And Speaking Of Awful Senators...

by hilzoy

Via FDL, the New Haven Independent has this:

"Student Kevin Miner, who said he'd voted for Lieberman twice in 2000, said one question had been eating him up for a long time: "I want to know what the moral reasoning is from a man who went from being a freedom rider to a torture apologist. I want to know what happened."

The crowd — dozens of students joined by a lot of faculty and staff — applauded the question.

"I'm not a torture apologist," said Lieberman, citing "outrage" at absence of due process for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Then he went on to explain why he was one of only 12 Democratic senators to support a recent detainee bill. The bill prohibits some of the worst abuses of detainees, but many Democrats say it gives the president too much room to decide which other interrogation techniques are permissible and allow inhumane treatment of suspects.

Echoing Republican arguments, Lieberman told the student: "We're at war. It's hard for a lot of people to understand this, because it's a different kind of war." The people we are capturing are "enemy combatants," and in many countries are given fewer rights than prisoners of war. "We are now giving them more rights than prisoners of war get in most countries of war."

"I know it's fasionable to say what you're saying," Lieberman told the student. But "these are people who people working for us suspect of wanting to kill us. All of us! Any one of us! And it doesn't mean that they aren't human beings ... But they don't deserve the same rights that citizens of the United States do." The comment garnered a smattering of applause."

It's bad enough to go on about how we're fighting a new kind of war, etc., as though his listeners weren't aware of the nature of terrorism, and as though that, all by itself, explains why we don't have to provide basic legal protection to prisoners. It's worse to say that "it's hard for people to understand this". It's not that hard to understand at all, actually; and the idea that people who disagree with Lieberman just can't wrap their tiny little brains around this not particularly complicated idea is a pretty self-serving way to explain away his critics. But what really got me was the idea that his questioner said what he did because it is "fashionable" (or 'fasionable', as the article has it.)

Fashionable? FASHIONABLE???

Yep: the only reason I can think of for objecting to a bill that allows for torture, strips away habeas rights, and allows the President and the Secretary of Defense to define all of us as enemy combatants and lock us up indefinitely is that it's fashionable to do so. I mean: all the cool kidz belong to the ACLU, except for the really cool ones, who belong to Human Rights Watch and the Center for Constitutional Rights; and I, sheep-like, have simply been following along in their wake. (It's my metaphor, and if I want my sheep to be swimming, I get to make them swim.)

I mean: what other possible explanation could there be?

Sheesh.

Comments

[SomeOtherDude]

Principles as fashion?

Is there a Right-Wing aesthetic we're missing?

[heet]

deep breaths, hilzoy. Deep breaths.

The truth is, America doesn't have it in her... She'll disappoint more than surpise these days. I know, I know... I hate it, too. Dumping Joe is a good step towards fixing this crap, though.

[Andrew]

Is there a Right-Wing aesthetic we're missing?

I know that was why I signed up...all the cool kids were.

Doesn't everyone think the right is hip?

Surely I'm not that out of touch.

[liberal japonicus]

I have this depressing feeling that torture will never be reviled as much as disco...

[Andrew]

I'm not going to lie to you...I'm torn on that myself.

[Jesurgislac]

This is where the tactic of having multiple people at a meeting, randomly placed through the crowd, all prepared to ask the same question, sometimes works.

Other than that: chuh.

[Katherine]

"outraged" by the lack of due process at GTMO, huh? Funny way of showing it. I'm pretty sure the only reason he even voted yes on Specter's amendment to restore habeas is that Lamont's in the race--he voted the opposite vote way last fall.

Until that vote on the Specter amendment, he was tied with Ben Nelson for the worst record on these issues in the Democratic Senate caucus.

[Platosearwax]

I have this depressing feeling that torture will never be reviled as much as disco...

Torture - disco. Potato - pot-ah-to.

[Ugh]

these are people who people working for us suspect of wanting to kill us. All of us! Any one of us! And it doesn't mean that they aren't human beings

Well you certainly could have fooled me Joe, given the way they we've treated them.

But they don't deserve the same rights that citizens of the United States do

Because we "suspect" them of wanting to kill us. Right.

