While condemning Saddam Hussein for not allowing UN inspectors full access to Iraq's chemical and biological programs, George W. Bush was rejecting the international community's proposed inspection protocol additions to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.
The Bush administration's review, conducted by representatives of the State Department, Pentagon, CIA and other federal agencies, concluded that Toth's proposals would not be sufficient to prevent cheating but would be burdensome to universities and private industry, and might leave U.S. companies vulnerable to theft of commercial secrets.
And you don't think these are legitimate concerns?
Arms control experts outside the government are split on the wisdom of the draft protocol.
So your solution is to adopt anything although there is apparently a legitimate dispute on the issue?
"The evidence to date suggests that U.S. forces are not properly trained or equipped for guerrilla warfare on a long-term basis," said Loren B. Thompson, a defense industry analyst with the Lexington Institute. "That's illustrated not only by an absence of body armor and hardened vehicles but a shortage of people who can speak the local language."
The Army initially provided body armor only to infantry and combat troops. Now it wants to outfit everyone on the ground in Iraq.
The only question I have left for you, taraka, is if you are dishonest or are easily misled? Since the article do not say what you claim they say, I must conclude that you are dishonest.
Bush finds excuses to stop cooperating with nonproliferation instead of actively pursuing nonproliferation policies. What was the Bush Administration counterproposal? There isn't one. His policy on multilateral security and nonproliferation: NO.
The wider context of the article is a discussion of the military's preparedness to wage a prolonged guerrilla war. That's an issue that was known and raised before the war. Administration officials, believing their own ideological conclusions rather than expert advice, scoffed at the critics and said soldiers would be showered with flowers and kisses. Now people are being killed as a direct result of that arrogance, and the money for the equipment is WHERE???
Alan P. Zelicoff, a senior scientist at Sandia National Laboratories who was a U.S. delegate to the protocol talks throughout the 1990s, faulted the Clinton administration's National Security Council for "suppressing" the results of two U.S. mock inspections that showed the difficulty of inspecting for germ weapons.
Those results, Zelicoff said in an interview, could have been used at the talks in Geneva to help produce a more workable inspections system. "The U.S. was essentially sitting on its hands for the past 10 years," he said.
The "vacuum" created by minimal U.S. engagement in negotiations in Geneva, Zelicoff added, has resulted in a draft protocol that is "technically impractical, politically illogical, and dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate."
Aluminium tubing obtained by Iraq and claimed to be centrifuge parts for the enrichment of uranium by Secretary of State Colin Powell in his address to the United Nations, were known by the Bush Administration and experts at the time to be unsuitable for such production.
try this bodine...try discussing something without making personal comments.
try it just for a day or two, just to see if you can do it.
Sorry dude, when it comes to nitwits, I call them as I see them. Furthermore, if you haven't figured it out yet, I don't believe that I have anything worthwhile to discuss with you.
The U.S. attitude toward the protocol has been inconsistent. Although President Bill Clinton repeatedly called on the negotiators ?to work toward the earliest possible conclusion of a BWC protocol that will further strengthen international security? and pledged U.S. leadership in that effort, his administration was not sufficiently focused on the issue to make sure that his policy was actually implemented. Midlevel agency officials with their own agendas, many of them holdovers from previous administrations, were left to shape U.S. positions on critical components of the protocol. Throughout the six years of negotiations, competing bureaucratic interests resulted in virtual deadlock among these officials, preventing U.S. leadership and greatly limiting the U.S. contribution to the negotiations.
Like many U.S. positions during the negotiations, the details of the critique have not been made public, but the three basic reasons cited for rejecting the text are well-known: it is too weak; it would threaten national security and commercial proprietary information; and it would threaten the dual-use export control regime of the Australia Group, a collection of countries that tries to harmonize policies on exports with chemical or biological weapons potential. None of these objections is valid.
I was saying that I could try to dismiss as a joke the way you did. It would be wrong, like it was when you did.
Dude, what I did was a joke. Of it wasn't how do you explain the short turn around? You are so warped you wouldn't believe the truth if it it bit you in your ass, either.
Since 9-11, my trusty Tetranike has served one tour with the Army in Afghanistan and three in Iraq: with the Army, FBI and presently protecting a retired “snake eater” who’s training the Iraqi police force.
The reason that sucker’s so well-traveled is that the Bush administration just can’t get its priorities right when it comes to giving each and every one of our soldiers the right stuff to kick up the odds of their making it through the hit-and-run hell of insurgent combat.
