Flutterby™! : political thread

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

political thread

2005-01-24 17:23:29.522847+00 by Dan Lyke 28 comments

As Ziffle notes in the Hasselhoff thread, I try to keep Flutterby non-political. But I'm really confused, so help me out: If you see Bush and his administration as reasonable leadership for this country, use this thread to help me understand that. Tell me how you reconcile the lies and incompetence, the attacks on personal liberties, the growth of federal bureacracy (and all of these are documentable from primary sources, so don't tell me about alleged media bias). Those of you who, like me, believe that this administration has been horrible for the ideals put forth in the constitution, stay out of this thread; I'm trying to understand.

[ related topics: Ziffle Politics Law Journalism and Media Civil Liberties ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-25 20:35:44.643225+00 by: aiworks

This isn't exactly what you're asking...

At this point, I don't care if human future is utopian or dystopic. I just want us as a species to get serious about one or the other.

Star Trek or Starship Troopers. I don't care which; there are Klingons or bugs out there and we need to get serious.

Bush, the neo cons, etc... are serious about dystopia. I'm not aware of anything else with a power base that's serious about utopia; so, conviction trumps.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-25 21:37:36.597696+00 by: Dan Lyke

Hmmm... I'll have to think on this. I realize too that I used the wrong loading on the words in that question. So, to clarify: I'm interested in reasons which people may feel the lies have been justified (ie: This war is so important, but you have to tell me why its so important that the aforementioned gross underestimates of costs becoming $280 billion were the only way to lure the American taxpayer into this project), why things that I see manifesting as incompetence are actually competence, why it's okay that we're ending up with all of the things that others joined me in attacking Howard Dean for promoting, like national ID cards, or why the flawed "spend way more than we have" economic policy and increased general government spending are consistent with, say, libertarian ideals.

And I'm sorry to those of you who might respond that this all feels very loaded, because I really do respect some of you and I want to understand, but I just don't.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-25 22:46:52.805712+00 by: aiworks

If I look through a dystopic lens (and I'm serious... either ideal is fine with me), here is some reasoning:

  1. War in Iraq. The ends justify the means. The end being that the U.S. is implementing a hard-line policy not unlike ancient Roman policies toward the region which appear to be the only way to neutralize the threat to American dominance. American dominance is important because in either the dystopic or utopian future, there is a single world government.
  2. Incompetence. There's stress in this administration between the neo cons and traditional conservatives and Bush is the only one who can try and strike a balance. This ambivalence appears as incompetence. My expectation is that the Democrats will continue to march into obscurity, the Republicn party will split, and the two-party system will, therefore, be upheld. Of course, the mainstream political spectrum will have taken a giant step to the right.
  3. National ID cards. This is a necessary by-product of the new role of the U.S. government (in either ideal). There are obvious advantages to both society and individual in this particular item, though.
  4. Larger spending. (I could say something about how the current U.S. budget shortfall as expressed as a percentage of GDP is in-line with what Germany and Japan treat as business as usual, but I digress) Again, this is a necessary by-product of either ideal. Is this libertarian? No. But, what does that have to do with anything?

Different people value different things. Most people prefer safety to privacy, contentment to opportunity. Bush is the only visible politician who has "Big Ideas" around these age old issues and so people flock to him.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-25 22:52:58.823045+00 by: Dan Lyke [edit history]

Again, good points. I used "libertarian" because the overall question is somewhat targeted at two or three specific readers (but anonymous or new accounts for responses are fine!).

Thanks for popping up as one of the respondents I didn't expect!

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-26 03:51:51.08413+00 by: Larry Burton

I think I completely agree with Aiworks. I'm not even sure I can add anything to that but I'll word it in my own words.

  1. Iraq needed a hardline taken with it regardless of whether weapons were actually found or not.
  2. Yeah, the incompetence is actually there and I think I agree with Aiworks on why it is there. I see the Democrats never learning from their defeats and just fading away to be replaced by the party for fiscal discipline and reduced government.
  3. I've come to conclude that I personally don't mind national ID cards as long as I'm not required to have it on my person every time I leave the house.
  4. Now the spending does bother me but I'm willing to wait and see how an expanded economy affects our ability to get out of the red ink for another year. If we're making a bunch more money (GDP) then we should be able to handle a larger debt load as long we don't keep running at a deficeit.

