Column The SF Path to Higher Consciousness The Invisible Man and the Unseen Hand of Power Tracing the onscreen evolution of the Invisible Man and what it tells us about power and fear. By Dan Persons | Published on October 9, 2025 Credit: Universal Pictures Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: Universal Pictures I’m not sure I quite get the whole thing with dictators and their parades. For one thing, I don’t think a parade really counts unless it’s got a giant, helium-filled Spider-Man balloon and Nathan Lane singing Luck Be a Lady Tonight from atop a 20-foot-high float shaped like the Manhattan skyline. All this military stuff, the tanks and missile carriers and 20,000 precision-marching soldiers (as well as China’s newest addition: Robot wolves! Arooooo!), that crap don’t cut it for me. Maybe it’s different if you’re in the crowd and are overwhelmed with the size of it all and the shared sense of national pride. And it must be a rush for the dictator, seeing your amassed military might rallied at the snap of your fingers. Me, watching on the TV, I keep thinking, Where do they park all those tanks? And, Are those nuclear missiles you’re trucking around armed? Is that wise when you’ve just cut the budget for pothole repairs? And, I’ll bet at least 40% of those soldiers are thinking, “I gotta pee real bad.” It’s too ostentatious, is what it is. It screams of overcompensation. It’s not power; it’s a show of power—an antiquated media circus ripped from the playbook of the twentieth century, a rehash of the stuff Leni Riefenstahl could crank out in her sleep. I watch with the sense that the future of warfare rests in the hands of nerds in control rooms piloting drones, and instead of feeling impressed, overwhelmed, or fearful, I’m more likely to be snickering to myself. I get why someone might think that showing off this way conveys strength—“seeing is believing” remains a good general rule. But actual power is not wielded solely through the stuff that can be seen. There has to be something behind the spectacle—an idea, an impression—that feels true and lives on whether or not you’re presently looking at phalanxes of heavy armaments. James Whale’s The Invisible Man (1933) makes for an interesting contrast with the original H.G. Wells novel, published in 1897. It starts out strikingly close to the book: A mysterious, bandage-wrapped stranger arrives at a small inn in a small, English town. His imperious manner and fanatical desire for privacy only serve to stir up concerns among the locals, and after the police are summoned following his attack on the innkeepers, he reveals himself to be, in his own words, the Invisible Man, aka Jack Griffin (Claude Rains, in his first star turn… though you don’t actually get to see his face until the very end). While the rest of the movie continues to touch on points of Wells’ novel, it does make some notable digressions. A love interest is introduced in the person of Flora (Gloria Stuart), who’s initially seen standing behind a spray of flowers. (Get it?) And while, in the book, Griffin’s promised “reign of terror” doesn’t get much further than a handful of deaths, he’s much more successful in the film, graduating from individual murders to a disastrous train derailment. Most significantly, while the book keeps its viewpoint rooted among the people who interact with Griffin, as the film moves into its final act, it becomes something of a police procedural, with the combined branches of law enforcement struggling to draw a dragnet around the unseen madman on the loose. One clever little bit in the latter half stuck with me: Before the chief of police (Dudley Digges) holds a strategy meeting, he has his officers hoist up large net, and walk it across the empty room, the better to snag Griffin if he’s dared to attend. Good idea, I thought, and then thought again: There’s a chair against the wall—he could be standing on it and those dopes’d never know. Both Wells and Whale touch on it: As Griffin descends into madness and megalomania, he revels in the notion the he could engage in any activity, commit any crime, and get away scot-free. This is his reign of terror: not a coordinated effort or an unleashing of the masses to perpetrate atrocities, but one single man, who could be anywhere, at any time. No one is safe, not on the streets, not at home, not in the most fortified shelter. The thing is, that only translates to power if everyone is alerted to the game—if it so insinuates itself into the populace that no one can have a moment of peace. That’s where Whale, deploying the 20th-century miracle of radio, gives his Invisible Man an advantage over his 19th-century counterpart. In Whale’s rendition, one doesn’t have to wait for the daily paper or the village grapevine to spread the word. In one second, Griffin manages to invade the living rooms, and the consciousnesses, of a nation. We’ve since invented a phrase for that: “living rent-free” in people’s heads. But Wells defined the concept and Whale capitalized on it. At a time when the world was reeling in the aftermath of economic catastrophe and still shaking off the effects of what was then called the Great War (little did anyone suspect what lay ahead, save a cautious few… and H.G. Wells), the idea that one man could rule over the entire planet may not have seemed all that implausible. As tech grew more sophisticated, as radio and television and satellites and the internet simultaneously made the world smaller and more interconnected, yet revealed how vast and variegated humanity could be, the notion that a single