Monthly Archives: May 2016

One more “conservative” to scratch off my list

Posted on by
Reply

There are so many people who have discredited themselves in my eyes as representatives of the right, and conservatism in particular, that by the time this election season is over, there will be virtually no one left I trust.

Now it is Daniel Hannan who has entered the fray. He takes the pose of an above-it-all intellectual, too pure to endorse the far from perfect Donald Trump. He has published a brief note on The real reason Donald Trump is unfit to be president. And here is the reason:

The real disqualification, from a conservative point of view, is Trump’s refusal to recognize that he is aspiring to an office bigger than he is.

Well la dee dah. Now aren’t we being precious. In fact, it is worse than that. He is off with the pixies in thinking that there is some kind of fastidious approach in which politics ends can be accomplished without strength of character and a hardline approach to getting one’s own way rather than another being allowed to get their way. If Hannan weren’t so famous as a torch bearer for the right, you could ignore him. In fact, from now on I will feel he can be safely ignored.

In the meantime let me repeat his various arguments, which amount to absolutely nothing at all. I might add, that I also don’t think he is right about a single thing he says. And for such a short article the number of false analogies is astonishing. A comparison of any of these with the likes of Hillary shows a blindness that is quite remarkable.

“He is a narcissistic, thin-skinned bully, a serial liar, a man who shows not the slightest respect for the office to which he aspires.”

“Next to his moral unsuitability, the fact that he is bad news for conservatives seems almost trivial. It’s not his big-government protectionism that ought to bar him from high office. It’s not even the way in which he will undo decades of progress and taint the Republicans once again with xenophobia.”

“This isn’t about Hillary. It’s about defending the republic from a candidate who is hostile to its foundational values.”

“Donald Trump is inimical to the core Republican values of personal freedom, limited government, enterprise and a patriotic foreign policy.”

“I say only one thing with absolute certainty: Don’t vote for an unfit candidate simply because you dislike another unfit candidate. Doing so makes you complicit. It means endorsing one of two amoral, power-hungry people who would very probably ignore their oath of office.”

“As Vaclav Havel used to say in Czechoslovakia, living under a Communist regime doesn’t mean that you have to legitimize it. A citizen can still retain his or her integrity by refusing to vote for the approved list, refusing to display party posters, refusing to repeat official slogans. And integrity matters. Indeed, at present, it’s pretty much all that American conservatives have left. For the love of God, cousins, don’t throw it away.”

Conservatives understand that perfection is not found in human affairs and one must work with the tools one has at hand. Hannan is one more pompous fool whose lack of judgement explains why he has failed to rise among the British Conservative Party. How is this for a rounded full-on idiocy?

“Is Trump any worse than Hillary?” isn’t just setting the bar absurdly low; it’s also the wrong question. The right question is, “Is Donald Trump fit to be president?” And the answer must surely be, “No.”

Look, stupid. The only question is which one of these two you prefer to the other. It is infuriating to read such stuff. I guess I will have to wait another 25 years for Trump to have become the perfect representation of conservative thought, which will finally occur, as it has with Reagan today, when there is someone else trying to disturb the establishment of the time that is yet to be, and the usual suspects are lamenting there is no one like Donald Trump around any more.

The petty bourgeois scum of the Yarts Council

Posted on by
Reply

The petty meanness of the left goes hand in hand with its macro cruelty and disregard for human life. Their political views have caused immense harm to hundreds of millions of human beings over the years, and their march through the institutions remains a lasting shame.

The Arts Council has in its envious worm-eaten way decided to withdraw its funding from Quadrant which will cost the magazine $60,000 this year. The letter below was written by Quadrant‘s editor in chief, Keith Windschuttle, to lay out what has been done. You can go to the link and make a donation to help the absolute best political and literary magazine in Australia.

The members of the Arts Council may think of themselves as our “class enemies” but in reality, these people have no class at all. Just petty bourgeois scum.

For the first time in Quadrant’s 60-year history we have applied for a federal literary grant and been completely denied. A savage blow to our modest finances, it is a brazen political decision intended to devalue our reputation and demonstrate that it is the Left which runs and controls the arts.

This is the first time in the magazine’s 60-year history that we have applied for a federal literary grant and been completely denied. This not only leaves a gaping hole in our modest operating budget; it is also a political decision designed to devalue our reputation and demonstrate that the Left remains in control of the arts.

