God is not great
Hitchens’s new book is out. He’s an eloquent bastard.
And here is the point, about myself and my co-thinkers. Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake. We do not hold our convictions dogmatically: the disagreement between Professor Stephen Jay Gould and Professor Richard Dawkins…is quite wide as well as quite deep, but we shall resolve it by evidence and reasoning and not by mutual excommunication.
And that is not a minor difference, or a trivial one, or one that has no consequences; which is why it is irritating when people claim that non-dogmatism is dogmatic.
There is no need for us to gather every day, or every seven days, or on any high and auspicious day, to proclaim our rectitude or to grovel and wallow in our unworthiness. We atheists do not require any priests, or any hierarchy above them, to police our doctrine…[T]o the ostentatious absurdity of the pilgrimage, or the plain horror of killing civilians in the name of some sacred wall or cave or shrine or rock, we can counterpose a leisurely or urgent walk from one side of the library or the gallery to another, or to lunch with an agreeable friend, in pursuit of truth or beauty.
The sacred ‘shallow depression in the earth’ versus the library. A good synechdoche.
We shall have no more prophets or sages from the ancient quarter, which is why the devotions of today are only the echoing repetitions of yesterday, sometimes ratcheted up to screaming point so as to ward off the terrible emptiness. While some religious apology is magnificent in its limited way – one might cite Pascal – and some of it is dreary and absurd – here one cannot avoid naming C. S. Lewis – both styles have something in common, namely the appalling load of strain that they have to bear. How much effort it takes to affirm the incredible!
I think what he means by ‘strain’ is the peculiarly twisted, ad hoc quality one often finds in apologetics – talk about suffering being good because it gives people an opportunity to show compassion, for instance; that kind of thing. That strained quality. As if every time we have an injury we think ‘Oh good, a chance for people to show compassion!’ And as if the more it hurts, the more pleased we are, because the more compassionable we are and therefore the larger the opportunity for others to show compassion. I accidentally whacked myself a couple of weeks ago, and it hurt like hell, and interfered with my functioning for days; it never once crossed my mnd to be pleased about it for that reason (even though I did get compassion and was glad to get it). The proportion was all wrong, you see, just for one thing – the pain and interference with function were bad and nasty out of all proportion to the pleasantness of the compassion. That’s the load of strain. Urrrgghh – drop – crash. No, it won’t work, will it.
The argument with faith is the foundation and origin of all arguments, because it is the beginning – but not the end – of all arguments about philosophy, science, history, and human nature. It is also the beginning – but by no means the end – of all disputes about the good life and the just city.
I think that’s right. The argument with faith is not some side issue; it’s what it’s all about.
The argument with faith is not some
side issue; it’s what it’s all about.
Please let this be the inception for
the B&W merchandising dept’s launch
of the B&W MFA hat; Whigs & Tories
did it – so can we!
_
I think we should get T-shirts that say on the front:
Matter precedes Mind.
And on the back:
Mind succeeds Matter
(on rare occasions).
Y’know, over the last couple of years my shelf of books by and for unbelievers has vastly improved. Seems to be a trend that will continue.
Hitch is on a roll this week. His clear thinking and excellent writing are also evident in this piece from just two days ago:
http://www.slate.com/id/2164914
-CM
Hitch is on a roll this week at Slate.com – today he’s focising on Islam. (Really, it might as well be any of the hundred of faiths that bother us all. Islam just happens to be a major one.)
Hitchens is such a mixed bag.
I love his writing on religion, literature, sometimes even war — he published a piece on Vietnam in Vanity Fair a couple of months ago which was just breathtaking in its eloquence.
But then there are his writings on the Iraq war, particularly those published at Slate, which are quite completely insane. There was a piece recently, I can’t remember which one exactly, where he basically argued that the civil war in Iraq would have occurred eventually anyway, so we can hardly blame the Americans or condemn the war.
…not the most solid reasoning.
I identified (pace JS) strongly with the following sentence.
Some of them had blinding moments of un-conviction that were every bit as instantaneous, though perhaps less epileptic and apocalyptic (and later more rationally and more morally justified) than Saul of Tarsus on the Damascene road.