Personally, I'm not happy with George Bush as president but I really didn't see the only other person running that had a chance to win as being any better and I actually felt he could have been worse. I didn't see John Kerry as a strong leader and I sure didn't see him getting our troops out of Iraq any faster at all. In fact I think that his presidency could have resulted in our troups staying there longer.

Kerry never gave me any indication that he could get the economy under control.

Kerry never gave me any indication that he could run the country as a superpower.

The only reason Kerry ever gave me to vote for him was that he wasn't George Bush.

I voted for Badnarik but I'm thanking God that Bush won because I just don't believe Kerry was any sort of presidential material.

I guess it isn't so much that I support any of Bush's policy, it's just that I don't disagree with all of it and the alternative was not acceptable to me.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-26 05:31:56.81262+00 by: Diane Reese [edit history]

I am trying not to believe, Larry, that your post above indicates that you think Bush is "any sort of presidential material". I am embarrassed to live in a country that would elect such an ignorant yahoo as its President.

OH WAIT, sorry, MY BAD. I'm not supposed to post in this thread. Carry on without me.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-26 16:32:16.559368+00 by: ebradway

I'm with Dan on this one - I'm genuinely confused about how the Bush regime could manage to lead us anywhere, except down the wrong hole (e.g., Iraq).

In response to Larry:

  1. Sure, Iraq was in a bad place and needed to be taken behind the woodshack with a switch, but so does about a dozen other countries and why are we the ones to do the whippin'?
  2. The Demo's have been more of a coalition of the non-Republicans since Reagan got people to cross party lines. What's really been missing form politics since has been a really strong personality to focus either party. The Democrats keep losing because they keep nominating the guy who the Demo's who aren't strongly aligned with any one candidate vote for - so you end up the most bland choice and all the folks who strongly supported a particular candidate feel abandoned by the party long before the November elections roll around. Republicans do a better job of saying, "oh well, my number 1 choice didn't get the nomination, but at least the guy who's on the ticket is a Republican."
  3. How does your idea of a National ID differ from a passport? I have a passport and know that I can't step out of the country without it - and I also know that it is accepted as identification for plenty of things in the country. I do agree that a National ID isn't a bad thing, in fact, it's more of taking an honest approach to what's currently being done clandestinely. Why not combine the passport, SSN card and driver's license? But, do it with some forethought into balancing the needs of privacy. The whole idea of checks and balances was created so that you could have the "bad" with an offset of "good". The more I learn about the Supreme Court, the more I realize what geniuses our founding fathers were. It doesn't seem to matter what the politics are of the folks on the Supreme Court - after about 10 years they all eschew any sense of party politics and focus their efforts on balancing things based on their understanding of the Constitution. Without those guys acting as a filter for the crap the Barrel Full of Monkeys in Congress turn out, we'd really be up the creek.
  4. Haven't we done the "wait and see" thing already? Bush is only the second president ever to have a net loss of jobs. He has run up record deficits while cutting programs that benefit Americans (with the exception of defense contractors) and America (he's managed to undo everything the Demos have done for the environment over the past 25 years and is about to do more - don't get me started on the Arctic NWR...) At this point, my attitude is "wait and see" just how badly we can screw up our world.

But I guess I wasn't supposed to post to this thread either.

Dan: Will we ever be able to comment on comments, i.e., sub-threads?

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-26 16:53:28.257522+00 by: Dan Lyke [edit history]

I wanted to keep this as a "just us confused others listening" sort of thread and then try to bring the issues back to new entries on the main page. It's obvious that if we're going to make any progress on understanding we need to find ways to completely recast the discussions; we've already had a bunch of back-and-forth talking past each other threads.

Edit: Whoops, now I understand what Eric was asking, and the answer is... I don't know. Part of what I'm trying to prevent by keeping the discussion unthreaded is the "drive by commenting" problem. I don't want to turn this into /., and I want to find ways to encourage exploring more developed ideas. And I've got a few other features that I want to add before I put recursion into the template language.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-27 05:36:50.427045+00 by: TheSHAD0W

It's not so much that I see Bush as being reasonable leadership, it's that I don't understand why anyone thought Kerry would be any better. IMO he would've been a bit worse, and I didn't vote for either one of 'em.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-27 17:11:00.992383+00 by: jeff

I finally couldn't resist, but won't make any of my own comments. Here is an interesting site which seems to state an objective pro/con commentary about a narrower topic: Iraq.