Although the Australia Council itself suffered a loss of government funds in 2015, the Quadrant decision was not taken because of a lack of money for literature. Indeed, while abolishing our grant, the council increased its funding to other literary magazines, all of them left-wing. Instead of the one-year grant of $60,000 that we applied for, the others were awarded grants of four-years, with an annual increase of from $20,000 to $40,000 for each of them. The 2016 grants list for literary magazines looks like this:

Australian Book Review, increase per year $20,000; total grant $560,000
Griffith Review, increase per year $40,000; total grant $400,000
Overland magazine, increase per year $20,00; total grant $320,000

The only leftist literary magazine to miss out this year was Meanjin, but it was teetering on its last legs anyway, with a succession of stop-gap editors since radical feminist Sophie Cunningham resigned in 2010 over plans by its board, Melbourne University Press, to end its print edition and publish it online only.

If you value Quadrant, go to the link and provide a donation.

None of these publications match the output, the quality, or the readership of Quadrant. With a circulation of more than 6000 buyers/subscribers per month, it is easily the best read of these publications. Quadrant is also the most prolific publisher of poetry in Australia, in either magazine or book format, with up to 300 poems published per year for the past decade. Our Literary Editor, Les Murray, has worked on every edition since 1990, that is, for 256 of the magazine’s 518 editions. He is not only widely recognized as Australia’s greatest living poet but also Australia’s foremost poetry anthologist. He has made an outstanding and enduring contribution to the literary arts in this country, unmatched by anything achieved by the minions funded by the Australia Council.

Griffith Review and Overland are only published quarterly and each struggles to find 1000 purchasers per edition. Australian Book Review and Griffith Review publish no poetry at all. Yet all three are also heavily subsidized by universities and other government agencies. And the contents of all three have long been dominated by left-wing academic literary fashions of postmodernism and critical theory. They are little more than production lines for the Left’s limitless appetite for identity group politics of gender, race and sexual preference, and its support for any national culture, no matter how violent or barbaric, except our own.

In contrast, since its founding in 1956, Quadrant has consistently defended high culture, freedom of speech, liberal democracy and the Western Judeo-Christian tradition. Apart from the grant we have now lost, we have no other public subsidies or major patrons. We survive entirely through the honest market revenues of subscriptions, newsagent sales, and donations from subscribers.

The Australia Council’s decision to end our funding is plainly an act of revenge by its bureaucrats and advisers. It is designed to punish us for being on the same side of the political fence as the Abbott government’s Minister for the Arts, George Brandis, who himself was responding to an act of arts-funding bastardry by Julia Gillard.

Faced with the certainty that Labor would lose the 2013 election, Gillard pushed the Australia Council Act 2013 through parliament with her partners, the Greens. This was intended to both entrench the existing bureaucracy and ensure a Coalition Minister for the Arts could no longer do what all his predecessors had been able to do since 1975, that is, make his own appointments to the Literature Board and other sub-boards within the organization. George Brandis decided to circumvent this Act by cutting some Australia Council funding and placing the money saved with a new organization, Catalyst, run from within his Ministry.

However, funding for literary magazines such as Quadrant remained with the Australia Council. In response to Brandis’s action, the Australia Council cancelled last October’s round of funding applications and made us apply in February this year, announcing results last week.

Our Australia Council funding has always gone to the writers of Quadrant’s literary content, that is, our poetry, short fiction, book reviews and essays on literature, film, theatre and the arts. We had to account for every dollar of this expenditure. The Australia Council did not fund our opinion pieces, political commentary, printing, Quadrant Online, or Quadrant Books.

The decision by the Australia Council is a blatant breach of its public duty to be politically even-handed. Throughout the eleven years of the Howard government, its appointees to the Council never reduced the funding of any of the overtly left-wing literary magazines.

Despite this latest blow, we are determined to maintain the quality of our literary output. We are also determined to preserve the volume of our content and the rates we pay the authors who write for our literary pages. We intend to show adversity can bring out our best.

In the second half of 2016, Quadrant’s marks its sixtieth anniversary. We have planned a program to make this a memorable year, with a number of innovations already in the pipeline. We will be sending out invitations and placing advertisements soon.