I clearly remember losing my Catholic faith sitting in a church on a Sunday, at the age of 10 or so. Having read too much of my elder brother’s science fiction the thought came to me, how could someone 2000 years ago tell the difference between aliens and God (yes I know A.C. Clarke said something similar, but I hadn’t read it then). This completely defused the who god thing for me, and I quickly moved on to, ‘their just making it up’. However, the clear image of Jebus ‘ascending’ into heaven in a flying saucer fortunately brought an end to any superstition I may have grown into.
Hitchens has a great habit of getting the bit between his teeth and not letting go, creating some fantastic writing in the process. The first thing I read of his was a demolition of Mother Theresa. The ex-Catholic in me loved it.
As for Iraq, I strongly agree with him on some points (in that we should be supporting the liberals and democrats in the country) however I kind of strongly disagree with him in how we should have gone about achieving that.
eek stop the italics
Sorry Ophelia, I’m three pints down and I normally manage it better than that.
I have to agree with RA here. Hitchens is always a fine writer, but as far as content goes, he lost me on politics a few years ago. His criticism of the losers in or aligned with the Bush administration has been less than deafening. He’s almost always good on general philosophy and cultural matters, though (when he’s not claiming that women aren’t funny). Still, I must admit that I tend to relate to him because not only is he an atheist, but, judging by the Slate article on the VA Tech shootings, he’s a right cold bastard.
I have no idea how those italics appeared. Is it down to you, BJN?
Doug, it was me, I didn’t close an italic when I quoted Hitchens. Apologies all round, I blame the 3 pints of Landlord.
Hurrah, fixed the Italics!
Good on ya, BJN, but only 3 pints? What a lightweight! ;)
(That’s assuming that Landlord is some sort of ale. If it’s 80 proof, my apologies. Make mine IPA.)
More good news
Jonathan Miller’s
A Brief History of Disbelief
Premieres on US public TV 4 May 2007
This highly acclaimed BBC series of three one-hour programs is available now for the first time on public television in the United States.
http://www.abriefhistoryofdisbelief.org/
_
Timothy Taylor Landlord, an excellent ale, however anything 80 proof I’ll leave to Hitchens :-)
Thanks, Adam. I’ll look for it. Sounds excellent. American TV does much for my English speaking.
BJN:
Available in US (probably entire northern hemisphere) is Moskovskaya vodka. Excellent vodka for a very good price. (Makes me feel like I’m back home. Why no Kievskaya?)
Because he has written “we” through out, I find the whole thing objectionable.
No individual can, as he seems to want to do, speak for all atheists.
There is also this statement: “…ceremonies are abhorrent to us…”
All ceremonies? “abhorrent”?
Ah, “Landlord”?
A multi-award-winning real ale from Timothy Taylors of Keighly in Yorkshire.
A really excellent pint or three, as are all of their beers ….
The brewers web-site is here:
http://www.timothy-taylor.co.uk/
and it has come in the top three at CAMRA’s “Champion beer of Britain” on 4 occasions.
“But then there are his writings on the Iraq war, particularly those published at Slate, which are quite completely insane.”
If this is the case then we definitely need more crazy people.
Hitchen’s early-ish work on the Elgin Marbles is another example of the extraordinary clarity of thought he can bring to bear when he wants to.
It’s important to bear in mind that he’s a certain kind of Englishman and in many respects reminds me of Kingsley Amis, who’s biography is being widely reviewed at present, in that he (too?) often talks and writes to get a reaction – any kind of reaction – without reflecting that others might think that he is serious.
For me, as another kind of Englishman, I think I can usually tell the difference but of course I might be totally wrong!
dirigible –
Here’s a bit of the lunacy I was referring to when I made that comment:
“If there is a sectarian war in Iraq today, or perhaps several sectarian wars, we have to understand that this was latent in the country, and in the state, and in the society all along. It was not the only possible outcome, because it had to be willed and organized, but it was certainly high on the list of probabilities. (The Saddam Hussein regime, which thrived on the worst form of “divide and rule,” certainly represented a standing invitation to run this risk.)”[http://www.slate.com/id/2159082/]
If Hitch himself is willing to admit that there was a “latent civil war” simmering in Iraq for ages, how can it have made sense to invade? If this was likely to blow up in much the same manner whether we were there or not, what business had we chucking thousands of American soldiers into the pot? What’s the point here — principle?
