Bremer and Chalabi

This Jim Hoagland Washington Post column is one of a number of articles I've seen recently detailing the pursuit of Ahmed Chalabi by an Iraqi kangaroo court, which L. Paul Bremer had something to do with arranging. It seems like a fairly bizarre situation, and if anybody is able to dig up and publish the actual story behind what's going on there I'll be very interested to read it. It's just one of those stories I have a difficult time trying to fit into my mental model of the universe.

Wasting Money On Security

Bruce Schneier is a computer security guru. His book Applied Cryptography is considered the standard reference for encryption and secure protocols. He's followed that up with authoritative books exploring social engineering and other security risks, making him a household name among slashdotters. He was interviewed by Newsweek for his opinions on anti-terror measures in the US. Some choice quotes:

"You can imagine living in a community where the landlord keeps hornets’ nests, and he keeps whacking the nests. And then he keeps telling you, you need to buy protective clothing. He’s right, but I wish he’d stop whacking the nest. In a sense that’s what we are doing. Far better for our security would be to deal with the underlying geopolitical situations that cause the problem. That may be politically untenable, but as a security professional, that is the best way to spend your money."

and

"I think it’s an enormous waste of money. Politicians tend to prefer security countermeasures that are very visible, to make it look like they’re doing something. So they will tend to pick things that are visible even if they are less effective. Training FBI agents in Arabic is a really good idea, but no one is going to see it. Fingerprinting foreigners at the border is a very visible thing that, even if it is less effective, is going to look like we’re doing something."

A New Dark Age

Sticking with Foreign Policy Mag, Naill Ferguson has a fascinating article about the possible fate of the world should existing powers (the US and EU) collapse and the emerging powers (China, India) fail to emerge. The article is certainly open to criticism in a number of areas, but it offers some thought-provoking new perspectives.

I think Ferguson substantially short sells the impact of technology and trade to unify as much as (or, methinks, more than) disintegrate. These things are causing nation states to decline in power in certain regards, and from a certain standpoint they are shifting power "downward" as Ferguson states in that individuals and organizations are more empowered. But also, as Samuel Huntinton argued (as blogged on July 24th) it is creating more transnational perspectives and power structures. The world is getting smaller, and it seems overly pessimistic to only look at the down side of this. There is much to be gained from creating broad avenues for intellectual and economic exchange for individuals and groups around the globe.

Additionally Ferguson's realpolitik perspective in comparing his future scenario with the 9th century neglects the immense measure of human progress that has passed in the intervening time. Certainly the concepts considered in such an analysis are soft and fuzzy, but human knowledge and perspective has been utterly changed in the past millenium, and while certainly humans are no less savage than ever, I think it a stretch to overlook the tangible benefits of the modes of thinking, of political and economic systems, and moral perspectives developed over the centuries. The way things played out in societies of the 9th century are not necessarily the way they would play out now.

Examining Al Qaeda

Foreign Policy Magainze has a brilliant Think Again article exploring Al Qaeda and Islamic militancy in general. This should be required reading on the subject.

Careful To Inform Ourselves

From my reading of Betrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy I wanted to excerpt a section that Russell himself excerpted from John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Russell uses this section to demonstrate the sort of moderation, forebearance, and acceptance of multiple viewpoints that Russell finds characteristic of the early enlightenment, a reaction to the intolerance, bloodshed, and destruction of the Reformation and the 30 Years War. It serves that purpose, but it also struck me as an elegant statement of collegiality and a guideline for productive discourse. This passage certainly holds with Henry's feelings that people of earlier times had a much better command of the language, and it also has prompted me to use the word "methinks" more often. The excerpt follows:

"Since therefore it is unavoidable to the greatest part of men, if not all, to have several opinions, without certain and indubitable proofs of their truth; and it carries too great an imputation of ignorance, lightness, or folly, for men to quit and renounce their former tenets presently upon the the offer of an argument which they cannot immediately answer and show the insufficiency of; it would, methinks, become all men to maintain peace and the common offices of humanity and friendship in the diversity of opinions, since we cannot reasonably expect that any one should readily and obsequiously quit his own opinion, and embrace ours with a blind resignation to an authority which the understanding of man acknowledges not. For, however it may often mistake, it can own no other guide but reason, nor blindly submit to the will and dictates of another. If he you would bring over to your sentiments be one that examines before he assents, you must give him leave at his leisure to go over the account again, and, recalling what is out of mind, examine the particulars, to see on which side the advantage lies; and if he will not think over arguments of weight enough to engage him anew in so much pains, it is but what we do often ourselves in the like case; and we should take it amiss of others should prescribe to us what points we should study: and if he be one who wishes to take his opinions upon trust, how can we imagine that he should renounce those tenets which time and custom have so settled in his mind that he thinks them self-evident, and of an unquestionable certainty; or which he takes to be impressions he has received from God himself, or from men sent by him? How can we expect, I say, that opinions thus settled should be given up to the arguments or authority of a stranger or adversary? Especially if there be any suspicion of interest or design, as there never fails to be where men find themselves ill-treated. We should do well to commiserate our mutual ignorance, and endeavour to remove it in all the gentle and fair ways of information, and not instantly treat others ill as obstinate and perverse because they will not renounce their own and receive our opinions, or at least those we would force upon them, when it is more than probable that we are no less obstinate in not embracing some of theirs. For where is the man that has uncontestable evidence of the truth of all that he holds, or of the falsehood of all he condemns; or can say, that he has examined to the bottom of all his own or other men's opinions? The necessity of believing without knowledge, nay, often upon very slight grounds, in this fleeting state of action and blindness we are in, should make us more busy and careful to inform ourselves than to restrain others... There is reason to think, that if men were better instructed themselves, they would be less imposing on others."

I find Locke, based on Russell's treatment of him, to be admirable in many respects, and well deserving of the place history has given him. His pragmatism and reasonableness set him apart from many of his contemporaries. Where Liebniz, Descartes, and Spinoza construct elaborate, unified theories of philosophy, which, looking back, now appear absurd, Locke had no grand theory and applied himself in areas where he felt that the new empiricism could yield new insights. While certain of his ideas have come to appear to be as absurd as others, they are all guided by a keen intuition and reasonable logical arguments. And as Russell argues, even in many cases where Locke was wrong he created systems of thought that proved very productive to other theorists. He intuitively avoids many of the pitfalls of linguistic issues (universals, substance, and essence and the like) that had much occupied Plato and Aristotle and had sent astray nearly every philospher since the early Greeks. In his embrace of empiricism he laid a sound foundation on which other Enlightenment philosophers would build.

Protecting Our Nation

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

-George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

(He shoulda saved the Mission Accomplished banner for this speech)

Gone Into Hiding

Points to Harold Meyerson for this Washington Post satire on the sudden dissappearance of neocons in the Bush administration.

High Court to Resolve Sentencing Confusion

The Supreme Court today granted certiorari on two cases that address the open questions in the Blakely aftermath. Oral arguments are scheduled for October 4. (The Court's order may be found here.)

Movement On Farm Subsidies

This LA Times article is woefully short on details, but it seems the Oxfam-led protest by developing nations in Cancun has yielded results. I'll be curious to see a) the actual terms of the agreement and b) how this will play in US domestic politics (the presidential election in particular) where farm subsidies are next to untouchable.

Update: The Washington Post's coverage adds a few more details. Apparently the "first installment" includes a 20% reduction in subsidies by developed nations, but a couple of loopholes exist that would allow this concession to be substantially reduced.

Two Americas

NYT is reporting here that the total adjusted gross income listed on tax returns from 2000 to 2002 fell by 5.1 percent--9.2 percent if inflation is taken into account. (There are lots of good numbers in that article--definitely worth reading.)

Meanwhile, FT is reporting here that chief executive salaries have risen by 22.2 percent in 2003--double the rise from 2002.

Re: Scolding the Supreme Court

While adding little new content to the discussion, the Washington Post is showing surprising persistence by running another strongly-worded editorial urging the Supreme Court to act quickly to resolve the Blakely mess.

Media and the Loss of a Deliberative Democracy

I have been thinking some more over the weekend about what to add to Ted Turner's comments I referenced in an earlier post, and I kept coming back to one of the quotes in that piece:

a hundred-person choir gives you a choice of voices, but they're all singing the same song.

That accurately illustrates for me the problem of distinguishing diversity of content from variety of content--most of what is available today is not original nor does it represent different interests. Rather, it just repeats the same bland message in different ways.

But yet I do find tremendous hope in the internet. To me, encouraging options for internet content is really where reformers should be putting their efforts. I recognize that most people probably would not seek out diverse content even if it is available, but it would be a huge leap forward if diverse content is more readily available (right now I don't think most people have access or know where to look).