To do this, however, we need the help of our subscribers, readers and supporters to recover the funding we have lost. Please send us a donation (tax deductible), however modest. Please print the form below, fill it in and return it ASAP. Donations can also be sent directly to the Quadrant Foundation Thank you.

He can’t go soon enough

Posted on by
Reply

As I wrote the title I thought there are a lot of people I would say that about, but in this case it’s Barack Obama. I wish him a long and frustrated retirement as he watches Donald Trump reverse everything he set in place. Which brings to mind two stories from today.

First there’s this: Obama goes after Trump in Rutgers commencement address and slams building ‘walls,’ isolationism, and ‘conspiracy theories’ – and even defends the ‘rigged’ political system. It is only because he is a narcissistic loon that he thinks anyone still pays attention to what he says, in the sense that what he says actually changes anyone’s mind about anything. He is regularly the stupidest man in any room he enters, and is almost certainly always the least informed. He can talk through a teleprompter, but off the cuff he is famously incapable of stringing two coherent words together. It is unimaginable how smart this pathological dishonest dumbbell thinks he is to be quoted as saying this:

‘In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue,’ Obama said. ‘It’s not cool to not know what you’re talking about. That’s not keeping it real or telling it like it is. That’s not challenging political correctness. That’s just not knowing what you’re talking about.’

‘When our leaders express a disdain for facts. When they’re not held accountable for repeating falsehoods and just making stuff up, and actual experts are dismissed as elitists, then we’ve got a problem,’ Obama said.

At least he’s right that we have got a problem. It’s just that he doesn’t know what that problem is.

So to the second story: Donald Trump insists Britain would NOT be at the back of the queue for a trade deal if he wins the White House. Here we have a head to head comparison between Obama and Trump. Obama blunders his way across the world, and in this case offending large sections of the British public, buying in where he has no business to be. Trump just says that this is a decision for the UK to make and whatever they decide the US will do what it can to accommodate.

Donald Trump today insisted Brexit would not put Britain at the ‘back of the queue’ to secure a US trade deal should he become president.

The presumptive Republican nominee said it would make no difference to him whether Britain decides to stay with the European Union or chooses to leave next month.

The remarks struck a markedly different tone to incumbent president Barack Obama who issued a stark warning about the prospects for a trade deal for Britain on a visit last month.

Mr Obama triggered outrage from Out campaigners who warned foreign leaders should not be intervening on Britain’s referendum.

He will be gone in less than a year, but the damage he has left behind will go forward into the deepest future.

Spinning make-believe about the facts

Posted on by
Reply

I still find this the single most important story of the Obama years and what I find ultra remarkable is how little controversy it has led to. But it’s not for want of trying. If you go to the link, you will see the thirty-six individual sets of commentaries that I have come across since the original interview with Ben Rhodes was published. In Australia, so far I have come across not a single comment except for the ones I have written myself. To which I now add another, published at Quadrant Online. I won’t even quote myself, but one of the people I discuss in the article. If you don’t find this terrifying about our collective futures and the defence of the West, I don’t know what would.

In the New York Times Sunday Magazine, David Samuels details how Ben Rhodes, a script writer, author of the Beloit Journal fiction piece titled “The Goldfish Smiles, You Smile Back,” and brother of CBS president David Rhodes, a man with zero foreign policy experience, shaped and promoted the president’s foreign policy narratives.

Samuels observes: “His lack of conventional real-world experience of the kind that normally precedes responsibility for the fate of nations — like military or diplomatic service, or even a master’s degree in international relations, rather than creative writing — is still startling.” (In this respect, of course, he matches the president’s foreign policy background: None.)

The article details how these two shaped and spun make-believe about the facts and their policies and with the aid of a supine press and a number of think tanks and social media outlets helped propagate the false narratives these two wove out of their fantasies.

It may be recalled that Jonathan Gruber did the same in relation to the changes made to the American health care system, as discussed here: Obamacare Architect: Yeah, We Lied to The “Stupid” American People to Get It Passed. And I have watched an economic policy as badly constructed as has ever been inflicted on an ignorant population. Which leads me to my own conclusion in the Quadrant article:

If Obama can permit Iran to build nuclear weapons in plain sight without bringing the world down on his head, what is it you think he cannot do by using the same techniques across every other area of government policy?

