A Small Group of Thoughtful, Committed Citizens

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Once more with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Activism is the rent I pay for living on this planet.
- Alice Walker

Background: The Senate rejected an amendment that would have prohibited drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (I hate double negatives; the Senate allowed drilling.) However, moderate Republicans in the House were able to convince the leadership to remove Arctic drilling from the House version of the budget.

Now for a Schoolhouse Rock moment: Next, the budget has to go to a Conference Committee, where committee members work out identical language to be sent on to the President for his signature or veto.

So now it becomes important that the language out of Committee prohibits Arctic drilling. Once more, please write to your Senators and Representatives about this issue. Some salient points include the facts that we could save more oil by raising fuel efficiency standards and that the livlihood of the Gwich'in people would be destroyed by the drilling.

On a completely unrelated, but fun, note, you can see the lyrics to "I'm Just a Bill" from Schoolhouse Rock here: America Rock lyrics. Scroll down the page a bit. And phooey to those of you who are too young to even know what I'm talking about ;)

Monday, November 14, 2005

Wal-Mart: the Movie

As we gear up to start buying Christmas presents, you might want to give this movie a look: Wal-Mart the Movie: The High Cost of Low Price. This is from the movie's website:

Everyone has seen Wal-Mart's lavish television commercials, but have you ever wondered why Wal-Mart spends so much money trying to convince you it cares about your family, your community, and even its own employees? What is it hiding?

WAL-MART: The High Cost of Low Price takes you behind the glitz and into the real lives of workers and their families, business owners and their communities, in an extraordinary journey that will challenge the way you think, feel... and shop.

Amazingly enough, there are several local screenings, free of charge. I thought for sure I was going to have to go into the city. Go here to find a screening by entering your zip code: Walmart Movie.

Sunday, November 13, 2005

Is THIS God's Will for Women?

Andrea Yates, the Texas woman who killed her children by drowning them in the bathtub, might be re-tried. Or there could be a plea bargain. But the general idea is that the first trial failed to serve justice and they're going to give it another shot. Of the 6 psychiatrists who testified, only one said that Ms. Yates was sufficiently mentally competent to understand that she was killing her children. And that doctor gave faulty testimony on other points, which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agrees could have inappropriately influenced the jury.

Legally, the trial is about how we care for people with mental illness. And there's plenty to look at there, heaven knows. But socially, I think we have to give ultra-conservative Christianity and "submitted" relationships a good hard look. (Whether or not that hard look can become a legal inquiry is for someone else to know.) What is their relationship to violence? In spite of their lofty rhetoric, is this working for women and children? Or for men either, for that matter?

Why, in conservative Christian churches, is family planning a sin? Even in Catholicism, it's not inappropriate to control the size of a family. It's how you do it that they want to legislate. However, some conservatives in Catholicism and in very conservative evangelical churches have gone farther. Let God determine the size of your family -no family planning whatsoever. So Andrea Yates had six pregnancies (one miscarriage) in eight years of marriage.

Moreover, she had no authority within the marriage to even suggest that they consider something else. When her husband moved her and four of the children into a bus, where she was supposed to home-school (and I use the term "home" loosely) the children, her only possible response was "yes, dear." Ms. Yates was isolated from other relationships and from loving, external critique of her situation. She could see one friend, they had no church because the husband couldn't find one that met his needs or standards, and she was only allowed to go out on rare and special occasions.

I have grave ethical concerns with medically treating the almost-inevitable suicidal depression that she experienced. Why not look at the power dynamics that (possibly) created the depression in the first place? I hasten to add that I know very little about Ms Yates's actual diagnosis or mental health history -only what's been reported in the news. She may well have had life-long mental illness that can't all be attributed to the marriage that so robbed her of personal power. But there are thousands and thousands of women living in similar submitted relationships. They can't all have life-long mental health issues.

Are they really "liberated from feminism" as the rhetoric suggests -or is Christianity truly this willing to take such grave risks with women and children, who -after all- are also created in God's image? It seems to me that we're right back to "the personal is political." These decisions that conservative Christians want to think of as private and centered in the home really aren't. They have enormous societal consequences. And frankly, I think the power structures that allow or even foster this kind of tragedy need to be critiqued both within the church and externally.