A Failure of the Press

Howard Kurtz's Media Notes for Friday the 23rd (link goes to the current day, you may need to scroll down) is a nice tie-in to Ted Turner's excellent column on media consolidation (as well as RJ Samuelson's July 14th column). Kurtz picks up on a little-noted comment from Tom Kean that there had only been one reference to terrorism in the 2000 presidential campaign. From this Kurtz concludes that in additions to failures on behalf of the Clinton and Bush administrations and various government agencies, the press also dropped the ball on terrorism. He finds one short article on this topic, but most of the major press does not appear to be covering it (which should be no surprise given Turner's comments). This drives home the seriousness of the issues brought up in Samuelson's critique of campaign news coverage. By allowing the candidates themselves to define the issues of the campaign, by not shooting down the obvious bullshit shoveled out by the campaign HQ's, by covering the election as a horse-race rather than an opportunity for political discourse, the press allows important issues to fall through the cracks. I recall that well prior to the 9/11 attacks a congressional investigation found that terrorism was clearly the greatest threat to American security in the post-Cold War era. How do we get through a presidential election without anyone asking the candidates about the most dire security threat facing our country? It is again worth noting that the media is not just another industry to be played for competitive advantage and profit margin. It plays a vital role in the healthy functioning of our system of government. Failures of the press can be just as costly as failures at the CIA.

Huntington on the Anti-American Left

A few months ago Samuel Huntington released a paper, which only recently came to my attention, entitled Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite. (I believe that highlights, underlines, and inflamatory comments in brackets were added by whoever posted it there. It was the only place I could find the full text on the internet.) In it he argues that American elites have become increasingly isolated from popular opinion on the subject of America's national identity, and, absurdly, that in doing so, their souls have died. It's a paper that contains a lot of data and raises many interesting points, but makes far too many broad-reaching, unsupported, and unintuitive assertions.

Huntington identifies three main categories of denationalized elites. There is the universalist who believes that America has become the universal nation and that all other societies have become, or are in the process of becoming, Americanized. This, to me, sounds a bit like neo-con philosophy. There is the economist who sees transnational business transcending and usurping national governments. And the moralist who believes international systems are morally superior to national systems. Into this group Huntington lumps intellectuals, academics, and journalists. While two of these three groups (the universal and the economic) appear to be substantially or primarily conservative, Huntington zeroes in on the unpatriotic left for most of the rest of the paper.

Some of the more interesting content in the article is in the "Unrepresentative Democracy" section, where Huntington surveys various polls that show large gaps between highly educated American elites (including policy leaders) and the public on a variety of foreign policy topics. He makes a convincing case that the public is considerably more isolationist, protectionist, and, interestingly, pacifist than the nation's political leadership.

In terms of interacting with the world, Huntington writes that the US is faced with three options: they can open themselves to other cultures and peoples, they can try to remake other cultures and peoples in our own image, or we can strive to maintain our own distinct culture. The first, he says, would lead to the replacement of national identity by other cultural and economic identities. In the second, America loses its national identity to become the "dominant component of a supranational empire". Only the third will maintain America's national identity.

Huntingon then proceeds to define what exactly America's national identity is, which I imagine is quite similar to what he has written in his recent book Who Are We? on the topic of immigration. According to Huntington the core of the American identity is that we are Anglo-Protestant with a strong religious commitment. He makes the case, similar to the book excerpt published in Foreign Policy Magazine, that previous immigrants have been assimilated and compelled to adapt to this Anglo-Protestant culture. Should this culture be lost, he warns, America will no longer be America.

I find this all rather confusing as Huntington fails to ground his basic values and assumptions with any compelling arguments. Besides the historical argument that America has, in fact, had an Anglo-Protestant culture, Huntington makes no arguments as to why this as opposed to, say a capitalist-democratic value system, is the core of the American identity. Nor does he make any substantial argument as to the inherent value of nationalism, although his language makes clear that he thinks there is one. Huntington also spends some time establishing how much political participation has declined in the US, only to make the completely unsupported assertion that the national identity gap between the public and politicians is a primary cause for this decline. And finally, although he repeatedly makes reference to the denationalized elite having lost their souls, he never gives any explanation as to what he means by this. Some of these lapses may be due to the limitations of the format, but if so, perhaps he should have set more modest goals for this paper which could have been accomplished within the bounds of the format.