I think not, but even if that were the point, that would hardly justify the carnage.
He mentions in another column from just a few days ago (April 23) that he can’t “overcome the feeling that Iraq was our ward and responsibility one way or another, and that canceling or postponing an intervention would only have meant having to act later on, in conditions even more awful and dangerous than the ones with which we have become familiar.”[http://www.slate.com/id/2164824/]
Forgive me if I don’t agree that we should be crafting foreign policy around our feelings of responsibility toward Iraq. And what “awful conditions” is he talking about toward the end? He never explains. He can’t have meant Saddam — it’s clear beyond all doubt now that Saddam was never a threat to anyone but his own people.
And what the hell, “ward”?
“Ward” makes America sound like some rich British uncle who reluctantly agrees to take in a distant relative hitherto raised by wolves.
Afraid I’ll have to stick by my original charge. Hitch has a screw (or three) loose, where Iraq is concerned.
RA, he’s right in the interventionist sense that previous of our own generations helped create this monster so we owe the victims some redress. He wrote excellently about Yugoslavia in the 90s from this perspective and I found him compelling. He’s wrong on supporting military involvement when the leadership in case were transparently such b@satards who had no exit strategy whatever.
I like to drink, but I have enough sense to stay out of the public (or public eye) when I’m under the influence.
Point of fact: When you google “Christopher Hitchens + drunk,” you get >95K results.
Google = 436,000 for Boris Yeltsin drunk. Touche, Pyotr.
“If Hitch himself is willing to admit that there was a “latent civil war” simmering in Iraq for ages, how can it have made sense to invade?”
Because under the logic explained in the article letting it happen later would only have let things simmer longer and therefore made things worse.
So, invade now and get horrific violence. Or let it simmer another decade and watch as far worse violence result.
I’m not saying I agree with this logic. But it is a coherent position and it is not clear evidence of insanity, or clear evidence that invading/liberating Iraq was worse than the alternatives.
Google “Nick S + drunk.”
46K results
Touché to you, too, my friend.
Such statistical comparisons require a baseline for context. Allow me.
ophelia benson drunk = 12,800
-CM
Outrage! Lies!
If you put OB’s name in quotes, as is neceesary to get only the full instance, and not random combinations, you only get 284 hits.
If you accidentally miss off the ‘d’ of ‘drunk’, you get 1,240….
Which I think proves statistically that OB is no lush…
Whereas CH is…
Whether there are states in which runking is a felony or misdemeanor remains to be determined…
Hic!
Wait – if you put my name in quotes and add drunk you get 284 hits? That seems like a lot! Who are all these inebriates with my name?!
Thought of re-branding as O’Benson’s Bar ?
After all, you are Jesus’s & Mo’s barmaid, OB. That makes you a bit of a demi-god(dess).
Everyone knows that barkeeps are not tee-totalers.
Ah that must be it – it’s The Barmaid Connection.
Not O’Benson’s Bar, but The Butterfly and Wheel.
Shoot, if you do it with my name you get 24, and I’m
a] not as famous as you; and
b] teetotal….
I believe (but not fanatically) that Timothy Taylor Landlord is an IPA. It’s my favourite pint.
Doug Hitchens failure to critisise the Bush administration over the war is because like me he believes that survival is more important than mere polotics!
Richard:
I agree with you that survival is more important than politics, but pretty far up the list of priorities ought to be criticizing the MOST POWERFUL FORCE ON EARTH. You know, those who hold the lives of millions in the palms of their hands? We might just want to take a little time out to see what their plans are for the rest of us.
Yeah…I’m not really following, Richard.
Failing to criticize a criminal and degenerate administration over a dangerous, illegal, and horribly managed war = survival skill.
Someone’s going to have to fill me in on how this war is helping us in any way; to be more secure or more prosperous or more free, etc, because I’m not seeing it. I’m seeing the opposite.
Well I’m going to defend Hichens on the cold bastard (though not on the Iraq stuff). There’s nothing cold hearted about refusing to feel (false) emotion about a random group of people you never knew who happen to die in an extraordinary way as opposed to say the several thousand people who die every day from preventable but utterly mundane causes. The Slate piece is about what we as a culture choose to feel, and by implication the consequences of that not about Hitchens as a person. To read it that way is to entirely miss the point.