person with the power of invisibility could dominate a planet, or even a nation, seemed far less credible. Which, come the 21st century, posed a bit of a problem for Universal. The Invisible Man was part of their stable of famous monsters, the lot of which they’d been trying for years to leverage into their own, horrific cinematic universe. (Kevin Feige, what have ye wrought?) A blood-hungry vampire, a tragic lycanthrope, or a revivified mummy could be rebooted without much change to their essential natures (not that those attempts were successful, mind). But an invisible megalomaniac out to rule the world all on his ownsome stretched suspension of disbelief just a shade too far. In a wise move, Universal reached out to their low-budget partner, Blumhouse, to take a stab at a reimagining of the story. They in turn tapped Leigh Whannell to write and direct. His solution (incorporating a nod or two to Paul Verhoeven’s 2000 thriller Hollow Man): Keep the mad scientist’s lust for power, but turn it from world-conquering ambition to something more intimate, and profoundly more disturbing. Jack Griffin may have wanted to rule over millions; in The Invisible Man (2020), Adrian Griffin (Oliver Jackson-Cohen) just wants control over one unfortunate soul. Our introduction to Cecilia Kass (Elisabeth Moss) is in the dead of night, as she is fleeing Griffin’s well-appointed and starkly sterile home. She’s been a virtual prisoner of the pathologically controlling scientist, isolated from her friends and family, constantly under surveillance, and incapable of acting without his express permission. The mere act of escape—aided by her sister Emily (Harriet Dyer), a friend James (Aldis Hodge), and James’ daughter Sydney (Storm Reid)—is traumatic enough. When Adrian—a genius in optics who has invented a suit studded with tiny whizzing lenses that makes its wearer invisible—resolves to drag her back, he embarks upon a campaign of intimidation meant to assure that her wounds never heal. [It’s probably a good idea at this point to slip in a spoiler warning—so there ya go.] Griffin’s strategy is to deploy the philosophy of “If I can’t have you, no one will,” filtered through a campaign of vicious gaslighting. He drives wedges between Cecilia and those who would support her, committing acts of sabotage and assault—all the way to murder—while directing the blame back upon the woman he’s victimizing. When she insists that the crimes have been committed by the unseen hands of Adrian, her protests are regarded as the ravings of a person whose PTSD has driven her to the heights of paranoia. Abandoned and isolated (and subject to one further, devastating trick by Adrian to convince Cecilia’s supporters that he’s innocent of any crime), Cecilia eventually has no recourse but to flee back into Adrian’s slimily forgiving arms. (She’s got a surprise for him, though. I won’t go into that, here.) It’s the narrowed-down intimacy that gives this modern-day interpretation its bite. Wells and Whale—those old-fashioned kids—imagined that a megalomaniac would want to accrue influence through overt acts that demonstrated his power. Whannell posits something more deeply sinister: That power is seized and wielded by convincing your target of its own powerlessness. The Griffin of 1933 commits his crimes with such flamboyant zeal that they frequently, and deliberately, drift into comedy. Whannel’s take on the calculating and cold-blooded Invisible Man allows for no mirth—the suffering he inflicts on Cecilia is palpable, and almost unbearable to watch. We get no explanation as to why he must have this woman under his control, it defies logic (there are a few things in the film’s final act that defy logic, but that’s another issue). All that we know is that for Adrian, the quest for power is a zero-sum game—he will mercilessly flood his victim’s zone with atrocity and manipulation, the better to rob his perceived property of any sense of agency. There is, quite frankly, something reassuringly wholesome in the straightforward megalomania of 1933’s Invisible Man. Whannell’s Adrian Griffin, though, is truly repugnant, a man who will gladly make you suffer to satisfy his own compulsive need for control. Cecilia’s solution in the film is not suitable for real life, but here in our world, there is a way—difficult, not perfect, but not impossible—to thwart a bastard who seeks to rob anyone of their will to resist: Stand up to them, let them know that they are seen, and that they will not be permitted to play their games. Throw a spotlight on the bully who thinks they cannot be restrained, call them out again and again, for as long as it takes, and let them see how their power dissipates in the glare of exposure. Over the years, James Whale’s The Invisible Man has taken on the well-deserved patina of a charming horror classic. Leigh Whannel’s version, in contrast, is all teeth, and more disturbing for its unsparing portrayal of an abusive relationship taken to extremes. But while Whannell succeeded in redirecting Wells’ concept into something uncomfortably personal, the film still has something to say in a broader sense, about people who seek power for power’s sake, and the challenges we face in countering them. But what do you think? Which version do you favor? Did the contemporary version touch a nerve? The comments section is below for your input. As always, please keep your thoughts friendly and constructive—no one is invisible, and everyone deserves their say…[end-mark] The post <i>The Invisible Man</i> and the Unseen Hand of Power appeared first on Reactor.