Do we need more evidence that submitted relationships don't liberate anyone -least of all women and children? Women and men of faith need to stand for a more powerful (and harder to figure out) faith. The truncated, isolated life that Andrea Yates was forced to lead is not consistent with God's hopes for us. How we affirm that statement in a way that makes a difference for people is less clear to me, but it could certainly start with removing the onus of sin from family planning. From there, we could move on to helping men let go of the notion that they were put on earth to be stewards of women.

Friday, November 11, 2005

Friday Random 10

This is our weekly confessional post regarding what we listen to when no one else is listening. I'll post mine here on the front page. Everyone else is invited to share lists in the comments section.

So, take out your iPod. Put it in shuffle mode and tell us the first ten songs that appear. And no fair leaving out the ones that make you look like a total dork or adding ones you think will make you look cool. Here are mine.

Veni Sancte Spiritus; Taize
Rambles of Spring; Tommy Makem
O Rey Chhori; Udit Narayan
No Easy Walk to Freedom; Peter, Paul, & Mary
Never Say Goodbye; Hayley Westenra
Shall We Gather at the River; Anonymous 4
De Ruada/ A Herba de Namorar; Luar Na Lubre
Radha Kaise Na Jale; Ahsa Bhonsle
Requiem for the Giant Trees; Anne Hills
A Pirate Looks at Forty; Jimmy Buffett

Thursday, November 10, 2005

ANWR Update & What Does This All Mean?

Last night, the House of Representatives dropped the controversial plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Rep. Charles Bass, a Republican from New Hampshire, apparently led the way in persuading the leaders to drop the proposal.

As a person of some environmentalist principles, I'm convinced that this isn't just a victory for environmentalists. It's a victory for everyone. However, there is the fact that President Bush had declared arctic drilling to be his "number one energy priority." Whoops. So, from the perspective of the White House this is another "number one priority" to be scuttled. I'm not terribly sympathetic, but still, this has to be getting a little old.

The question becomes, what does the left do now? How do we (or, DO we) capitalize on this turn of events? Who's on the bench for political leadership? Are there any Democrats who are substantively different from Republicans? Can we do anything other than mimic the right in our organizing strategies?

About the last question... I do have some ideas. I think any leadership from the left MUST look different from what the political right does. I don't think we can or should use their tools for our agenda. I think it's going to be all about grassroots, community organizing. But we need to get started -yesterday.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

More hope????

Yes, there are the elections and the general political conniptions. But really, Mike over at Musing's Musings has covered those quite nicely.

Last night, I was so steamed with Dennis Hastert I could hardly see straight. He is my Representative and I think it's safe to say that we are mutually dissatisfied with each other. He's not going to be exactly shocked by the news that I'm irritated with him.

As a "decisive" response to the information that the United Sates has secret prisons where we torture political detainees, he and Sen. Bill Frist called for an investigation. Okay... but they aren't interested in how such a travesty occurred; they want to know who tattled. It's so obvious where I'm going to go with this, I'll just spare you my rant.

But here's where the hope comes in. Republican Senators are stepping right up to the plate. (See below.... I don't usually have much in common with Republican Senators.) The Washington Post quoted Sen. Lindsay Graham (R -SC) as saying, "Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. The real story is those jails." Sens. McCain, Hagel, and Warner aren't letting go of this issue, either.

The Republicans aren't just jumping when the White House says "jump". This is remarkable behavior from elected officials of either party. There is hope here that the White House has dealt itself another losing hand.

As David Batstone of Sojourners Magazine states so nicely, opposing torture is not a partisan cause. The practice of torture so fully embraces evil it dehumanizes both the torturer and its victim. No just cause can be won if it relies on torture to succeed.

Maybe I should whisper. I don't want to tempt fate. I haven't felt this hopeful in.... a long time.

But do write a note to Rep. Hastert if you get a chance. I wouldn't want us to lose the opportunity to point out to him that there's no political percentage in his position. Not to nag (much), but REALLY write if you live, as I do, in Representative Hastert's Congressional district. He only has a job as long as we say he does.