You know that if any of this were done by a Republican, the explosions would be loud and never ending which is why such actions are almost never done by parties of the right. The consequence of a supine media is an American health care system in a shambles, the economy in permanent stagnation and the Middle East in chaos, with an Iranian nuclear capability now just a matter of time.

UPDATE: There are some who understand the evil that these clowns have caused, and no people are more concerned than the Israelis. It is Obama’s fundamental anti-semitism, disguised as anti-Zionism, that has driven his policy. Which brings us to the latest development: ISRAELI LEADER: IRAN MOCKS WWII HOLOCAUST, PREPARES ANOTHER. This is the altered face of the Middle East Obama has created. Such hollow lies when this outcome has been Obama’s almost certain policy intent.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lashed out at Iran Sunday for staging a Holocaust-themed cartoon contest that mocked the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews during World War II and said the Islamic Republic was busy planning for another one. . . .

State Department spokesman Mark Toner, traveling with Secretary of State John Kerry in Saudi Arabia, said the United States was concerned the contest could “be used as a platform for Holocaust denial and revisionism and egregiously anti-Semitic speech, as it has in the past.”

“Such offensive speech should be condemned by the authorities and civil society leaders rather than encouraged. We denounce any Holocaust denial and trivialization as inflammatory and abhorrent. It is insulting to the memory of the millions of people who died in the Holocaust,” Toner said.

It is disgusting that the State Department merely sees this about denying historical events no one doubts occurred. It is not words and opinion that matter here, but the future battle lines in the Middle East. With the media comprised of compliant idiots, you will find no truth about anything of significance by reading the American press. Facilitating another Holocaust has been Obama’s aim from the start. Since we know they never tell the truth, their words mean nothing. It is the reality on the ground that matters, which absolutely everyone in the Middle East perfectly well understands. No one who wished to forestall an Iranian attack on Israel could have acted in the way Obama has done.

Why is Venezuela not at the top of the news every day?

Posted on by
Reply

Venezuela is the socialist nightmare of our time. It is kept out of the media in the same way that the famines in the Ukraine were kept out of The New York Times in the 1930s. The socialists who mis-report the news do not wish to see their dreams exposed no more than they would like to live in the countries they hide the details about.

Here’s the latest episode: SCENES FROM THE VENEZUELA APOCALYPSE: “COUNTLESS WOUNDED” AFTER 5,000 LOOT SUPERMARKET LOOKING FOR FOOD.

Capitalism works. Nothing else does. This is the lesson from Venezuela that none of the fools who follow Bernie Sanders or the Greens ever seem to understand.

There is this contrast with the United States, which is of course at the absolute opposite extreme, but is somehow disturbing in its own way. Yet if you asked Americans and Venezuelans (and Cubans and North Koreans) which they preferred, there is no doubt which of the two virtually everyone would prefer. It’s the ones who prefer the genuine austerity of Venezuela we have to worry about.

https://youtu.be/-xL8rE9DT4g

Waiting for a miracle is not a plan

Posted on by
Reply

My obscure and personal blog is in the midst of experiencing the largest number of hits in its history. My post on Ayaan Hirsi Ali has made its way out beyond these precincts so we will have our fifteen minutes of notoriety and then fade back into the pack. It did even occur to me as I wrote that earlier post that this was something I should leave alone since Hirsi Ali is a brave woman with a crucially important message. I remain disappointed that she cannot see in Donald Trump a vehicle for some kind of reversal if it is not entirely too late. And that is why I ended up writing what I did.

There is no one else anywhere to be found who might be able to take a stand and reverse this tide. There are a thousand things wrong with Trump but whatever they are, they are mere flea bites compared with the things that are wrong with Hillary and Obama. I therefore remain astounded at the way so many of the people I know dismiss Trump because of various personal characteristics of his, and ignore, or set to the side, his potential to do a quite large amount of good in spite of all the negatives he may come with.

If you are the sort of person who thinks the nation states of the West need to be preserved, there is no one else who is anywhere near being in a position to achieve this end than Trump. I am therefore not for the first time reminded of this very old story which seems to get to the heart of the issue.

There once was a flood and everyone had reached safety except for one man.