Muslismsm! Wants to kills us and takes the precious.

[Ugh]

OT - hmmmm... I wonder how the right will spin this story:

Fisherman Mohammed Hussein told ABC News that he used to discover more than 10 bodies a day floating in the Tigris River where it flows by the Baghdad neighborhood of Al Rashdia.

"We used to fetch them out," he said, "but now there are so many we leave them. Otherwise, there would be no time for fishing."

Also note:

A former House page says he had sex with then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) after receiving explicit e-mails in which the congressman described assessing the sexual orientation and physical attributes of underage pages but waiting until later to make direct advances.

The page was 21 at the time.

[KCinDC]

Hey, what are you complaining about? He said "these are people who people working for us suspect of wanting to kill us." A real Bush worshipper would have said "these are people who want to kill us." Of course, if he's smart enough to recognizes the difference it ought to have some effect on how he believes they should be treated, so maybe that means he's even worse.

[Ugh]

And speaking of awful persons, f*ck Dick Cheney:

Bush, he says, is "protecting America" while the Democrats advocate "reckless" policies that add up to a "strategy of resignation and defeatism in the face of determined enemies."

Yes, Pelosi's first act as Speaker will be to surrender to the terrorists.

[cleek]

Yes, Pelosi's first act as Speaker will be to surrender to the terrorists.

"Members of the House, as first order of business, I submit to you legislaation HR #1: Surrender To The Terrorists. All in favor? ... anyone?"

[hilzoy]

You have to admire the chutzpah of Dick Cheney, of all people, calling anyone else's foreign policy "reckless". I mean: what exactly is the Iraq war if not a staggering act of recklessness, whose result will almost certainly be to give al Qaeda a new base of operations, not to mention the ability to hone their skills against Real Live American Troops, while simultaneously destroying whatever good will we might have enjoyed in the Middle East for a generation?

[Ugh]

I mean: what exactly is the Iraq war if not a staggering act of recklessness, whose result will almost certainly be to give al Qaeda a new base of operations, not to mention the ability to hone their skills against Real Live American Troops, while simultaneously destroying whatever good will we might have enjoyed in the Middle East for a generation?

It got Bush & Co. re-elected didn't it? Mission Accomplished. They care only about one thing when it comes to foreign policy: How will this affect domestic politics? Their only want is to hold and retain power.

If it means sending thousands of american troops to their deaths in a war that ultimately weakens the U.S.'s status in the world and gives al Qaeda a lift? So be it. Giving al Qaeda a lift is actually bonus for them, if the group was to go away, how would the administration frighten the populace into voting for them?

[dcbob]

Well, as long as the sheep are in a wake, couldn't they do something more inappropriately metaphorical than 'follow?' How about 'flocking'?

[socratic_me]

Better yet, since the sheep are all trying to be cool, they should do some nifty wakeboarding, or at least splash about a bit.

[Nell]

Digby hit on another almost as contemptible part of Lieberman's response:

He knows exactly what he's saying and that's more unforgiveable than some wingnut rube who says outright that all the people in Guantanamo are terrorists. Joe's not actually making the decision to torture and imprison potentially innocent people, you see. "Somebody who works for us" is.

[Nell]

That said, I find the polls in the Connecticut race to be a cold splash of water. Lieberman is clearly planning to caucus with Republicans, so in fact we need to turn six other Senate seats and this one. If you know anyone in Connecticut, please take a bit of time to talk with them about this race.

[Andrew]

Lieberman is clearly planning to caucus with Republicans

Link? Everything I've heard from him says that he still plans to caucus with the Democrats.

[dmbeaster]

Andrew:

It's only well founded speculation at this time, but does anyone doubt that if Lieberman is the swing vote between the two camps for control of Congress, he will go with the Republicans? They will offer him the sun, moon and stars to do so, and he'll go for it after extorting as much as possible for himself. If he is not the swing vote, he will probably stay with the Dems (for now). He is only principle is self-interest.

[Anarch]

Link? Everything I've heard from him says that he still plans to caucus with the Democrats.