After a half-dozen votes by Democrats against a short-term continuing resolution to reopen the federal government, Republicans are turning up the temperature on them, accusing Democrats of relishing the suffering of the American people. “The Democrats are playing games. It’s political theater today. They’ve reduced America’s pain to a political prop,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said at a Thursday press conference. He was joined by Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., who chairs the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. Bost warned of the consequences for veterans missing their Oct. 15 benefits checks. Bost also expressed concerns about Veterans Affairs benefits and education payments lapsing. “Folks, this is not a game. It’s very, very serious,” he said. As services run out of funds and senators approach a point where prolonging the shutdown will become politically painful, Republicans are accusing individual Democrats of holding Americans hostage. On Thursday, Punchbowl News published an interview with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who expressed optimism about the effectiveness of Democrats’ standoff strategy. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images) “Every day gets better for us,” Schumer said in the interview. “It’s because we’ve thought about this long in advance and we knew that health care would be the focal point on Sept. 30 [the funding deadline] and we prepared for it … . Their whole theory was—threaten us, bamboozle us, and we would submit in a day or two.” House Republicans slammed Schumer for that statement, accusing him of being gleeful amid the shutdown. “Stop saying that you’re enjoying inflicting pain on the American people for goodness’ sakes and pass the clean [continuing resolution]. End the shutdown today,” said Johnson. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., also used the news conference as an opportunity to slam his state’s Democrat senators. Minnesota Sen. “Tina Smith claims she shut the government down so that she can, quote, ‘protect Minnesotans’ health care,’” said Emmer. “But Tina, if that really was the case, why do you support a $1.5 trillion spending proposal that would give health care to illegal aliens while cutting $50 billion from rural health care?” He added, “This was never about health care for the Democrats. This has been about picking a fight with President Trump so that they can try to score points with the terrorist wing of their party.” House Republican Conference chairwoman Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., similarly framed the shutdown as a self-serving measure for Democrats, saying, “The impact of the government shutdown is growing by the day. Planes are being grounded, paychecks are being missed, and people are hurting. Different than Chuck Schumer—he’s having a good day—the American people are hurting.” For House Republicans, the message is simple: Democrats have a binary choice of whether or not to reopen the government.  The post As Shutdown Pain Intensifies, Republicans Ratchet Up Pressure on Dems appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In 1919, a discovery was made near Edinburgh that stunned the archaeological world: over 23 kilograms of ancient silver, one of the largest hoards of late-Roman silver ever found anywhere. Dubbed the Traprain Treasure after the volcanic hill fort where it was hidden, this dazzling collection of over 250 objects is more than 1,500 years old. It’s a spectacular time capsule revealing a world where Roman power was crumbling, while a fierce, independent people were just beginning to assert their influence. In History Hit’s new documentary, Scotland’s Silver Hoard: The Traprain Treasure, Tristan Hughes is granted exclusive access to the National Museum of Scotland to examine these incredible artefacts up close. Guided by leading expert Dr Fraser Hunter, Principal Curator of The National Museum of Scotland, Tristan delves into the hoard’s mysterious origins, uncovering what this treasure reveals about trade and power games at the far edges of the Roman Empire, and the true birth of medieval Scotland. Sign up to watch The treasure of the ‘Barbarians’ The discovery of the Traprain Treasure is unique because it was found far outside the formal boundaries of the Roman Empire, and buried at a time when Roman Britain had receded some considerable distance to the south and was collapsing (around 450 AD). The Romans had never managed to hold onto land beyond Hadrian’s Wall long-term; further north above modern-day Edinburgh tribal groups would ultimately unite and become the Picts, who fiercely resisted Roman control. Caught up between these powers were the Votadini, a formidable people who lived in the buffer state beyond Hadrian’s Wall. Traprain Law, east of modern-day Edinburgh, rises out of the East Lothian plain and was a major power centre for them. While the Romans called them ‘Barbarians,’ the Votadini used their strategic position to their advantage, maintaining a rewarding alliance with Rome without succumbing to its rule. Dr Fraser Hunter describes the hoard as “one of the most remarkable finds of late-Roman silver from anywhere in the empire or beyond,” emphasising that this is a story about the powerful communities beyond the frontier, not the Romans within it. Tristan Hughes (left) with Dr Fraser Hunter (right), Principal Curator at The National Museum of Scotland. In front of them lies some of the objects from the Traprain Treasure. The discovery Excavations of the site had begun in 1914, led by Alexander Curle, the former director of the Royal Scottish Museum in Edinburgh. On 12 May 1919, workmen were clearing one of the levels with a pick-axe when foreman George Pringle discovered a silver vessel.  