But, just for the record, I didn't vote for either Bush or Kerry. I feel that politics in America have reached their zenith--in the negative ledger, that is!

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-28 00:42:26.402598+00 by: Dan Lyke

Jeff, Eric, Diane et al: Go back and read the concerns of Larry and Mark, and then realize that the issues that you and I hold of such import, and keep reiterating (over and over and...), don't show up on their lists. This is why we keep talking past each other, we have completely different sets of concerns.

On my radar of issues that the U.S. was going to have to deal with in that region before the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein barely registered. To both Mark and Larry, he was a priority. If we harp on the mechanisms by which he was taken out of power without addressing the underlying reasons he was or wasn't a threat, and the impact of the invasion of Iraq on other power structures within that region, we'll continue to have a shouting match with nothing resolved.

Neither of them sees the Democrats as a reasonable alternative to the current administration's bumbling. Making the case that the current administration is incompetent does nothing unless you can simultaneously show how there's an alternative that's more competent. Having Joe Biden vote for Condoleezza Rice after embarassing her by showing that she hasn't got a clue about the situation in Iraq does nothing to rectify that situation; hell, even the Democratic leadership is saying that.

We need to stop and listen for a bit, and understand that their concerns aren't the same concerns we have. Then maybe we can start to address their concerns, rather than just hollering louder and louder that our needs aren't getting met.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-28 17:31:26.734857+00 by: jeff

Dan--addressing the concerns of Larry and Mark, I dug a little deeper in the link I previously provided (http://www.usiraqprocon.org), and found a very good discussion of whether Saddam was regarded as a "threat" or an "imminent threat."


Unfortunately, I do not see any reasonable political entities in the US which currently can effectively challenge the current Republican leadership, and their absolute lock on power. I've been a Republican most of my life, but the party has permuted into an organization with beliefs that I don't align with anymore. Aren't they are on track to outspend any government in American history?

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-28 18:24:37.354559+00 by: aiworks [edit history]

Oh no! I'm being lumped in with "us" Republicans again. I want to make sure everyone understands:

  • Iraq itself is small potatos; it's the first step in changing everything in the Middle East. Everything in the Middle East needs to change because there's a power vacuum. The U.S. needs to do it because it can; it needs to remake the region in it's own image. The U.S. can remake the world in it's image.
  • Dan's on the right track around trying to understand people's priorities.
  • I don't prefer dystopia over utopia, but I do believe that one or the other is our manifest destiny. Who's out here pushing utopia? Certainly not the Democrats. And, while there are other entities that are pushing utopian ideals, they don't know how/refuse to enact policies to truly change things.
  • #Comment Re: made: 2005-01-28 18:35:33.004205+00 by: Dan Lyke [edit history]

    Mark, sorry to lump you in with the Republicans or "red staters", getting over those labels is my intent. The last election clearly showed that whatever I thought the core Republican voters were, there were a lot of other people who found Dubya to be the less odious choice. I'd bet a good number of those voters normally voted Democrat[Wiki], and a bunch of 'em probably normally voted Libertarian[Wiki] but thought Kerry was a worse choice than our sitting president.

    Which is why I want to take a deep breath and a step back and listen for a bit, because if I thought my vote would have made a difference I'd have voted for Kerry over Bush. For the record, I voted for Badnarik because I knew Kerry would carry California.

    #Comment Re: made: 2005-01-31 02:42:49.494398+00 by: Larry Burton

    >> I am trying not to believe, Larry, that your post above indicates that you think Bush is "any sort of presidential material".

    Dianne, whether or not Bush was any sort of presidential material was irrelevent. Bush had the job and changing to something that I thought would be worse than Bush wasn't acceptable to me. That does not mean I believe Bush was/is a good president. I don't. It means that I believe that Kerry would have been much, much worse. You may not believe that to be possible but I do.