TT Landlord looks way too dark to be an IPA, but I could be wrong (or am I infallible? After all my mother always wanted me to be Pope.)
“Someone’s going to have to fill me in on how this war is helping us in any way; to be more secure or more prosperous or more free, etc, because I’m not seeing it. I’m seeing the opposite.”
It’s just a repetition of the “if we don’t fight them in Iraq, we will have to fight them at home” talking point–a statement for which there is no evidence, and rather a lot of evidence pointing in the opposite direction.
Francis:
When I called Hitchens a right cold bastard I meant it in a good way, actually, as in coldly rational. I tend to be that way myself. I am repulsed by false emotion, and find it impossible to produce it myself — one reason I am in awe of good acting. I really don’t know how those people pull it off.
I’m really pretty disgusted by the amount of phoniness and bullshit in the media and our culture in general. So it seems that we agree.
Far from wanting to critisise this so called criminal administration Doug I sleep soundly with knolledge that my nation has a realy powerfull aly with a bad temper!
Richard, you should sleep less easily. Your nation has a really powerful ally with demonstrably bad practical judgment, and moral judgment so appalling that it too generous to label it merely amoral – it is actively immoral, promoting the convenience and profit of the few over the needs (and often the very lives) of the many. Bully if you’re one of the few, I suppose – but I doubt you own a great deal of Halliburton stock.
Richard:
I saw the comment where Jerry S said that you were not lacking in intelligence. That makes me wonder about his.
My taxes go to your “realy powerfull aly with a bad temper!,” and it makes me sad.
Even better for me I get the protection and dont have to pay for it,makes me very happy as well as safe!
Richard,
Can’t help thinking that your interpretation is rather like having Tony Soprano as a cousin.
“Even better for me I get the protection and dont have to pay for it,makes me very happy as well as safe!”
I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that is a very careless and rather repugnant statement.
I hope you’re kidding, Richard.
Richard:
The UK needs the US like Poland needed the USSR.
Richard – so all you ask for is power and bad temper? So you admire al Qaeda then, and regret only that they weren’t working for your team?
Doug:
I’m glad we agree about the false emotion stuff. It’s just that I don’t equate ‘rational’ with ‘cold’. Could we agree on ‘cool’. Gotta get the branding right.
“Cooly rational” is cool. Agreed. “Cool bastard” just wouldn’t have connoted my meaning in reference to Hitch.
That was from me to Francis. Jeez! And I’m stone cold sober.
Doug why would you worry about the intellect of Dr Jery S.P.H.D.? because unlike you he dosnt see the U.S. and Irael as the source of all the worlds problems!O.B.I dont realy beleive the U.S. has a bad temper but yes I do veiw it as my side and therefore will forgive its slight misdomeaners! R.A. what on eath is repugnant about my statement? the fact that I am pleased that the U.S. tax payer is defending my under defended continent.
P.You obviously no nothing about history without the U.S. the U.K. would probably not be here,you forget they fed us armed us and later fought with us on all fronts during the second world war,and stayed on to insure our freedom afterwards! the only territory they asked from us was space to bury their dead!
What is repugnant about your position, Richard, is what I said. The United States government under the Bush administration are mass murderers for profit, not defenders of anything. Seriously: How is slaughtering tens of thousands of Iraqis protecting the U.K. – or any other nation for that matter? The invasion of Iraq has done more to empower and recruit for extremist Islamic terrorists than anything they have ever done for themselves. Your entire understanding of American foreign policy and military matters seems to be based on Wingnutdaily/Faux News-type “journalism” and right wing bumper sticker sloganeering.
Well, I have a counter bumper sticker for you – one I’ve actually had on my bumper, point of fact. “Ignorance and arrogance is bad foreign policy.”
And another: “Don’t believe everything you think.”
Critical thinking. It’s a valuable life skill. Learn it. It’s not too late.
G. your post looks more like anti-American tosh rather than critical thinking to me!I would also guess that if it was Clinton in ofice you would not be so forcefull in your condemnation!
G. you forgot to mention Haliburton?
Well spoke, G.
The war in Iraq is a tragedy.