He climbed to the top of his house where the water was getting dangerously deep when a rescue helicopter came by and hovered above him and let down a rope, but the man waved it away shouting, “I don’t need saving! My Lord will come”

Reluctantly, the helicopter left.

The water continued to rise and a boat came to him but, once again, the man shouted, “No! Go away! the Lord will come and save me!” and so the boat, too, went off.

Finally, a raft came by and invited him to climb aboard, but the man was deeply religious and said, “It’s all right! The Lord will save me!”

The rain continued to pour, the water continued to rise and the man drowned.

At the gates of heaven, the man met St. Peter. Confused, he asked, “Peter, I have lived the life of a faithful man – why did you not rescue me?”

“For pity sake!” St. Peter replied. “We sent you a helicopter, a boat and finally a raft! What else did you expect us to do?”

Donald Trump, it seems to me, is that raft.

Orwellian inversions

Posted on by
Reply

David Solway has a typically sombre and unfortunately all too realistic look at our declining and likely dying civilisation in an article titled: A melancholy calculation. Melancholy it certainly is. You have to wonder whether the successor generations to ours will even be capable of understanding what has been lost.

The West is now busy at work across the entire field of social, cultural and political life promoting its own version of Lysenkoism, a misconceived exercise of supposedly vernalizing reality by transforming fact into fantasy and truth into lie for the purpose of creating the perfect society and the redeemed human being, transferable across the generations. Its assumptions about the world are guided not by common sense or genuine science but by the precepts of ideology and political desire.

Examples abound of the ubiquitous tendency to replace ontology with myth, the determinate with the fluid and the objective with the delusionary. A modest inventory of such noxious miscontruals would include:

  • Biological sexual differentiation must yield to voluntary gender identity.
  • A cooling climate is obviously warming.
  • The demonstrable failure of socialism wherever it has been tried is proof that it has not been properly implemented.
  • Democratic Israel is an apartheid state.
  • Islam with its record of unstinting bloodshed is a religion of peace.
  • Illegal immigrants are undocumented workers.
  • Terrorism is workplace violence.
  • A child in the womb is a mass of insensible protoplasm.
  • The killing of the old and the ill is merciful, even when the recipient of such tender concern is not consulted.
  • There is no such thing as truth, an axiom regarded as true.
  • Green energy is a social and economic good irrespective of crony profiteering, exorbitant cost, wildlife devastation, and unworkability in its present state.
  • Storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, tsunamis and mortality itself are natural phenomena, but Nature, which cares nothing for human life, is nonetheless sacred, vulnerable and at the mercy of human indifference.
  • Women are disadvantaged in the workforce, academia and society at large despite the fact that high-end hiring practices, legal judgments, custody protocols and university appointments, as well as student enrollment, wholly favor women to the detriment of men.
  • An enemy is a friend.
  • Criminality is innocence.
  • Losing is winning.
  • Prosperity is avarice.
  • Redistributing wealth, i.e., robbing the affluent and productive, is a form of compassion and basic justice.
  • Those who claim victim status are always credible.
  • Accumulating debt is an economic stimulus.
  • Big government is a boon to mankind.
  • War is passé (so 19th century).
  • Diplomacy and talk—the higher Twitter—will prevail over barbarism.
  • The most gynocentric society ever created is a rape culture.
  • Palestine is a historically legitimate nation.
  • Uniformity of thought and action equals cultural diversity.
  • An exploded lie merely confirms what it lies about (e.g., Rigoberta Menchu).
  • Morality is relative.
  • Merit is an unearned distinction.

Or in other words, what is, is not, and what is not, is.

As he writes, “this species of Orwellian inversion, supplanting the real by the imaginary, is now an intrinsic component of the Western psyche”. Will the concept that lies behind the word “Orwellian” even make sense to those who come after?

Idiots led by idiots

Posted on by
Reply

This remains the single most important story of the Obama years. It highlights the incompetent ignorance of the Obama administration which is matched by the ignorant incompetence of the American media. This is by John Schindler: As Boyish Ben Rhodes Drops Truth Bombs, Obama’s Media Mask Crumbles.

Across the country, wherever people gather to talk national security, the hot topic for days now has been the New York Times Magazine’s big interview with Ben Rhodes, President Obama’s foreign policy guru-cum-salesman. Especially inside the Beltway, Mr. Rhodes’ pointed comments about his work—particularly his admissions about manipulation of the media to sell Mr. Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran—have caused a stir that’s unlikely to die down soon.