    Eric, we have to do it because no one else can/will and where have I said that I believe we shouldn't take the other nations to the woodshed? One thing at a time.

    #Comment Re: made: 2005-01-31 18:14:50.428773+00 by: ebradway

    Dan: I felt like I was addressing Larry's concerns. But why do "we" have to reread Larry and Mark's concerns and try to answer them? Why doesn't Larry and Mark have to answer our concerns?

    Larry: I think we have to simply agree to disagree: I cannot find any justification for the US being the ones to try to remold the Middle East. I also don't understand how a Libertarian can feel that any country has the right to invade another just to fill a power vacuum. Shouldn't we just leave them to their own devices? And don't give me the anti-terrorism argument as it seems pretty clear that Iraq was not involved. Besides, should we just continue to harden our defenses?

    I can't disagree that the Democrats have been having trouble fielding a candidate who was worth a damn. In fact, my experience has been that the Demos only ever win the Presidency when the Republicans manage to field someone bad enough that he cannot win.

    I think the reason no one seems to be pushing utopia is that everyone pushing utopia disagrees on what it looks like. Since dystopia seems to be more a culination of social entropy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees dystopia. Unless something exerts energy from an external source, we're screwed.

    Or rather, there are as many ideas of what dystopia looks like as there are ideas of utopia - but one person's utopia is another's dystopia. Further, I don't think anyone would recognize a comglomeration of aspects different utopias as anything other than dystopia. Unless everyone can agree to a single utopia, we are guaranteed dystopia.

    #Comment Re: made: 2005-01-31 18:36:54.222429+00 by: Dan Lyke

    We have to learn to be more persuasive because the alternative is showing up on Larry's door step, grabbing him by the shirt collar, and yelling "you're wrong". And my experience has shown that that isn't all that effective anyway.

    Besides, I don't have the frequent flyer miles right now.

    More seriously, we have to address their concerns because guilting them into listening to our concerns doesn't work. It might convince a few people, it might make us feel all intellectual, but it doesn't change the groundswell of human opinion that moves a nation. And I don't mean specifically Larry and Mark's concerns, because we're still having civil conversation with them. Larry and Mark's concerns are representative of a much larger group of people, however, and by listening to those we can find out why our strongly held and seemingly obvious beliefs haven't swept the world.

    As for why intervention in Iraq might be a moral imperative, I'm reading Koba The Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million[Wiki] right now. I'll express some opinions when I've gotten further along in it, but it is making me think about interventionism and despotic governments just a little differently.

    #Comment Re: made: 2005-01-31 19:36:36.775349+00 by: Larry Burton

    >> Why doesn't Larry and Mark have to answer our concerns?

    The biggest reason is because George Bush won the election. If you are wanting this administration to not continue with just a new face sitting in the Oval Office in 2008 you need to answer my concerns. I was looking hard for someone I could support other than Bush. I only voted for Badnarik because I knew Bush would carry Georgia easily. I could have been persuaded to vote for a Democrat instead had the right Democrat been in place.

    The Democrats lost by 3 million votes this last election. I'll pretty much bet you that 4 million people voted for Bush that would have voted for the Democrat had their concerns been addressed. The only concern the Democrat addressed to me was that he wasn't George Bush. Outside of that everything he brought to the podium was so ambiguous that I had no idea what I would be replacing George Bush with if I voted for him.

    So if you want these guys out you need to see what my major concerns are. You need to see if you can find a candidate that can address my concerns along with your concerns and then lets run this person in 2008.

    >> Larry: I think we have to simply agree to disagree: I cannot find any justification for the US being the ones to try to remold the Middle East

    I can understand where you are coming from and I respect that, I just don't agree. If fundamentalism isn't controlled and kept in check we will continue to be in danger. The only way it can be controlled is by local governments over there taking control of the situation. If those local governments aren't willing to do so it is in our best interest to see that governments that are willing to control the fundamentalists are in place. No one else will or can do that except for the US.

    >> I also don't understand how a Libertarian can feel that any country has the right to invade another just to fill a power vacuum.

    Neither can I, Eric. I'm not a Libertarian, though I do share some of their views. Their idea of having a military work only defensively doesn't sit well with me when there are clear threats that can be dealt with offensively as a proactive measure. I'll vote for LP candidates but I'm not a member of their party. I'm an Independent.