Where There is Despair....

...a little smidge of hope. Just a little one.

I have a much-fretted-about, definite-maybe relationship with the Catholic Church. My discomfort wasn't exactly eased by a meeting last night, but that's another story for another time.

What could help (definitely.... maybe....) is the news that the Vatican has issued a defense of Darwin's theory of natural selection, coupled with a strongly worded (by their standards) critique of Christian fundamentalists who want to interpret the creation stories literally. So there, Kansas!

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, describes Darwin's theory and the Genesis account as "perfectly compatible". His statements have been interpreted as a rejection of "intelligent design" as some sort of competing theory to describe the origin of life. I can't find a copy of the full text in English, but presumably it will show up here: Pontifical Council for Culture eventually.

Of course, it's not as though I was waiting for the Vatican to tell me what to think about so-called "intelligent design". Moreover, the Catholic Church has supported something like evolution since before Darwin even formulated the theory. Check out Augustine's De genesi ad litteram if you don't believe me. Nonetheless, it's nice to note that some tiny part of my life isn't taking this long march to the right of the political spectrum.

Or am I grasping at straws?

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Who's Surprised?

I am:
4%
Republican.

"You're a complete liberal, utterly without a trace of Republicanism. Your strength is as the strength of ten because your heart is pure. (You hope.)"

Are You A Republican?

I saw the quiz referenced here: Easy Bake Coven.

There is a theory...

There is a theory which states that if anybody ever discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory that states that this has already happened.
-Douglas Adams

In our family, when someone becomes entangled in a ridiculous argument, another person chimes in with "There is a theory....". The implication is that perhaps in some other bizarre and inexplicable universe the argument would make sense. Sometimes it lightens a tense situation and gives the poor-argument-constructer a humorous way out of a situation.

Every time I hear the news lately, it seems, I just shake my head and say "There is a theory...". President Bush says -in the same speech, in the same SENTENCE: "We don't torture." and "Any activity we conduct is within the law."

Okay... what could that mean? There are only three possibilities that I see.

1) Torture is legal -except it isn't. Torture violates the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which of course we could say we're ignoring for this conflict. Except, we don't say that. Check out the Air Force's documents re: Laws of War and Laws in War. They explicitly say that the armed forces hold to the policy that the Geneva Conventions are applicable in any armed conflict.

2)If it's legal, it's, by definition, not torture. It's a subtle difference from the first possibility, but it could make a difference. If only it were legal, the argument would make sense. Alas for their side... not so much.

3) Bush is lying. It's against the law AND we do it. Sadly, this one explains the data.

There is no humor possible here. There is no light-hearted way out of this logical (and moral) jam. I'm just plain ashamed of the people inhabiting the White House and horrified at the work that's being done in my name.

Monday, November 07, 2005

Stand Up and Admit It!

Admitting you're wrong.... I don't like it when I have to do it. I don't know anyone who's crazy about it. But when you're wrong, you're wrong, and a grown-up admits it and tries to rectify any harm that comes from having been wrong. Dick Gephardt did it a few weeks ago in Seattle.

It was a mistake... I was wrong.

Of course, he was talking about his vote to give President Bush permission to take us into war. Admitting it is not enough, of course, and it doesn't bring back anyone who has died so needlessly. Any admissions and apologies will probably be cold comfort to the parents who have lost children in this debacle.

But still... while it may not be sufficient, it is necessary. And I think he deserves support for standing up and admitting it.

Where are the rest of them, one wonders -the 77 Senators and 296 Representatives, Democrats and Republicans, who voted to take us into war?

Let's find out.

Act for Change is sponsoring a questionnaire for all members of Congress who voted on October 11, 2002 to give the President unilateral authority to invade Iraq. The single question will be "Knowing what you know now, would you have cast a different vote when President Bush asked you for a blank check for war?" If you'd like the answer to that question, go here: Act for Change petition to affix your name to the letter.

Popcorn and Social Change

A few days ago, I invited people to join me in watching Chasing Freedom. I hadn't seen the movie. It just seemed like the sort of thing that people interested in both film and social justice might enjoy. I don't want to spill too many beans here, but please watch this movie.

