

I'm he would be pleased to see how well that plan worked out.

Does That Come in Midnight Blue?

This truck will either enamor you or turn you off completely; I doubt there will be any middle ground.

Personally, I think it is the future of heavy hauling.

Trucks started as an engine up front, two place cab, drive wheels out back format well over a hundred years ago. The only innovations in the last hundred years have been diesel engines in stead of gas and air brakes.

The trucks and their loads have gotten bigger, but the basic layout hasn't changed. Until now.

The ad- and that's what it is; and ad- doesn't stress it, but I would be willing to bet a bit of driver input went into this rig as well. I have spent a bit of time in the cab of an 18 wheeler. Not an extensive amount; I am no where near the million mile club. Maybe the 50,000 mile club, but, I digress. So I can say that the number one problem a driver faces is being able to see (usually it is being able to see that idiot in the 4-wheeler that just doesn't understand the difference between an 80,000 pound semi and a 2,500 pound Civic); this truck design seems to have taken that issue into account.

It also seems to have taken the comfort of the driver as a design consideration as well. No more two box cab/sleeper; all one box; just like a motor home.

I'm sure this truck has issues. Like how much it will cost to build. 2 53 x 8 foot carbon fiber panels? Yee-haw! I'll bet most first-graders couldn't count all of the zeros at the bottom of THAT invoice.

But if it does make it into production, can imagine seeing a couple of them convoying down the road?

I have seen the future, and here it is.

Push Back Twice as Hard

Surfing around on the internets today and found this article on Bloomberg's Business Week.

I sure hope this idiot doesn't get paid to write. I took me forever to read this piece; Bloomberg's site is glitchier than Obamacare's. So, in case you can't get to the link, I have taken the unusual step of including the entire article after my comments.

Apparently Georgia is about to enact a 'Guns Everywhere' ordinance (with bi-partisan support) that will allow concealed carry in bars, churches, stores and airports, provided the proprietor hasn't hung out a 'No Guns Allowed' sign. Okay, so?

Well our alleged author has Four Blunt Points to make against the law. His points?


1. The Newtown school massacre led to “guns everywhere.”(sic)

2. Georgia illustrates the NRA’s structural advantage on gun control.  

3. Skeptics of expansive gun rights need to respond intelligently.   

4. The best response to gun-rights extremism is a focus on fighting crime.

And he says it like this is NEWS!

Let's bust a few balloons, shall we?

First, it wasn't the Newton shootings that lead to these laws, but the Left's insistence that a nutcase with a stolen gun be used to limit gun rights. So yes, the natural response is to fight back. Smart people know that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. NO MASS SHOOTING HAS EVER TAKEN PLACE IN A GUN PERMITTED ZONE. It is only when a shooter knows he will have the only gun does he try something like this. Or may be I'm wrong, and the people have decided that they need to remove gun restricted zones, to end problems like Newton. Bu either way, this autor is wrong.

Number Two; Strange wording, isn't it? almost as if the author doesn't want to realize that the majority of folks in this country SUPPORT gun rights and the Second Amendment. After all, nobody he knows owns a gun right? A direct quote:

"At present (and maybe always), the intensity of pro-gun passion exceeds that of anti-gun passion."

Care to guess why? Maybe because gun rights advocates believe in their position, and haven't been ginned up by some rabble-rouser?

Number three had me figuratively rolling on the floor laughing.  I have never, or maybe very seldom, with a few very notable exceptions, seen ANYONE on the left argue a point intelligently, particularly in the media. More specifically on guns. Their reaction is usually based on an indoctrinated fear; one so ingrained through 16 years of education that the mention of the private ownership and carrying of a weapon reduces them to a sputtering rage. Because they have never been given any FACTS, just emotions, and emotional arguments are always destructed by facts.

FACT- Florida has had a Shall Issue Law for 20 years, and Florida has not become Dodge City, as predicted. None of the Shall Issue States has. Yet that is always the first scenario raised. Hasn't it been discredited enough?

Number 4 is a howler too; why is someone who defends a Constitutionally protected right an extremist, yet the 'No such thing as a good gun' crowd are not?

Go ahead; read the article. see who you agree with.

THE ARTICLE

By Paul M. Barrett

Georgia appears poised to enact a so-called guns-everywhere law, making it easier for firearm permit holders to take their weapons into bars, churches, and even airports. Approved last week by the state legislature, the bill awaits the signature of Republican Governor Nathan Deal, a strong gun-rights advocate up for reelection this fall. His opponent, Jason Carter, a Democratic state senator and grandson of former President Jimmy Carter, voted for the legislation, so enactment seems assured.