Gotta run, but what I've heard says that he's planning to caucus with the Democrats if he's accorded a position of seniority within the caucus (specifically a committee chair of his choosing, IIRC). His views on caucusing without that seniority have been conspicuous in their absence.

[John Thullen]

I think Lieberman, the fab faddist, will show up in capri pants at the Republican caucus like Audrey Hepburn shopping at the Gap.

Listen, kids, everyone knows the U.N. and the Geneva Conventions went out with the hula hoop. But have you seen those cool 11th century duds designed by the fashion mavens over at the chic House of Red State. It's all the rage. Throwback is payback, sweetie.

If you hang at the velvet rope at Club Gitmo you might catch a glimpse of the coolest celebrities on parade. Abu Gharib, where they use to do the Lyndie, is so retro.

The new wave is teenaged pages in open-crotch blue business suits with little American flag lapel pins.

New wave becomes permanent wave early in November when the new designs hit the runway.

Expect a quick Halloween leadup featuring that fashion stalwart, the low tax-cut halter top with scary Democrat terrorist lip gloss.

[Nell]

Andrew, what dmbeaster said. I thought my use of the world 'clearly' would have indicated that the statement was my own judgment from the evidence; otherwise I'd have just said "he plans to caucus with the Republicans."

The basis for my opinion, in addition to the evidence of twelve years of the man spouting Republican talking points on the Sunday shows, is this:

Lieberman's hired Republicans to run his campaign, won't criticize the Republican leadership for anything including the Foley disgrace, and won't endorse the Democratic House candidates in Connecticut.

You'll pardon me if I don't rely on what Lieberman himself says. There's a great bit of video somewhere of the man flatly denying he'd said something -- followed by video of him saying it, mere days before. A man who'll lie about the very recent past can't be trusted when he talks about his intentions for the future.

[Matt Weiner]

More good news.

[SomeOtherDude]

I think Lieberman, the fab faddist, will show up in capri pants at the Republican caucus like Audrey Hepburn shopping at the Gap.

Posted by: John Thullen | October 08, 2006 at 12:49 PM

oh man, that is funny.

[Jay S]

Speeking of awful senators:

SEN. TALENT:

She’s recently said, to a group of her supporters in Paris, she...

MS. McCASKILL: Now, I...

SEN. TALENT: ...said to them she’s deeply concerned that we haven’t granted habeas corpus privileges to captured terrorists, which is—would allow them to sue us because they’re not getting high-speed Internet.

An interesting interpretation of the meaning of habeas corpus from a law maker.

[cleek]

allow them to sue us because they’re not getting high-speed Internet

the Senate is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body on earth, right ?

[Nell]

I'm assuming there's a Paris, Missouri; otherwise, Talent's smear sounds even more disconnected from reality.

[Andrew]

I like Josh, but I wish he'd taken the time to do a little research before making comments like that. I looked into this back in July, and the evidence simply doesn't support the 'he was punished for Hamdan' narrative. I can't prove that he wasn't, of course, but sometimes things don't fit neatly into a political viewpoint.

[Andrew]

That was reference Matt's 1:10 PM, btw.

[OCSteve]

An interesting interpretation of the meaning of habeas corpus from a law maker.

Well let’s see… They get special meals, special handling of their book, better medical attention than the soldiers guarding them, breaks for prayer, outdoor privileges, movies, and interrogation in a Lazy-Boy. High-speed Internet must be on the short list right? That and concealed-carry permits…

Standard disclaimer – I believe they should all have prompt tribunals with a chance to clear themselves. Liberal rules. Beyond that – I’m not sure how much access to US courts they should have. Remember that in other wars the penalty for illegal combatants was often summary execution. No tribunal, no court, the decision of one officer on the spot. There are two extremes here.

[Anarch]

...and interrogation in a Lazy-Boy.

The phrase "Potemkin Interrogation" leaps to mind...