It's the fictionalized account of a true story. It isn't "change my life" great, although I think it could be for, say, students in an international social work, or international relations, or women's studies class. I'm an easy sell on issues of social justice; I care about them all, it seems. But even so, the movie energized me on issues of women's rights in fundamentalist regimes. Moreover, I didn't exactly need to be sold on the importance of education as a tool for creating social justice, but the movie reinforces that point as well.

So, in short, renting this movie would be time well spent. Someone please watch it so we can talk about it less elliptically!

The movie inspired me to track down these organizations, focusing on similar goals:

I'm still in the beginning phase of exploring these organizations, so don't jump in with both feet on my say-so! If anyone else has any ideas for ways to get involved with these issues, I'm definitely interested.

Sunday, November 06, 2005

Lord, hear our prayer....

October in the Catholic Church is a hard month for me. I made it through another one, though, and I learned a thing or two.

October is Pro-Life Month in this church. Now I think I have a dandy and solid argument as to why, in fact, I am pro-life. However, I must concede, anti-abortion types don't agree with me. To them, a person who supports a woman's right to choose and Roe v. Wade can not, by definition, be pro-life. So, we're a bit at loggerheads and usually just ignore each other.

And, to make things tougher for me, pro-life month usually devolves into an anti-abortion "let's protect babies" love-fest. We don't have special Masses offered for the people on death row, although the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church are quite clear about capital punishment. We don't have prayers of the faithful even for the people (possibly) killed by the people on death row. We don't define "life issues" any more broadly, and discuss war or poverty or workers' rights... or any of the apparently infinite ways that humans design to truncate the experiences of other humans.

To be fair, most parishes do at least some of these things most of the time. It's just that they/we focus in a particular way in October -and that way gives me pause. I think it misses the mark most of the time.

And I figured out one thing that would help me.

This sex-abuse scandal, at least here in my parish, is the elephant under the rug. Membership in the Catholic Church is a tough sell on a good day, and priests who abuse children and bishops who protect those priests against all the evidence have made it way harder. And we're just not talking about it. It starts to feel like embattled priests want to divert attention from sins they commit back to sins we commit. It's even better if it's a sin only a woman can commit. (I'm not suggesting that's their explicit intention. I'm saying that's how it feels to me.)

All I want (well, all I want to start with) is one prayer, every once in a while... and here it is: "For those who have had their faith shattered by the current scandal in the church, that they find peace and reconciliation."

We pray to the Lord.

It's such a modest proposal, really. What do you bet it doesn't happen?

Friday, November 04, 2005

Updates on Petitions and Legislation

I've been "offering everyone the opportunity to participate in the political process" (okay... nagging) on several issues lately, and I thought I'd let you know how they are moving along.

MoveOn got the 500,000 signatures opposing Samuel Alito's nomination and will be running an ad in Roll Call. The fight continues by hiring community organizers to mobilize local groups. (Remember when President Bush's "number one priority" was privatization of Social Security? Grassroots organizing was an effective tool for the political left on that issue, and it's being used again.)

The support for the anti-torture amendment is growing, which makes the threatened Presidential veto a politically dangerous move -not to mention unethical, but I've already covered that part. 90 Senators, including 46 Republicans, support the amendment and the US Catholic Bishops have come out in favor if it as well. Watch, though, for a proposed exemption for the CIA. That's the new idea from the White House and it would effectively gut the amendment.

As for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it's still close. Sen. Maria Cantwell fought the good fight with a floor amendment yesterday. She came within three votes of stopping the plan for drilling. Unfortunately, a miss is as good as a mile. So the discussion moves to the House of Representatives. The house is likely to vote on the budget bill next week, so.... you know what to do.

Popcorn and Social Change

Now playing, for the month of November:

Chasing Freedom.

Here's the link to the imdb review: imdb.

I haven't seen it. It could be terrible, but we'll find out together. Don't accidentally rent Chasing Liberty, which should be similar but REALLY isn't! Ask me how I know.

My idea is that sometime during the month, everybody who wants to, rents the movie. When you've watched it, report back and let us know what you think. Would it be good for a class to watch? Did you like it? Did you learn anything? Did it seem to portray issues fairly? Were you energized about the issues that the movie raised? Add whatever else you want to tell us.