About 40,000 of our sons and daughters in harm’s way in Iraq actually have to buy, borrow, beg or go without adequate body armor because a bumbling Pentagon bureaucracy hasn’t been issuing 100 percent of our troops the very best full metal jacket money can buy – even though the money has been long appropriated.ÂÂ
Worried moms and pops are sending vests to their kids in care packages that in other conflicts contained cookies and Kool-Aid. A manufacturer’s ad in Army Magazine says it all: “Our vest could be the best four pounds a soldier ever gained.”
------
But too many troopers in Iraq tell me they still have Vietnam-era antiques that are about as effective as wrapping cotton batting around their torsos.
The reason for this Pentagon criminal negligence is twofold: first, the $310 million Congress approved for the vests got parked at various places, where bucks were siphoned off for noncombat-related items; and second, the Army has treated the vest issue the way it handles routine requisitions, such as portable toilets and tent poles.
Soldiers for the Truth executive retired Marine Lt. Col. Roger Charles was dead on target when he said, “The Pentagon has handled the replacement of body armor as though it’s a routine general-issue item.”
--------
Congress is about to approve about $65 billion for the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Bush & Company haven't included one penny for body armor, even though the cost of the extraordinary security precautions on the president’s recent Asian tour would cover a vest for every soldier seconded to the Iraqi sand traps.
Advocates of gay marriage are trying to persuade us that SSM won't affect anyone but the handful of gay and lesbian families. Don't believe it. Listen to Matthew, who has absorbed the message of SSM very well.
Fathers are optional. Children are resilient. Adults are fragile, and their emotional needs come first.
oh, by the way pieter, I invite you go post at tapa and the bizarre hatred threads. They are your kind of people. You know, the kind with the straw brains.
Why is it that liberals want to "keep government out of the bedroom" but gay liberals want everyone else to look in?
If you think that by wanting the freedom to have their relationships accepted as valid by society gay people "want everyone to look into their bedrooms," then straight people are inviting everyone to "look into their bedrooms" when they put pictures of their spouses and children in their offices.
Are you comparing a family picture to a gay pride parade?
I never mentioned parades, and neither did jethro. Contrary to what you see on the news, there are lots of perfectly normal-looking people in gay pride parades, but the drag queens and leatherboys get all the camera time. There's far more blatant sexual acting-out at your average Spring Break celebration or Mardi Gras -- but it's the majority's sexual orientation that's on display.
As you may have noticed, jethro's not the most articulate or voluble sort, so I made a guess that his reference to gays "wanting everyone to look into their bedrooms" was the expression of a desire to have gay people keep their sexual orientation hidden. I thought it might possibly trigger a thought or two if I pointed out that the heterosexual majority "flaunts" their sexuality by displaying pictures of their families; again, because it's the orientation of the majority, nobody thinks twice about it.
I hope you had a most excellent Christmas, and I have no doubt that you and yours were mindful of whose birthday was being celebrated.
I never mentioned parades, and neither did jethro.
You're right, you didn't, I did. I see the gay pride parade as an opening up of their bedrooms to the world, and that's why I used it as an example.
Contrary to what you see on the news, there are lots of perfectly normal-looking people in gay pride parades, but the drag queens and leatherboys get all the camera time.
I've been to several gay pride parades in Minneapolis, a majority of those in the parade are what I would call freaks. I don't say this because their gay, I say this because they're freaks. Thing is, I don't care if they're freaks really. I may not agree with their lifestyle, but they have every right to do as they wish.
There's far more blatant sexual acting-out at your average Spring Break celebration or Mardi Gras -- but it's the majority's sexual orientation that's on display.
I would agree with you, and find it disgusting. If I saw my son or daughter acting like that I'd kick their ass. :-) That being said, those events do not exist strictly as hetrosexual celebrations.
As you may have noticed, jethro's not the most articulate or voluble sort,
Neither am I. I, like Jethro, keep it short and simple. I know I'm never going to change anyone's mind via these forums. I'm mostly here to have fun, not to get any across.
so I made a guess that his reference to gays "wanting everyone to look into their bedrooms" was the expression of a desire to have gay people keep their sexual orientation hidden.
I can't speak for Jethro, but I don't want them to keep it hidden, I just don't want it shoved down my throat.
I thought it might possibly trigger a thought or two if I pointed out that the heterosexual majority "flaunts" their sexuality by displaying pictures of their families; again, because it's the orientation of the majority, nobody thinks twice about it.
Of course they don't think twice about it. That's perfectly normal behavior in the minds of a majority. It's not flaunting, as you like to call it, it simply is. I'm close friends with a few gay people, and have a working relationship with many, I simply don't care if they have pictures of their loved ones/families on their desks.
I hope you had a most excellent Christmas, and I have no doubt that you and yours were mindful of whose birthday was being celebrated.