Non-gun owners doubtless find all this baffling. Here are four blunt points to sort out what’s going on and how to respond:

1. The Newtown school massacre led to “guns everywhere.” Perverse as it may sound, the horrific mass shooting in December 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary produced a burst of state-level gun control bills around the country and then triggered a much stronger pro-gun backlash. The counter-reaction has now reached its apogee in Georgia. In the past year alone, 21 states have enacted laws expanding gun rights, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Several states added piecemeal provisions allowing firearms on college campuses or in bars or churches. Georgia’s politicians, egged on by the National Rifle Association, have gone for broke.

2. Georgia illustrates the NRA’s structural advantage on gun control. As if we needed a fresh demonstration of this phenomenon, the gun-rights lobby currently enjoys a fundamental edge in the debate about regulating firearms. In an era of falling crime rates, liberal enthusiasm for gun control simply doesn’t pack much political punch outside certain blue-state environments. Yes, people get riled up, understandably, by mass shootings at schools or movie theaters. Over and over, we’ve seen those emotions fade quickly, giving way to a more sustained counter-reaction from the pro-gun side. The NRA has skillfully responded to calls for stricter gun control by portraying them as evidence that liberals’ real agenda is confiscating firearms—all firearms.

A cadre of highly motivated, well organized pro-gun voters believe the NRA scare tactics and rally behind ever-more-aggressive measures to expand gun rights. Thus, we now have concealed-carry laws in all 50 states. We have traditional self-defense laws replaced by stand-your-ground—and in Georgia, guns everywhere. Even those who deplore these developments at some point must acknowledge the pattern. At present (and maybe always), the intensity of pro-gun passion exceeds that of anti-gun passion.

3. Skeptics of expansive gun rights need to respond intelligently. The smart response is not scorn or exaggeration. For better or worse, gun ownership has come to symbolize a range of deeply felt ideas about culture and government authority. Making fun of people who view their firearms as emblems of liberty and traditional values (however they define those values) will neither change minds nor repeal legislation.

Exaggerating the practical effects of gun-rights legislation doesn’t make sense, either. The Georgia measure allows guns in bars and churches under certain circumstances. Saloon owners who don’t want weapons in their establishments would have to post a sign saying so. That doesn’t sound so onerous; a lot of bars in pro-gun precincts already have such signs. Worshipers in Georgia wouldn’t be allowed to pack heat unless their congregation affirmatively votes to “opt in” to the guns-everywhere law. Personally, I wouldn’t choose a synagogue whose congregants thought they needed Glocks to celebrate the sabbath. But that’s me. If someone else’s congregation feels safer knowing that people are armed, I say: Let them go with God. I doubt that enactment of Georgia’s law will lead to a rash of shoot-outs. If it does, Georgians can reassess.

4. The best response to gun-rights extremism is a focus on fighting crime. Rather than engage with the NRA on the cultural battlefield, where gun-rights advocates have the upper hand, liberals should focus on the most-pressing problem related to firearms—that their prevalence in American society makes our violent crime more lethal. Broadly speaking, this approach would have liberals emphasize more aggressive enforcement of existing laws against illegal gun possession, rather than obsess about situations that allow law-abiding citizens to own guns and carry them on their person. Still speaking broadly, the anti-crime approach would have liberals ask how the extraordinary successes in reducing violent crime in places like New York—where gun control laws have not changed for decades—can be replicated elsewhere.

Turning back to Georgia, this mindset would inspire guns-everywhere skeptics (and if you can’t tell by now, I am one) to focus on those provisions of the law that appear to be soft on crime and criminals. For example, the statute would provide more leeway for gun owners to escape punishment if they try to go through airport security while armed. That seems dangerous. We’ve decided as a society that we don’t want guns on airplanes. This security requirement doesn’t seem terribly difficult to remember, what with all the people in uniform at the airport and all those screening machines and long lines and having to take off your shoes, for goodness’s sake.

A further troubling aspect of the Georgia law is that its ambiguous wording might provide wiggle room for a felon to invoke the state’s separate stand-your-ground law as part of a self-defense claim. Now this would be truly preposterous. Felons, even in Georgia, aren’t supposed to have guns in the first place, so maybe this issue is more a function of poor legislative craftsmanship than malign intent. But since pro-gun activists are simultaneously lobbying all over the place to make it easier for some felons to get their right to own guns reinstated, this facet of the law seems to merit quick repeal.

The upshot: Rather than argue that guns are evil or that gun enthusiasts are nuts, liberal skeptics should push back with concrete proposals for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, and children.

512 people were murdered in the city.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/chicago-murders-top-afghanistan-death-toll/#VvwOgbd1Ql8h8Hcr.99