The treasure did not emerge pristine. It was largely found as “hack silver” – flattened, broken, and fragmented pieces. Early restorers pieced them back together, but the fragments hold a critical secret. The silver is incredibly pure (93-95%), giving it immense value, not just as art, but as a raw material. As Tristan and Fraser reveal, the meticulous way the silver was chopped into precise, weight-standardised fragments suggests this wasn’t the haphazard destruction of “barbarians,” but a careful act performed perhaps within the Roman world during a time of economic crisis. A world in transition: Paganism and Christianity The objects themselves speak to a world in transition, showcasing the elite culture and rising anxieties of the late Roman Empire. In the documentary, Tristan examines a beautifully preserved bowl, once a high-status washbasin for elite women, adorned with magnificent pagan imagery including a sea nereid nymph riding a sea panther. Other fragments depict the mythological hero Hercules, reflecting the classical culture of elite Roman dining. Yet, the hoard also contains the earliest Christian item found in Scotland: a gilded silver vessel featuring detailed scenes from both the Old and New Testaments. This impressive piece of early Christian iconography, complete with Adam and Eve, and the Virgin Mary receiving the Three Wise Men, powerfully illustrates how a new religion was taking hold. This mix of pagan and Christian items in a single hoard reflects the contested, turbulent world of late antiquity. Depiction of the Virgin Mary receiving the Three Wise Men on silver vessel from the Traprain Treasure.Image Credit: History Hit / National Museum of Scotland Mercenaries, money, and power games How did so much Roman silver – over 250 objects weighing 23kg – end up buried on a Scottish hill? The treasures came north over a long period, likely spanning a century or more, linking Traprain to the military and political turmoil of the collapsing Empire. Fraser explains that the Votadini were Rome’s eyes and ears in the North, and the silver often came north as mercenary pay or diplomatic gifts. As he puts it, “a chunk of this material is likely to be effectively their pay packets.” In the documentary, Tristan examines silver coins from the hoard that have been deliberately clipped around the edges – according to Fraser this was a particularly British habit after the official flow of coinage ceased around 410 AD. This act of clipping silver to pay people by weight offers a clear indication of the hoard’s dating (featuring Emperors Valens and Theodosius, and Honorius) and its use in a post-Roman economy. Far from being ‘chopped up by Barbarians’, the precision cuts and adhering to Roman weight standards suggest the silver fragments were meticulously prepared, possibly even within the Roman world during a time of economic crisis, where the material’s raw value for transport or trade was prioritised over its artistic form. Pieces of cut silver from the Traprain TreasureImage Credit: History Hit / National Museum of Scotland Brought in from the Roman world as diplomatic gifts, subsidies, and mercenary payments, silver quickly became a powerful symbol of status and influence in local society. Had it not been frozen in time by burial, it would have been recycled and refashioned into magnificent brooches, chains, and rings – new status items essential for asserting influence in local society. Fraser shows Tristan a large silver military buckle decorated with the Christian Alpha and Omega symbols, indicating that some of these “swords for hire” were Christians themselves. The Traprain Treasure proves that while the Romans failed to conquer this part of Britain, they left a profound and lasting impact. The raw material of Rome’s empire – frozen in time on a Scottish hill – became the foundation for the prestigious society and early medieval culture that would eventually lead to the birth of Scotland. Join Tristan Hughes and Dr Fraser Hunter to uncover the true significance of the Traprain Treasure and witness the birth of a nation in Scotland’s Silver Hoard: The Traprain Treasure. Sign up to watch

Only Takes One Day of the New Dem Poster Girl: Wantin' to Tele-Porter Katie Out of Here

This has been suggested before, by a certain ex-doctor named Andrew Wakefield…

"The most noteworthy thing about this species is how much it really loves living in Guadua bamboo," Dr Evan Twomey told IFLScience.