[Amanda]

special meals, special handling of their book, breaks for prayer
I think people, even prisoners, even criminals, even terrorists, should be afforded respect for their religion.

better medical attention than the soldiers guarding them
Then we need to improve the medical attention the soldiers get, don't we? I would rather everyone have the best medical care possible. I would rather not say "Person A's got it better than Person B, so we need to cut down the quality of care Person A gets." Of course, resources are not infinite, but I would rather err on the side of better-for-all when at all possible.

outdoor privileges, movies, and interrogation in a Lazy-Boy
Possibly excessive if true, I will agree. But is it true? Do you have a link? (I always accept further education :))

Remember that in other wars the penalty for illegal combatants was often summary execution. No tribunal, no court, the decision of one officer on the spot.
I will quote a friend here: "The moral failures of others do not excuse our own."

[hilzoy]

OCSteve: all of that, if true, does not make it right that detainees are being kept without any opportunity to appeal their detention, in some cases after they have been found innocent by their CSRTs, which are themselves not exactly models of due process. And now we have denied them that right in perpetuity.

I understand why we were paying people large bounties to turn in al Qaeda and Taliban people in Afghanistan. But I think that if you adopt a method like that, which almost guarantees that some people will be wrongly detained, you have a special obligation to try to figure out who is innocent and who is guilty, and release the innocent ASAP.

[hilzoy]

And Andrew: I'm really glad if Swift didn't get promoted in the normal way. I read a profile of him once, and he sounded like a smart and decent and principled guy. I'd much rather it turn out that he didn't suffer for that.

[Nell]

Andrew, you might want to email Josh Marshall with a link to your July post. Few people outside the services (and not everyone inside) have much of an idea how promotions boards work, or what the 'normal' rate of promotions is.

[Andrew]

Nell,

I didn't know the rates myself, until I did the research. I was surprised how tough the competition is for Navy JAG. I sent a note to Josh and today's guest-blogger...we'll see if anything comes of it.

[hilzoy]

Andrew -- great minds think alike. Check your email. (Grin.)

[Jesurgislac]

OCSteve: Remember that in other wars the penalty for illegal combatants was often summary execution.

Remember that the US has signed up to the Geneva Conventions since those "other wars", and the Geneva Conventions do not permit signatories to define even people "taken on the battlefield" as illegal combatants liable to summary execution.

Nor do the Geneva Conventions permit signatories to imprison kidnapped civilians and claim them to be "illegal combatants".

Standard disclaimer – I believe they should all have prompt tribunals with a chance to clear themselves.

Of course they should - that's what they were entitled to under the Geneva Conventions. But the Bush administration chose to disregard the Geneva Conventions, and so none of the prisoners of war or kidnapped civilians got the prompt tribunal they were entitled to, as you well know.

[IntricateHelix]

Commenting on Ugh’s 10:37AM post:

This whole notion of resignation, defeatism, and/or surrender to the enemies if democrats win the house or senate has really been eating at me. This whole idea is rampant amongst republicans in southeastern Pennsylvania where I have been living the last several weeks--even amongst moderates.

Now this is just from my personal observations and discussions. When you ask S.E. PA republicans about important issues, such as abuse of executive power, upholding the constitution, the disaster with detainees, providing adequate funding in biomedical research (stem cells, cancer, etc.), the need for a new course in Iraq, etc., they all overwhelmingly agree change is needed! Most are extremely irritated with Bush.

But, dare you ask what the alternative option(s) are and you will get an answer along the lines of---“Cut and run, leave Iraq a total disaster full of terrorists, and have [insert degrading adjective here] liberals in control.”

I guess my point is that Democrats in SE PA (Sestak, Murphy, Casey) are doing a horrible job getting their positions and ideas out to the voters. Hardly anyone knows about what democrats WOULD ACTUALLY DO. Democrats need to get their act together and lay out what their ideas and plans are to the voters-- or else they will loose. The average voter has no idea what Sestak, Murphy, and Casey are campaigning for.

Curt Weldon has been playing off of the resignation and defeatism motto as if it is all he has (which I think it is). Democrats need to step up to the plate. In my eyes they are failing to gain more supporters.

[liberal japonicus]

Interesting point, IH. However, it seems that the key in modern elections is depressing the opponents base while getting your base to vote. This permits the best defensive posture and then permits the person elected to govern according to the will of who voted for him/her. This is why the tactics of negative campaigning continue to work and why they haven't been given up.