I have it from netflix now. I'll see if I can con the long-suffering spouse into watching it with me. But if anybody kisses anybody else, he's out. That boy and romance..... but that's another post for another time.

Friday Random 10

Here's the game: Take out your iPod. Put it in shuffle mode and tell us the first 10 songs that show up. And no fair leaving out songs that make you look like a dork or adding ones that make you look cool. Here are mine for this week:

Manic Monday; The Bangles
Cursum Perficio; Enya (wasn't that on Mike's list last week? I really did already have it!
The Sound of Music; Julie Andrews (Oh, good grief.... there really is a reason for this. I made a playlist for an Oscar night party -music from movies- and this obviously had to be there.)
Take Lord, Receive; St. Louis Jesuits
Romeo and Juliet Suite; Prokofiev
Etude in E Major, OP. 10; No. 3: Chopin
Roll With the Changes; REO Speedwagon
My Give a Damn's Busted; Jo Dee Messina
Tour de France; Kraftwerk
New Attitude; Patti LaBelle

Geez, have I embarrassed myself enough this week?

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Today, Congress is discussing whether or not to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling. The arguments are going to be couched in terms of a balanced budget and long-term energy security.

Now, how could we be against those things? But here's the thing. The first oil from the arctic wouldn't be available for 10 years and estimates are that it would lower the price of gasoline by one cent per gallon. We could do more and faster by raising average fuel efficiency standards.

Moreover, industrial development of the Arctic refuge would decimate local wildlife and destroy the livelihood -and possibly the culture- of the Gwich'in people, who depend on the Porcupine River caribou herd.

For drilling to be allowed, language needs to be added to the budget reconciliation bill and approved by the entire Congress. The votes on the reconciliation bill are likely to be close and under the rules, the proposal can't be blocked by a Senate filibuster.

So, what can you do?

Learn more about this issue here (but do it fast, please!): World Wildlife Federation and ANWR Fish and Wildlife Service.

This issue has to be discussed in both chambers of Congress, so contacting your Representative and Senators would be great. Follow this link if you aren't sure how to do that or who they are: Contacting Congress.

How hard can it be to reduce personal fuel consumption so that we save one penny per gallon consumed? I'd need to save about 30 cents a month. I bet I could do that by turning off the engine while waiting for trains to pass, checking tire pressure, and changing the fuel filter (all those things my dad told me to do, but we'll let that little tidbit slide...). Share other ideas here; I'm all ears.

So, women are expendable...

...is that what you're telling me?

No one is going to fall over dead from astonishment if I say "the religious right has gone too far this time." It's neither shocking that they've done it nor that I'm ranting about it. Here's the deal.

Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) is a sexually transmitted infection that in turn causes about 70% of cervical cancers. It kills about 4000 women each year. Let me say that again. It KILLS 4000 women a year. Okay, you heard me. I'll move on.

There is a new vaccine that seems to protect against it; clinical trials are looking good. You can find more information about mortality from cervical cancer as well as the new vaccine here: MedicalGeo. What could be better? Surely, the pro-life position would be to save the lives of 4000 women? Once again, "naive" and "Andrea" go in the same sentence.

The immunization has to happen at about puberty. So the idea is to immunize 12-year-olds. And the religious right is concerned that these 12 year olds will now feel like they have free rein... permission, even.... to be sexually active. Because 12-year-olds are going to decide against being sexually active because of a cancer they might get when they're 60. Has anyone in this camp actually MET any 12-year-olds, for crying out loud????

It's such a ludicrous argument that surely they've noticed that it's ridiculous. Of course, no one with a brain wants 12-year-olds to be sexually active. And having had two 12-year-olds of my very own, I can tell you that premature sexual activity is a very scary thought. Scare parents about this enough and they are very likely to jump onto this unstable bandwagon.

The wagon is unstable because there's not a reliable study to be found that suggests that we can scare kids into behavior that's good for them. Not with sex. Not with drugs. Not even with safe driving.