Additionally the paper is filled with infuriating cheap-shots and inconsistencies. Some of his broad generalizations as to the intentions of moral transnationals, such as the desire to replace federal and state laws with a customary international law "not set forth in either statutes or treaties", appear to me to be the opinion of a small subset of moral transnationals, but Huntington is quite content to attribute these views to the group as a whole. Of course, he contradicts that position by asserting that the same group promotes the creation of institutions like the International Criminal Court, which it's true would supercede national laws, but would do so under a specific set of statutes laid out in the treaty. Similarly at one point Huntington attacks the moral transnationals for promoting actions taken through international systems such as the UN as being superior to those of individual nations. At another point Huntington contradicts this by stating that transnationals have a much higher preference towards the US acting alone (as opposed to acting with support from allies) in international crises than the public. At another spot, Huntington takes a shot at liberals by implying that they crassly use patriotism to achieve their own ends. In view of the last few years, to target such criticism at liberals seems ironic. There's a bit of irony as well in the poll numbers Huntington presents answering whether various people would be willing to fight for America. Whites scores much higher in their responses than blacks or hispanics. I would bet that the demographics of the US military would show the opposite trend. Huntington levels the charge that the end of the Cold War allowed liberals to engage in foreign policy goals such as nation building, as he calls it "foreign policy as social work" which compromised national security. But is our national security not most threatened by failed states, precisely the sort of states targeted by "foreign policy as social work"? It seems to me that the foreign policy objectives of liberals have been vindicated by the current security climate, and now even the consummate anti-nation builder, George Bush, has been forced to recant. Near the end, Huntington presents the absurd, but unfortunately common, idea that because America is a nation with stronger religious tendencies than other nations, its actions are more moral.

In all, it is an unfortunately weak effort by Huntington. However, while it is almost certainly the most shoddy piece I've read by him, it does share tendencies I've observed in his other writing. He does an excellent job of finding interesting topics, and finding strong research points to set the table for an insightful discussion. Unfortunately, all to often he abandons that discussion before it even starts to launch an unsupported attack on liberals.

Certainly there are points worth discussing here. I agree with Huntington's thesis that elites, academics, and intellectuals are becoming less nationalist over time. I'm willing to buy his assertion that this is opening up a gap between them and popular sentiment on nationalist issues. A fascinating discussion could be had as to the merits of the various views of the transnationalists and in analyzing why the sentiments of the public have not changed along with those of the elites. On the topic of national identity, what exactly is it that has made America great, and why? Where are the cultural boundaries beyond which we might see our greatness decline? Are there ways in which our culture might be improved or are we supposing that its historical state has been ideal? Huntington seemed to be approaching many of these points in his paper, but each time, at the last moment, diverted into something far less interesting or relevant. Well, at least he has provided some food for thought.

I've Got a Good Idea: Let's Invade Iran!

No cookie for Charles Krauthammer, who is clearly as retarded as ever. In his Washington Post column about Iran today Krauthammer makes the very good points that a) invading Iran would be an order of magnitude more difficult than it was to invade Iraq and b) Iran is a country ripe for revolution. His conclusion from these two points? Naturally, we need to invade, and thankfully our occupation of Iraq will just make it that much easier. Nevermind that our occupation of Iraq has overextended our budget and our military manpower to dangerous levels. And what he also doesn't discuss is the difference in occupying the two nations. If we're enjoying our occupation of Iraq, just wait until we get into a country with more people who hate the US more and have a stronger sense of national identity. Oh boy, that'll be fun.

Give the Man A Cookie

This op-ed in defense of reading is probably the least retarded thing George Will has ever written.

Big Media Sucks, Says Ted Turner

This Washington Monthly article is an interesting read. As a sidenote, witness testimony at trial is considered more reliable when it is a statement against one's own interest.

My take on the story (and another big media rant) later this weekend.

Re: Twisting the Story

In a Washington Post op-ed today, Thomas Davis III, the chairman of the House Government Reform Committee claims that the Valerie Plame leak is not worth investigating in part due to the fact that the Butler report "casts serious doubt on the credibility of Joseph Wilson". That's quite a leap in logic. I fail to see how Wilson's credibility should even enter the picture. What does Joe Wilson have to do with the fact that someone leaked the identity of a covert intelligence agent, which, if I recall correctly, is a federal felony? The Butler report is not a get out of jail free card for anything that vaguely involves Joe Wilson.

Who Needs Judicial Review?

Along the lines of our discussion of judicial review over the weekend, it seems Tom DeLay has also decided that the judiciary should not have the power to deem legislation unconstitutional. The Washington Post has an editorial criticizing DeLay's efforts to remove various bills from judicial oversight. DeLay is currently focusing on wedge issues such as gay marriage and the Pledge of Allegiance. The Post believes that ruling on constitutionality is a "central function of the federal judiciary". As per our discussion, I agree.