Can scientists teach a mutt to utter words or are they barking up the wrong tree?

The U.S. federal budget recorded a $164 billion surplus in September – thanks in large part to President Donald Trump’s tariff policy and One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported Wednesday. Since February, the Trump Administration has imposed “reciprocal tariffs” on many imported goods in order to offset the onerous tariffs some countries are charging on U.S. exports. Then, in July, President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill (reconciliation) Act, which institutes federal student loan program reforms saving $307 billion. Both measures greatly helped boost September’s budget surplus, while also reducing the deficit for full Fiscal Year 2025, which ended September 30, the CBO explains in its report: September’s surplus more than doubled from the September 2024 surplus, surging from $80 billion to $164 billion. Revenues were $8 billion higher than last September. Tariff-driven customs duty revenue was $22 billion higher – a 310% increase. Outlays were $76 billion lower than year-ago. Adjusted for payments that were due in FY2024, but paid in FY2023, the government would have realized a $76 billion surplus in September, compared to a $0.370 billion surplus a year earlier. Customs duties are comprised of revenue from tariffs and taxes imposed on goods transported across international borders. “Since February, the Administration has increased tariffs on most imported goods,” the CBO notes, explaining the 310% increase in this source of revenue. September’s $76 billion decline in outlays was “attributable largely to modifications to the federal student loan program that were authorized in the 2025 reconciliation act,” the CBO reports. For the full fiscal year (FY2025), the federal budget deficit was $1.8 trillion, $8 billion less than the shortfall recorded in fiscal year 2024: Revenues increased by $308 billion (+6%) from FY2024. Receipts from customs duties (including tariffs) increased by $118 billion (+153%). relative to fiscal year 2024. Outlays rose by $301 billion (+4%). Outlays decreased for federal student loan programs, deposit insurance, and by the Small Business Administration. Outlays were higher in several areas, including the largest benefit programs and net interest on the public debt (which, for the first time, surpassed $1 trillion). Just as it was for the month of September, the deficit for the full fiscal year was influenced by the timing of outlays in Fiscal Year 2024, which were reduced because payments that were due on October 1, 2023, a Sunday, were shifted into Fiscal Year 2023 (they were made in September 2023). If not for those shifts, the FY2025 deficit would have been $80 billion (4%) less than FY2024’s deficit, instead of $8 billion lower.