So, the religious right either believes something that's ridiculous and is trying to convince us to believe it too, or something else is going on. Assume for the moment that they're not stupid (they just think we are). What is their real agenda? It's hard to step back from suggesting that they want women to be virgins until they marry ... or to die.

Well now, there's an edifying pro-life position .

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

And Another Thing....

I know you've probably already had it up to here with Samuel Alito, but this is important. If MoveOn can get half a million signatures to their petition opposing his nomination by tomorrow, they will run an ad in Roll Call, the Congressional newspaper, advising the Senators of the total number of signatures. They need about 5,000 more signatures from Illinois.

Yes, they will ask you to also make a donation, but you don't have to do it. Follow this link to sign the petition and to send a message to your Senator regarding the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court: Petition.

The 24-hour deadline is important because the "Gang of 14" -a group of centrist Senators from both parties- is meeting tomorrow to discuss their commitment to keeping a filibuster off the table -or, more properly, I suppose, off the floor. We need to let them know that the electorate is fully engaged in the Confirmation process and that Samuel Alito would not be our choice.

Okay, he wouldn't be MY choice!

Rule of Law???? Prove It!

Three years after the initial request, the Pentagon has finally given quasi-permission for United Nations human rights investigators to visit the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. But -and this is a big "but"- they won't have access to the prisoners. Well, why the heck not?

The International Committee of the Red Cross has had access, and they have a long track record of this kind of work. But -and this is another big "but"- they also have a policy of keeping their findings confidential. This seems weird, but it makes a certain sense. The confidentiality is the trade-off for improving the situations of the prisoners and also for allowing unscheduled access. Surprise visits, in other words. And it seems likely that surprise visits would result in the most accurate information.

But the Pentagon and the Bush administration are hiding behind this confidentiality. They want us to believe that national security requires that humans rights investigations be kept to a minimum. Really? Why?

We've already violated the Geneva Conventions in untold numbers of ways. Refusing to register the names of the detainees is only a small example. Much worse, the administration acknowledges in an official report to the UN Committee Against Torture that there has been torture at Guantanamo Bay. And, to his and our shame, Vice-President Cheney is actively campaigning to formally adopt cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of prisoners as a legal instrument of U.S. policy.

Reject torture as a policy option. Why must this even be said, for heaven's sake? In the most recent State of the Union address, President Bush committed our nation to "stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity" and to protect "the rule of law." Well, stand up. Do it. Show me that you're protecting human dignity and the rule of law in Guantanamo Bay, because at this point I'll only believe it when I see it. And if, as I suspect, you didn't mean it about human dignity, then understand that there is no political percentage in this. A series of polls (one summarized here: Retro Poll) suggests that somewhere between 72 and 89% of Americans oppose torture as a tool of U.S. policy.

So, what do we do now? I don't mean "the body politic"; I mean you and me. One thing we can do is call our Senators and encourage them to stand strong against the threatened veto of the anti-torture amendment added to the defense appropriations bill. And we might consider reminding Donald Rumsfeld that he's using our money to pay for this war, and we want to know what's happening to prisoners we're detaining. Let the U.N. investigators have access to prisoners.

edited to correct egregious grammar errors.... See what happens when I'm upset?!

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

A Year of Living Generously -first thoughts

Once upon a time, there was a good bishop. No, this isn't fiction. There was at least one: Ken Untener, of Saginaw. And about 10 years ago, he started a diocesan policy that every meeting on church property had to start with the question "How is the situation of poor people improved by our gathering?" Everyone always wanted to reframe the question to mean "poor in spirit", but he wasn't having it. (There was just a remnant of autocratic bishop; I don't think they can help it.) He wanted to be sure that poor people were kept front and center in the mission of the church. Two things happened. First, people did start to recast meetings and events so that the lives of poor people became the tiniest bit easier. And secondly, and no less importantly, they let go of some meetings and events where that just couldn't be done. (Oh, hallelujah... fewer meetings. Where do I sign up?)

So, in my quest to lead a generous life, my first thought is to keep that question in the front of my mind.

Now what that means specifically is still a little unclear. Being me, I need to think first. I think I'm going to spend this first week of my "new year" just noticing if any changes happen more or less seamlessly, just because the question is out there. We'll see.