Following up on that discussion, I believe that if the legislature is given the right (or duty) to determine constitutionality it would almost certainly follow that they would not deem the laws they themselves write and pass to be unconstitutional, which would necessarily put the power of laws passed by congress on a level footing with the constitution itself. Aside from the fact that this seems a bad idea on the face of it, it seems clear that it was not what was intended in the constitution. Why state that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and make the process for ammendment to the constitution much more difficult and convoluted than the process of passing legislation if there was to be no substantive difference between the two?

Further, the history of judicial review does not start and end with Marbury v. Madison. Even in 17th century England, Chief Justice Edward Coke determined that both the King and the Parliament were subject to the laws of the land. He wrote: "in many cases, the common law will controul Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul it, and adjudge such Act to be void." This concept bubbled up in a few other cases prior to US independence, including one case, Lechmere's Case which was quite influention with John Adams and other revolutionaries. This would suggest that the founders were familiar with the concept of judicial review when they created teh constitution. There were also a number of cases in which judicial review was invoked in US courts even prior to the ratification of the constitution which challenged constitutionality of legislation on the state level (Holmes v. Walton, Commonwealth v. Caton, Rutgers v. Waddington, Trevett v. Weeden, Baryard v. Singleton). Regarding the last case, the plaintiff's attorney, James Iredell (later a Supreme Court justice) wrote: "Either the fundamental unrepealable law must be obeyed, by the rejection of an act unwarranted by and inconsistent with it, or you must obey an act founded on authority not given by the people. ...It is not that the judges are appointed arbiters... but when an act is necessarily brought in judgment before them, they must, unavoidable, determine one way or another... Must not they say whether they will obey the Constitution or an act inconsistent with it?"

Although not explicitly elaborated in the constitution, the power of judicial review was discussed by the framers. Elbridge Gerry wrote that "the Judiciary... by their exposition of the laws [would have] a power of deciding on their Constitutionality." The Anti-Federalist letters attacked the constitution on the issue of judicial review, an d Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist, defended judicial review as a necessary element of the constitutional structure. The Federalist No. 78 is probably the single most critical document to consider in any discussion of judicial review. In it Hamilton established both the right of the court under the constitution to review constitutionality, and the necessity of their doing so. It is my understanding that much of the Marbury v. Madison decision was based on The Federalist No. 78. On judicial review, Hamilton wrote the following, which I'll leave as the final words on the subject:

Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

This exercise of judicial discretion, in determining between two contradictory laws, is exemplified in a familiar instance. It not uncommonly happens, that there are two statutes existing at one time, clashing in whole or in part with each other, and neither of them containing any repealing clause or expression. In such a case, it is the province of the courts to liquidate and fix their meaning and operation. So far as they can, by any fair construction, be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire to dictate that this should be done; where this is impracticable, it becomes a matter of necessity to give effect to one, in exclusion of the other. The rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is, that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first. But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a rule not enjoined upon the courts by legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an EQUAL authority, that which was the last indication of its will should have the preference.

But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivative power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed. They teach us that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.

Twisting the Story

The Washington Post has an editorial today with their take on the new updates to the Niger uranium story. They, like most coverage of the issue are missing the point. The editorial cites the Butler report as saying that intel was reasonable until October 2002 and that Joe Wilson's report did not change their assessment. While it may be true that it did not change the assessment of the British intelligence, that was not the case with the CIA. As you may recall George Tenet accepted responsibility for the charge being included in Bush's state of the union, and said the CIA should not have allowed him to say that. Previous to Tenet's statement there were numerous reports that various people in the CIA had attempted to contact the administration to warn them off of this intel, but those efforts were ignored. These claims, to my knowledge, have never been satisfactorily explored. The point is that regardless of what data has come up now, at the time of the speech, George Bush was presenting data that US intelligence believed to have been discredited.

This is not to say that the new light that has been cast on the issue is meaningless. If it is the case that Saddam Hussein was actively trying to acquire nuclear materials, that would certainly support the administration's claims that Saddam was, in fact, still pursuing nuclear weapons and it will bolster their claims that the war was necessary. What it does not do is have any impact on whether the administration was out of line in pumping the uranium claims when the US intelligence community thought those claims were bogus.

Unfortunately much of the press coverage seems to suggest that maybe Bush was right to include the famous 16 words in his speech, because now evidence justifies it. Whether or not the accusation ultimately proves to be true, the administration promoted it at a time when it was believed to not be true which demonstrates dubious judgment and ethics on their part. Nothing that happens now will change that.