Our Christmas was good, hope yours was the same.
BTW: I finally got to meet Jethro in person on New Years Eve. He comes off rather "Normal" in person.
the sexuality that is celebrated on TV is overwhelmingly hetrosexual.
What do you mean "celebrated"? I've yet to see a hetrosexual celebration, or a "Hetrosexual Pride Parade". However, an overwhelming majority of people are hetrosexual, therefore an overwhelming majority of TV shows, office workers with pictures on their desks, Churches.... are going to be "Hetrosexual". It doesn't mean there's some big conspiracy on the part of hetrosexuals against homosexuals.
the sexuality that is celebrated on TV is overwhelmingly hetrosexual.
I wonder if you mean that a lot of the sexuality on tv is heterosexual. I don't know if it's really "celebrated" though. Yeah, there's a lot more of it. Seems more like a marketing ploy than a celebration. And there are plenty of heterosexuals who don't like all the sexuality on tv.
I'm with THX on this one. Sexuality seems like something that should be kept in the bedroom for the most part. You can be defined by your sexuality, that's fine. As I think about it, homosexuals and heterosexuals have different driving forces for flaunting their sexuality. For homosexuals, it's about trying to gain acceptance. They want to be able to do what they want in private, but they have to show themselves off in a way to let people know they are okay and not bad. For heterosexuals, it's about selling something or gaining a greater audience, predominantly the male crowd. Sexuality is a part of who we are. I think it just needs to stay private for the most part because it is predominantly a private matter.
I don't want them to keep it hidden, I just don't want it shoved down my throat.
That's what I'm trying to get to; what constitutes shoving homosexuality down the throat of the public? For some people, the definition seems to be any openness about sexual orientation whatsoever, such as walking down the street holding hands with one's lover -- the sort of thing that nobody thinks twice about if it's a man and a woman. Given your expressed level of tolerance, I guess it would mean a gay couple you've had over to dinner necking on the sofa after dessert -- but I don't think most people, gay or straight, would do that.
I really don't like this space stuff right now either. We have too many other things to worry about other than space. Let's worry about things on our own planet before we spend a heck of a lot of money on going to other planets. Let's keep working towards improving the economy, improving the job market. Let's get a quick, tidy resolution to the middle east situation. The money spent on the space program could go towards more important endeavors, endeavors that will benefit a lot more people directly.
what constitutes shoving homosexuality down the throat of the public?
Wanting special treatment. For example, I hate the idea of "Hate Crimes". Can't all violent crime be considered a "Hate Crime"?
For some people, the definition seems to be any openness about sexual orientation whatsoever, such as walking down the street holding hands with one's lover -- the sort of thing that nobody thinks twice about if it's a man and a woman.
You're right, some people are so intolerant and homophobic that something as small as holding hands disgusts them. The thing is, they have that right in this country. Right or wrong, people are allowed to be racists, bigots, homophobes... in this country, as long as that bigotry doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Does that make any sense?
Given your expressed level of tolerance, I guess it would mean a gay couple you've had over to dinner necking on the sofa after dessert -- but I don't think most people, gay or straight, would do that.
Necking? Well if they did that, gay or straight, I'd be kindly asking them to stop, and probably wouldn't invite them over for dinner again. :-)
which he has thrown out ONLY to deflect attention away from the War, and to try to appeal to a wider audience of voters, many of which want us to waste hundreds of billions, on such a fools-errand.
Was it a fools-errand when Kennedy made such proposals?
The thing is, what Dubya is proposing is a long term plan, which won't solidify until he is long out of office.
That being said, I also happen to agree that space exploration is a waste of resources.
Right or wrong, people are allowed to be racists, bigots, homophobes... in this country, as long as that bigotry doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Does that make any sense?
as long as you don't "shove it down people's throats"?
will you admit that there are negative things?
Body Armor Saves Lives in Iraq
Pentagon Criticized for Undersupply of Protective Vests
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A33341-2003Dec3¬Found=true
I don't think he read the article
my question: Am I ignoring it, nitwit?
crabs response:yes
You live in your own little make believe world don't you, crabs.
when I went to the link on body armor all I got was a headline and a byline. Geez, dude, even my eight year old acan do better than that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A82666-2001May26.html
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_07-08/rosenbergjul_aug01.asp
The Bush administration's review, conducted by representatives of the State Department, Pentagon, CIA and other federal agencies, concluded that Toth's proposals would not be sufficient to prevent cheating but would be burdensome to universities and private industry, and might leave U.S. companies vulnerable to theft of commercial secrets.
And you don't think these are legitimate concerns?