Had the Iraqis ended up with a better government and a higher quality of life, perhaps the proponents of (what is essentially) corporatized government might have a card to play. As it is, thousands are dead, Iraq is in chaos, and destruction appears to be the only lasting accomplishment of the invasion.
Also, Richard: As a woman, I have to say I was pretty offended by another of your postings on OB’s “Another excerpt.”
I think women have far more to offer the world than “caring” and the remembrance of “birthdays aniverseries ect.”
And you called ME a troll, OB!
Pff.
BJN, DavidMWW et al, Timothy Taylor Landlord is stictly speaking a Strong Pale Ale as opposed to an India Pale Ale, although there really isn’t much in it. IPA that was brewed for export for our colonial army was brewed stronger than the cask IPA we get here now, e.g. Greene King, at 3.8%. Originally an India Pale Ale might have reached 5.5%, although being no historian on the matter, I’m not sure to what extent the officers then watered it down before rationing it out to the footsoldiers in India.
Nothwithstaniding, it is of course, very good beer indeed -I had quite a lot of it over the weekend, and read the label a couple of times out of sheer fascination.
Richard:
NYMag.com:
“Do you consider yourelf a hawk ?”
Hitchens
“I used to wish there as a useful term for those of us who thought American power should be used to remove psychopathic dictators”
Quite.
http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=%27God+Is+Not+Great%27+Author+Christopher+Hitchens+on+Religion%2C+Iraq%2C+and+His+Own+Reputation+–+New+York+Magazine&expire=&urlID=22118127&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Farts%2Fbooks%2Ffeatures%2F31244%2F&partnerID=73272
Richard:
Being from Ukraine, I do know a thing or two about WWII. (We called it the Great Patriotic War.) I was considering, say, the last 50 years or so. Do try to keep up.
G:
You are so right.
RA:
You, too. I realize know that I was assuming you were a man. We need more women here. Stick around!
RA, cheer up – I deleted a lot of Richard’s posts in the past, and still do delete some. Perhaps unfairly, I cut him some slack, partly because he’s a friend of Jerry’s and partly because he continues to want to engage with B&W. It’s better than abandoning him to Little Green Footballs!
But Richard several of those recent posts are pretty damn trollish! And this comment to G –
“I would also guess that if it was Clinton in ofice you would not be so forcefull in your condemnation!”
is absurd, since that’s exactly what G said in the post you were answering –
“The United States government under the Bush administration are mass murderers for profit, not defenders of anything.”
He is criticizing the Bush administration, he said that, so what is the point of triumphantly telling him he would say something different about a different administration?! And why do you take that to be a bad thing anyway? Is there something wrong with criticizing specific administrations? If so, what?
You seem to be claiming that maximal violence is the best possible strategy regardless of consequences. But is that true? If, for instance, it motivates thousands or millions of people to join al Qaeda, is it really the best possible strategy? Even apart from certain moral questions.
Hitchens: “I used to wish there was a useful term for those of us who thought American power should be used to remove psychopathic dictators.”
“Psychopathic” dictators are produced by “psychopathic” societies. They don’t arise out of thin air and stay in power all by themselves. Sure, I suppose that if there were international consensus, an *international* force ought to remove a tyrant, but only if there were reason to believe that another one wouldn’t replace the one removed. In order for that to be the case there need to be organized democratic forces in place. And if such forces are in place, shouldn’t they be the ones to repair their own society?
Quite.
Hi Nick,
I get TT Landlord on tap at my work’s local, so I’ve never read the label, only the pump handle.
Richard,
what a weird rant. Just because the Americans were (thankfully) on the same side as the UK at a very desperate point in the UK’s history does not mean that I (or G or anyone else for that matter) have to accept everything and anything a specific US government does.
You could have made the same point about the Russians, they made a much greater sacrifice than the US, so should the UK have done everything Mr Stalin would have liked us to do? Obviously not.
Every situation has to be judged on its own merits, and the current US administration has very few merits.
Furthermore, not only does the current US admin have very few merits, it has a vast number of colossal faults. It is bad in just about every way one can think of – methodologically as well as substantively. It’s insular, it’s obstinate, it ignores facts and evidence it doesn’t like, it treats critics as criminals, it disparages expertise, it fires experts and replaces them with loyal hacks; it covertly disobeys laws it doesn’t like; it fires prosecutors it doesn’t like – it’s incompetent as well as malevolent. It’s so bad it defies belief – yet there it squats, like a toad, actually re-elected.