The Louisiana Pharmacy Benefit Manager Monitoring Advisory Council met last month with an unusual guest — one who came with a clear conflict of interest.Dr. Alex Oshmyansky, founder and CEO of the Mark Cuban-backed Cost Plus Drug Company, was invited to brief the council on PBMs. But his company directly competes with them. No PBM representatives were invited to speak or respond. What could have been an informed policy discussion turned into an unbalanced promotional session for a single competitor — and that does not serve patients.The one-sided hearingPharmacy benefit managers have long been in Mark Cuban’s crosshairs. He claims PBMs create “an inefficient market” and lack transparency. Those complaints underpin his partnership with Oshmyansky to form Cost Plus Drug Company, a business designed to bypass PBMs entirely.If Louisiana’s leaders want real reform, they must start by restoring fairness — and remembering who the system exists to serve.At the hearing, Oshmyansky presented his company’s views on PBMs without challenge or rebuttal. The absence of PBM voices left the council with a distorted view of the system it’s supposed to oversee.That imbalance creates two serious problems.First, it deprives the council of a complete understanding of how PBMs work — what services they provide, how they negotiate lower drug prices, and how Louisiana’s new PBM regulations are already being implemented. Without hearing from the industry itself, policymakers risk forming conclusions based on partial information and advocacy, not evidence.Second, when public bodies accept one-sided testimony, patients lose. PBMs manage drug coverage for millions of Americans, ensuring access to affordable medicines and stable pharmacy networks. When their perspective is ignored, regulations may raise costs, reduce access, or disrupt care for the very people the state claims to protect.Political hostility and government biasThe broader political context in Louisiana makes this even more troubling. Gov. Jeff Landry (R) has pushed to ban PBMs entirely — an extreme measure that would upend how prescription coverage operates in the state. Meanwhile, Attorney General Liz Murrill has sued CVS, one of the nation’s largest PBMs, for warning consumers about the potential fallout of such a ban.These moves reveal a pattern: State leaders are treating PBMs not as partners with critical expertise but as enemies. That approach replaces policymaking with politics and undermines public confidence in fair regulation.RELATED: The maligned and misunderstood player that Big Pharma wants gone cagkansayin via iStock/Getty ImagesReform through balance, not biasThe PBM industry isn’t above reform. Greater transparency and accountability are necessary. But good policy starts with balance. The council should convene a second meeting — this time with PBM representatives at the table alongside Cost Plus Drug Company. The proceedings should be public and transparent.Patients deserve policies based on facts, not billionaire-backed bias. Regulation shaped by evidence, not resentment, is how states protect health, affordability, and trust.If Louisiana’s leaders want real reform, they must start by restoring fairness — and remembering who the system exists to serve.

In 2003, the all-female country music band the Dixie Chicks committed career suicide when the lead singer, Natalie Maines, told a London audience during a concert that the band was “ashamed the president of the United States [George W. Bush] is from Texas.” The girls returned home to boycotts and threats. It took them years to rebuild their brand.Just a few days ago, country music star Zach Bryan pulled a stunt that’s been dubbed by many as a Dixie Chicks 2.0. On October 6, the “Pink Skies” singer posted a snippet of his new song “Bad News” on Instagram. Some of the lyrics he chose to feature triggered a visceral reaction in his largely conservative fan base.“I heard the cops came / Cocky motherf**kers, ain't they? / And ICE is gonna come bust down your door / Try to build a house no one builds no more / But I got a telephone / Kids are all scared and all alone / The bars stopped bumping, the rock stopped rolling / The middle finger's rising and it won't stop showing / Got some bad news / The fading of the red, white, and blue.”From DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to fellow country star John Rich, Bryan received heat for the lyrics, especially considering that he’s a U.S. Navy veteran. X users and MAGA supporters suggested boycotts, the DHS mocked him by using his song “Revival” in an ICE recruitment video, and figures in conservative media like Tomi Lahren and Fox News slammed him as unpatriotic.When Rick Burgess, BlazeTV host of “The Rick Burgess Show” and “Strange Encounters,” got wind of Bryan’s latest scandal, he couldn’t help but admit that “this one's going to hurt a little bit.” “He can write about whatever he wants, but the people, like I say, can respond however they want to,” he says.But the people who make up Byran’s audience are largely conservative, as are the majority of country music fans, which doesn’t bode well for the Oklahoma troubadour.“If he writes a song to his fan base condemning ICE and getting on that wagon, we'll see,” says Rick.While Rick’s producer, Adler, understands the argument that America was built on immigrants, the reality is: “We are not in a nation-building phase.”“The entire world [is] coming here to live off of our welfare programs, and you can't sustain a country if you do that,” he says.“Plus legal immigration is how the country was built, not illegal,” adds Rick.To hear more of the panel’s analysis, watch the episode above.Want more from Rick Burgess?To enjoy more bold talk and big laughs, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.