    #Comment Re: made: 2005-01-31 20:13:39.612983+00 by: ebradway

    Maybe's Larry's great years of experience are the only difference between his stance and mine on George Bush. I really felt that ANYONE would have been better than Bush and Larry seemed to feel that anyone BUT Kerry would have been better than Bush. But it might also have been my belief that Kerry would have at least been better for the environment than Bush, and that matters more to me than foreign policy (actually, I would hope that Kerry would have the sense to try to keep the military leadership in Iraq in tact and let them work their way out, rather than try to actually change things).

    As far as a candidate in 2008? British Bookies probably have the best line on it (not that I agree in the least, but they do have an economic reason behind their choices).

    As far as the situation in the Middle East, do you personally feel threatened by Muslim fundamentalists? Do you feel threatened enough to wreak havoc on our economy and send our men and women to their deaths? I guess you answered that when you mentioned that "there are clear threats." I didn't find the threats to be clear and I didn't see that our offensive move really resolved the problems.

    #Comment Re: made: 2005-01-31 21:58:38.047948+00 by: Larry Burton [edit history]

    >> Larry seemed to feel that anyone BUT Kerry would have been better than Bush.

    I wouldn't have voted for Alan Keyes either.

    >> ...do you personally feel threatened by Muslim fundamentalists?

    Are you saying you don't?

    I don't expect a Muslim fundamentalists to be lurking around thinking about attacking me personally but I sure do see them as being a threat to our country.

    But I was taking that a little further. Any sort of fundamenalism is a threat to the safety and freedom of the world if left unchecked. That includes Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Jewish... any type of fundamentalism. Right now it just seems that the Muslim form of this is the only type of fundamentalism that has a big enough terrorist network to pose a substantial threat to the world.

    #Comment Re: [Entry #7627] Re: made: 2005-01-31 22:36:04.911592+00 by: Unknown, from NNTP

    Larry Burton <prefersanonymity_19@flutterby.com> writes:

    >    Right now it just seems that the Muslim form of this is the only
    >    type of fundamentalism that has a big enough terrorist network to
    >    pose a substantial threat to the world.

    I think it depends on your frame of reference. The people holding the reins in the US are awfully close to fundamentalist Christians for my taste, and I don't think the average dead Iraqi draws a whole lot of distinction between Muslim "terrorism" and US "peace-keeping actions".


    #Comment Re: made: 2005-02-01 01:58:07.752433+00 by: jeff


    #Comment Re: made: 2005-02-01 02:56:03.650475+00 by: Diane Reese

    Amen indeed, john.

    I feel far more threatened by the scary fundamentalist-type Christians assuming ever more power in this country than I ever have by Muslim fundamentalists. Not that I don't think the Muslims are just as crazy and also dangerous, but they're just attacking our interests around the world, not ripping apart and reassembling the structure of our nation from within.

    #Comment Re: made: 2005-02-01 04:25:06.463969+00 by: jeff [edit history]

    Dystopia = Fundamentalist Muslims; Utopia = Fundamentalist Christians; You say tomehto and I say tomahto; Utopia = Fundamentalist Muslims; Dystopia = Fundamentalist Christians

    We're all experiencing the same thing, just ascribing different valences to different forms of RELIGION.

    One of the largest misconceptions laid on the average US citizen is that Osama Bin Laden wants to attack, invade, and occupy Urbana, Ohio ("The Heart Of It All"). His most singluar stated goal (from day one) has been the removal of western influence from Muslim Holy Lands. Who is doing the attacking, the invading, and the occupying of Iraq? Who is now overtly threatening Iran?

    For the non-institutionalized it is quite simple: Israel and the United States.

    #Comment Re: [Entry #7627] Re: made: 2005-02-01 04:36:04.810121+00 by: Unknown, from NNTP

    jeff <prefersanonymity_98@flutterby.com> writes:

    > Dystopia = Fundamentalist Muslims; Utopia = Fundamentalist Christians;

    false dichotomy.

    dystopia = fundamentalism (minimal personal freedom).

    utopia = lack of fundamentalism (maximal personal freedom).