Also, perhaps there are a lot of Republicans who cling to their party identification by using that kind of reasoning, but are going to be too embarassed to vote for a party that encourages the kind of behavior we have seen.

I agree that in an ideal world, the party that gathers the most supporters would be the winner, but I am again reminded of the movie Slap Shot and Paul Newman saying that he wants to play 'old time hockey'. Of course, in that movie as well, accusations of perversion helped the underdogs win as well...

[cleek]

Hardly anyone knows about what democrats WOULD ACTUALLY DO.

i suspect what they'd do is a lot like what the Republicans would do, but with minor tweaks along the edges. but, they can't really say that...

[John Thullen]

"Slap Shot"

I have no problem with the Democrats putting the Hanson Brothers on the ice for every minute of playing time between now and November 2008, AND defining their governing agenda.

The modern Republican Party deserves to lose on the issues AND be beaten to a pulp for good measure.

I'll take both or either one. Whatever is the winning formula.

Then, of course, there is the business of actually governing, and since we the electorate cough up ones of our own on either side of the political ledger, all whom remove their trousers one leg at a time (not to mention other people's trousers one leg at a time), I plan on being merely underwhelmed and vaguely defensive with my new government run by the Democratic Party, as opposed to comfortably insurrectionary like I am now.

[IntricateHelix]

LJ: "the tactics of negative campaigning continue to work"

I hope the democrats can do a lot better than..."Santorum, He's not even from Pennsylvania...or... A rubberstamp for President Bush." Geez, that's pretty negative.

Sestak's adds? I haven't seen one negative ad. Weldon just slings the typical "raising taxes, taxing the dead, eliminating tax cuts"

Murphy? Tons of people only know him as the guy whose name *might* be on one of those signs by the highway. (Which is a real shame)

JT: "deserves to lose on the issues AND be beaten"

I want to see it happen too. The democrats need a lesson in innovation. I want to see them take some risks instead of sitting on the sidelines.

[liberal japonicus]

IH, I obviously can't speak to what ads are appearing in the PA market, but my point is that attempting to draw in supporters may not be the best strategy, at least at this moment in history. I say this as someone who has mused that the Dems need to take the gloves off, but I wonder if a more aggressive approach on the Foley issue would serve to firm up the Republican base, which seems to thrive on imagining themselves to be the put upon minority. My point about negative ads is that they function not to increase the possibility of supporters voting, they function to reduce the number of opposition supporters voting, which I think is why it works so well. Apologies for conflating that notion with the specifics of the PA race.

[liberal japonicus]

After I posted that, I remembered a blog post that I can't find where the writer presents the notion (that I can get behind) that the problem with the Foley scandal is that it takes attention from the real examples of mismanagement by the Republicans. I'm reconstructing this in my mind because I can't find it, but I thought that the point was that the situation makes it impossible for the Dems to concentrate on truly meaningful issues (and I have to say, Iraq and Katrina seem a lot more meaningful to me than Foleygate) which will unfortunately allow the electorate to vote out the Republicans for the wrong reasons. Don't get me wrong, I am at the point that if some Christian fundamentalist decided that Cheney and Rumsfeld were Satan's minions, I would nod my head and say 'you may be right', but often doing something for the wrong reasons can have very bad consequences.

[IntricateHelix]

LJ: I totally understood what you were saying. I just want the Dems to run a successful campaign and win. To do so, I think they need to really work on projecting their positions and plans. Republicans shouldn't be able to sweep Dems up with the lame "Cut and Run" threats.

[hilzoy]

IH: If memory serves, Sestak has a pretty impressive position paper on national security up on his website. He has vastly better credentials on that score than Weldon. Plus, did you see that Nancy Pelosi recently came up with her plan for her first 100 hours as speaker?

"Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds — "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.

"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work.""

If people moan about the tax hikes on people making over 250-300 thousand a year, just tell them that we need to make up for six years of Republican fiscal irresponsibility. And the PAYGO rules -- which basically say that if you want to cut taxes or raise spending, you have to pass something to offset it, rather than just raising the deficit -- would preclude any of those scary Democratic spending increases that people are afraid of (although why they should be, after six years of utter fiscal abandon under Republicans, preceded by eight years of fiscal discipline under Democrats, I have no idea.)