Nick, BJN
Timothy Taylor – excellent, especially in the winter.
Deuchars IPA – the most reliable of ales, light and delicious with a faint scent of honey. Especially refreshing in the summer.
However I find I don’t like any other IPA that I’ve sampled – they all seem like very poor beggarly relations to the mighty Duke Deuchars.
I’m having a BridgePort Bottle Conditioned India Pale Ale at this very moment. It’s not my favorite IPA because it isn’t as bitter as I would like, but I think it’s probably the most complex IPA I’ve ever had. Probably not available in the UK. Made in Portland, OR by “Oregon’s Oldest Craft Brewery.” Recommended, if you can get your hands on it. Unique.
Had the Iraqis ended up with a better government…
The Iraqi government is a better government than they had.
But it is not the Iraqi government setting off bombs in markets.
Hitchens’ view about the breakdown of Iraq are not new. He argued at least 3 years ago that a more “natural” change over from Saddam would have created a breakdown of the country.
And calling me anti-American is exactly the kind of BS the American right wing (and the Bush administration proper) does whenever it is criticized. Criticize Bush, the war, the PATRIOT Act, or any other government policy or right wing cause, and you are labeled anti-American, unpatriotic, traitorous, a terrorist sympathizer and against the troops. This is complete nonsense on the face of it, a particularly naked and grotesque rhetorical power play.
Guess what? I am an American. I was born here. I will probably die here. And in between I will continue to demand that my government be morally and practically BETTER, rather than simply approving whatever it does no matter how stupid or reprehensible. Criticism of our government is not only patriotic, it’s a fundamental legal right written into the U.S. Constitution in several different places in different ways. Free speech, freedom of the press, free association, and the right to petition the government for redress of its wrongs are four of the five freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment, and all directly or indirectly support the absolute right to criticize our government.
The fifth freedom, in case you’re curious, is freedom of religion – that the government shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion or interfering in the free exercise thereof.
I love my freedoms, and I use them. That’s patriotism, American style.
FYI: 5.5% alc
http://www.bridgeportbrew.com
Well, I wasn’t born here, but once I learned English and realized that I could live anywhere in the Anglophone world, I headed for California. (Much better weather and more open-minded people than in Ukraine.) By now I consider myself American (sort of. Wife was born in LA.) I appreciate the freedoms here, but worry much more than I used to about speaking out.
Thank Betsy for you, G! When you finish that Ph.D. I want to buy you dinner. Drinks first.
I’m a long way from California, Pyotr, but the sentiment is much appreciated. Even if drinks and dinner isn’t much of an option, I appreciate that you’ve pointed me towards some intriguing new beers to try. This Deuchars IPA sounds pretty darned good to me. (I’m a somewhat dedicated beer snob – go to tastings and festivals from time to time, have friends in the industry, etc.)
Cheers!
Zdrávstuistye, G! Na zdaróviye.
Sorry O.B. I seem to spend half my life having to beg forgiveness! I probably have been a tad to robust in some of my recent posts and no I dont think you have ever been unfair to me.In my defence R.A.misconstued my men will learn from women post,my point was that men will p;rety much always be men nothing will change!I will try to do better in future.
KB, Deuchars is actually more widely available where I live (West Mids, Northants) on handpump than Timothy Taylor. Both are splendid on an early summer evening. Or any evening for that matter. Now thats’ motivation for this particular Accounting Technician to get through Working Day One… Cheers all !
Nick S
Deuchars is everywhere in Edinburgh as it’s brewed here whereas T Taylor is fairly difficult to find – I always drink it when I’m in a pub where it’s on tap.
Deuchars is not good bottled whereas Caledonian 80 (same brewery) is better in bottles than on tap, or so I think.
As for me it’s a can of Boddingtons at the end of the day – Lidls sells 4 cans for £2.60 or thereabout, which is the cheapest deal that I know for drinkable beer.
KBPlayer, glad we’ve got the important stuff dealt with ! ;-)
Good luck with your gigs – too bad I’m hundreds of miles away, would like to see that sometime.