    #Comment Re: made: 2005-02-01 17:13:56.246841+00 by: ebradway

    John: Depends on perspecting. If you are fundamentalist, then utopia is a fundamentalist society.

    Jeff: You are right on with the comment about Bin Laden. What he seems most interested in is getting the US (and probably the Isrealites) out of the Middle East. I say, let'em have it.

    I just finished reading The Kite Runner. Interesting perspectives on Afganistan. Makes me really think that the trouble in the Middle East is more a product of the USA and USSR meddling with it. The Taliban was put into power by the US, as was Saddam Husein. Before the USSR invaded Afganistan and before the Iran/Iraq war, Afganistan and Iran were cultural hubs with very progressive governments. "Those people" (the ones we keep refering to as Rag Heads) have cultural identities and histories reaching back millenia. They have had empires come and go as well as major shifts in religious beliefs.

    Maybe we need to just sit back and let culture take over. Although I do think we needed to remove the governments we put in place in the 80s.

    #Comment Re: made: 2005-02-01 17:31:08.737869+00 by: Dan Lyke

    Eric, I think you need to go back a few years before the Iran/Iraq war to call Iraq all of that. Saddam Hussein in power then, and the Soviets had outfitted his military.

    #Comment Re: Iraq made: 2005-02-04 10:59:00.085337+00 by: quinthar

    Hi. This is my first post, as I just met Dan today. I'm not sure if anyone is still reading this thread, but I'll toss in a couple thoughts (I'll go a bit long; I aplogize in advance).

    - Regarding Iraq, I think the big weakness of the anti-war forces was their complete failure to enunciate an alternative to war other than "maintain the status quo indefinitely". Given that the status quo was "the US foots the bill and takes the blame for a flawed set of sanctions that strengthen Hussein's hold on Iraq while harming its citizens", many favored the war merely because no more palatable alternative was presented, *irrespective* of whether or not there were WMD. (Granted, the suspicion they were there lent impetus, but I'd have favored war even without them.)

    - Furthermore, the palatable alternatives presented (force Hussein to allow reliable interviews of the scientists without "observers" or hostage-taking of their families, force Hussein to allow UN troops to distribute aid directly to the Iraqi people rather than it being diverted or hoarded and the shortages blamed on the sanctions, *force* Hussein to do anything decisive) were actively opposed by "anti-war" UN member states because they involved the real threat of force. Thus by cutting off the "threat" of war, the only option remained was "actual" war or indefinite status quo.

    - This means that the public was given a false dichotomy (war or an even worse peace), and the anti-war advocates utterly failed to rally around or even strongly propose less drastic alternatives.

    As for why Bush is attractive, time and again he offers compelling alternatives to our present problems (real or imagined) that are clear and decisive. This pattern has been repeated again and again with such issues as:

    - How do we reduce our foreign dependence on oil? (Drill our own oil) - How do we stem the tide of rising Muslim extremism? (Go on the offense) - How do we shore up Social Security (assuming it's even broken to begin with)? (Make it unnecessary by creating an 'ownership society') - How do we reduce soaring medical costs? (Whip the lawyers)

    To each of these questions, Bush has offered an answer. Maybe not an answer you like, or believe has a chance in hell of working. But he's had answers, phrased in plain english for the average Joe to understand, and that's powerful.

    I think the big reason I voted for Kerry (in Utah) was beause he is smart, while Bush is painfully stupid. This was abundently clear in the debates. But it was also abundently clear that Kerry was unable to lay out a grand vision for the future. That's fine by me -- I believe in incremental improvements and I'm ok with a 9-5 leader who just makes a series of small, smart decisions. But most people want to be lead by a powerful, visionary, passionate figures. Kerry wasn't that, so he lost. By a slim, but significant margin.

    The Democrats need a passionate leader, compelling vision, and grand ambition. We need to pick a leader early, and all back a single solution. We shouldn't stifle debate, but we should make a clear deliniation between debate and execution. Basically, we just need to figure out who we are, what we want, and go get it. The Republicans spent the better part of two decades focused on this, and now we see the results. We fucked up, got lazy, and are paying for it. Hopefully, they'll do the same someday, and we just need to get ready.