[IntricateHelix]

Hilzoy: I had not seen Pelosi's plan before. Thank you for the link.

As far as Sestak, I have read the paper but am willing to place a large bet that the vast majority of 7th district voters have not. This I see as a problem. When I was talking about innovation in previous threads... Something like a 15 second clip on TV highlighting Sestak and directing viewers to his position paper online might really help get people interested in who this guy is.

[dom]

"It's worse to say that "it's hard for people to understand this". It's not that hard to understand at all, actually; and the idea that people who disagree with Lieberman just can't wrap their tiny little brains around this not particularly complicated idea is a pretty self-serving way to explain away his critics."

The Democratic trick of assuming that your opponent is not intelligent enough to understand. The chickens have come home to roost...

[liberal japonicus]

Yeah, had Lieberman been a true Republican, he would have suggested that the people who are anti-war are actually Al Queda sympathizers.

[Ara]

Does 'wake' have a meaning that I don't realize? One that has something to do with swimming?

[liberal japonicus]

Anything that moves in the water with any speed leaves a wake. Unfortunately, if you swim like me, your wake looks more like a series of concentric circles...

[Slartibartfast]

Unfortunately, if you swim like me, your wake looks more like a series of concentric circles...

So, should we be calling you "Bob"?

[liberal japonicus]

"Bob" would be exaggerating my swimming abilities...

[Matt Weiner]

Andrew,
Thanks for the link and I agree with Hilzoy that I hope that's what happened. Minor nitpick: That post was by DK, not Josh.

[Matt McIrvin]

But they don't deserve the same rights that citizens of the United States do.

This is the root of the problem: the notion that basic human rights are something you have to deserve, rather that something you've got regardless of what you deserve.

Of course, even if you admit that, there's the secondary problem that the right being denied here is the right to an adequate procedure to find out whether you're really a horrible terrorist or not, which in Lieberman's mindset presumably determines whether you actually deserved the right in the first place.

[cleek]

This is the root of the problem: the notion that basic human rights are something you have to deserve, rather that something you've got regardless of what you deserve.

some might say the idea that everyone, all men (and women), should be entitled to basic human rights is self-evident, a truth, even..

[Ugh]

some might say the idea that everyone, all men (and women), should be entitled to basic human rights is self-evident, a truth, even..

You're stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset.

[trilobite]

and allows the President and the Secretary of Defense to define all of us as enemy combatants and lock us up indefinitely

Definitely the horror-movie part of this legislation. See http://www.avantnews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=287 for a stinging satire very much on point.

[Gary Farber]

"Definitely the horror-movie part of this legislation. See http"

Non-embedded links aren't readable or clickable or useful.

Here is a handy guide to HTML tags.

You can use "find" to go to "link something."

Here's how you link (you can copy this and paste it as necessary, if you can't remember): <A HREF="URL"> </A>

Put words as necessary between > <

Do that, and your links will be usable, not broken.

[Dianne]

But "these are people who people working for us suspect of wanting to kill us. All of us..."

Maybe I'm slow, but I had to read this three times before I could figure out what he was saying. He's certainly packed enough qualifiers in it: "people working for us" (not us personally so don't blame us when the person we tortured to death turns out to be a cab driver) "suspect" (doesn't anyone believe in due process and innocent until proven guilty anymore?). He then goes on to the "they want to kill all of us!" statement as though it were an absolute proven truth that everyone in Guantanamo and other US run prison camps (or maybe all Islamic or Arabic people?) want to kill "us" (Americans? Westerners? Christians and Jews?)

Are we really such cowards that we are willing to imprison, torture, and kill any number of people because someone (else, not us) suspects (but can't or won't prove) that they might want to kill us?

[I don't pay]

Are we really such cowards that we are willing to imprison, torture, and kill any number of people because someone (else, not us) suspects (but can't or won't prove) that they might want to kill us?

Depends on the meaning of "we" in that sentence. Obviously not all of us, but many, yes.