It is not just a scandal as in routine errors of misjudgement. It exposes everything that Obama has done in foreign policy as not just hollow and empty but as positively endangering the survival of the West. Australia’s national security – the entire national security of the West – is dependent on the United States so when you seen it run by far-left ideological zombies with zero background knowledge or historical understanding in any of the matters they are dealing with, it ought to terrify you. There is no one in charge who wishes to protect our interests. There is no one guarding us as we sleep. We are being sold down the river. That to my knowledge this has not been raised anywhere in Australia truly reminds me of what a sleeply hollow we are. So how was Obama able to get away with it? How could American foreign policy be left in the hands of a 38 year failed novelist with absolute zero background in international relations? Back to Mr Schindler:

Mr. Rhodes made it plain that the reporters he deals with every day—that’s the essence of his job—are idiots.

“They literally know nothing,” he explained. “The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns.” It’s difficult to deny the truth of that statement, and any journalist who’s being honest won’t try. With the decline of foreign bureaus, a distressing number of those reporting on national security and foreign affairs are pretty much as Mr. Rhodes described them.

Idiots led by idiots. It is the same as the Jonathan Gruber story about how Obamacare was sold on a continuous series of outright lies that were never exposed by the media. Obama’s election and re-election occurred in exactly the same way. Everyone who paid any attention all had from the beginning understood that Obama was allowing the Iranians to secure nuclear weapons that will have devastating consequences in the years to come. And it has been a media cover up, because the media is 90% left-wing trolls.

The American economy, turning to my own expertise, is being managed at about the same level of competence, with the same level of media attention, as foreign policy. We are flying blind and if nothing is done to change direction, we will eventually crash into the side of the mountain.

Hirsi Ali discussing Donald Trump

Posted on by
2

IMG_2058

We went to see Ayaan Hirsi Ali tonight. And the only reason I asked a question was because my sciatica meant I couldn’t sit for too long so got up and stood in the queue among those with something to ask. And when my turn came, my question was this:

What advice would you give a President Donald Trump?

That was not a gotcha question. She is worried about Muslim immigration. Trump is worried about Muslim immigration. So it seemed natural to ask her what advice she would give him. This is what happened next, as I reprint the text from the note I wrote on my iPhone to a friend on the train ride home.

She went all outraged about how awful he is and gets palpitations thinking of him with his finger on the bomb. And about what a misogynist he is. So I repeated my question about what advice she would give. Same answer. She was more filled with anger at Trump than at jihad! So discouraging.

The title of her presentations, as you can see, was “Dilemmas for Liberal Society: Security & Jihad in a World of Mass Migration”. Only a percentage of us even see the issue as genuine, yet as she said right at the start, it is “the challenge of our time”. I was asking what advice she might have for the next president. As my wife said after, perhaps I should have asked what advice she would give Hillary since even the mention of Trump put her completely off her stride. I will dwell on this for a while because it spoilt my night. To quote Kant once again: if you would will the end you must will the means. I find the ends she has in mind quite obscure after all this, but how she would achieve whatever ends she intends is now completely opaque.

REPLY TO COMMENTS: Not that at this stage will anyone be reading this post who hasn’t already, and particular those who have linked to the post from Instapundit and Five Feet of Fury. (Truly extraordinary, by the way, what a link from Instapundit does for a small blog’s traffic.) But I didn’t say Hirsi Ali had directly stated that she was filled with greater anger at Trump than at jihadists. What I said was that the only time she showed deep anger during the evening was when I asked what she would say to a President Trump, which she point blank refused to answer, but instead showed genuine passion at the very idea of Trump as president and would not go to the question asked. My wife describes the moment as Hirsi Ali preferring to show her deep dislike of Trump rather than to share with the audience what advice she would give him if he became president. No one has to wish him to be president to recognise that if he were elected, he would be the one making many of the decisions that matter. And the fact is that I still don’t know what advice she would have for an incoming president, whoever it might be. And I also would like to point out that none of this is a criticism of her personally, but as a concern I often have of people who know what they like and don’t like but cannot turn their views into a coherent plan of action, including not just what to do but who they will get to do it.