Arms control experts outside the government are split on the wisdom of the draft protocol.
So your solution is to adopt anything although there is apparently a legitimate dispute on the issue?
jethro bodine 1/7/04 7:12am
Quote from the article
will you admit that there are negative things?
I can think of one thing Bush has done that was wrong and that was to sign the McCain/Feingold bill.
no
try this article, taraka: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A33185-2003Dec3¬Found=true
Now notice this sentence:
The only question I have left for you, taraka, is if you are dishonest or are easily misled? Since the article do not say what you claim they say, I must conclude that you are dishonest.
jethro bodine 1/7/04 7:19am
Bush finds excuses to stop cooperating with nonproliferation instead of actively pursuing nonproliferation policies. What was the Bush Administration counterproposal? There isn't one. His policy on multilateral security and nonproliferation: NO.
I wrote: You live in your own little make believe world don't you, crabs.
crabs resonse: no
It wasn't a question, crabs. But it it had been you got the answer wrong, again.
I could always take your approach and say I was joking.
jethro bodine 1/7/04 7:24am
The wider context of the article is a discussion of the military's preparedness to wage a prolonged guerrilla war. That's an issue that was known and raised before the war. Administration officials, believing their own ideological conclusions rather than expert advice, scoffed at the critics and said soldiers would be showered with flowers and kisses. Now people are being killed as a direct result of that arrogance, and the money for the equipment is WHERE???
so, crabs, you were joking about not living in your own make believe world?
try this bodine...try discussing something without making personal comments.
try it just for a day or two, just to see if you can do it.
from one of taraka's arms control articles:
Alan P. Zelicoff, a senior scientist at Sandia National Laboratories who was a U.S. delegate to the protocol talks throughout the 1990s, faulted the Clinton administration's National Security Council for "suppressing" the results of two U.S. mock inspections that showed the difficulty of inspecting for germ weapons.
Those results, Zelicoff said in an interview, could have been used at the talks in Geneva to help produce a more workable inspections system. "The U.S. was essentially sitting on its hands for the past 10 years," he said.
The "vacuum" created by minimal U.S. engagement in negotiations in Geneva, Zelicoff added, has resulted in a draft protocol that is "technically impractical, politically illogical, and dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2831553.stm
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2003/transcripts/s976015.htm
try this bodine...try discussing something without making personal comments.
try it just for a day or two, just to see if you can do it.
Sorry dude, when it comes to nitwits, I call them as I see them. Furthermore, if you haven't figured it out yet, I don't believe that I have anything worthwhile to discuss with you.
no, I said I could
I didn't say it would be the truth if I did
I was saying that I couldtry to dismiss as a joke the way you did. It would be wrong, like it was when you did.
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_07-08/rosenbergjul_aug01.asp
I was saying that I could try to dismiss as a joke the way you did. It would be wrong, like it was when you did.
Dude, what I did was a joke. Of it wasn't how do you explain the short turn around? You are so warped you wouldn't believe the truth if it it bit you in your ass, either.
that doesn't make it wrong
that doesn't make it wrong
you are right it wasn't wrong!
so, you are saying that you did have him on ignore
so, you are saying that you did have him on ignore
Yes, for about one minute.
Anything positive Taraka?... Anything?
Any solutions Taraka?...Anything?
Hackworth on body armor
------
--------
Advocates of gay marriage are trying to persuade us that SSM won't affect anyone but the handful of gay and lesbian families. Don't believe it. Listen to Matthew, who has absorbed the message of SSM very well.
Fathers are optional. Children are resilient. Adults are fragile, and their emotional needs come first.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/maggiegallagher/mg20040108.shtml
Not just a straw man, a whole straw village.
Well, pieter, you would fit in well in the straw village with your straw brain.
oh, by the way pieter, I invite you go post at tapa and the bizarre hatred threads. They are your kind of people. You know, the kind with the straw brains.
Why is it that liberals want to "keep government out of the bedroom" but gay liberals want everyone else to look in?
for the same reasons that conservatives want to "get government into bedrooms" and gay conservatives want everyone to not look in at all?
If you think that by wanting the freedom to have their relationships accepted as valid by society gay people "want everyone to look into their bedrooms," then straight people are inviting everyone to "look into their bedrooms" when they put pictures of their spouses and children in their offices.
pieter b 1/7/04 4:12pm
some current info on body armor:
http://starbulletin.com/2004/01/04/news/story7.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031112/nyw052_1.html
Kim
then straight people are inviting everyone to "look into their bedrooms" when they put pictures of their spouses and children in their offices.
Are you comparing a family picture to a gay pride parade?
I never mentioned parades, and neither did jethro. Contrary to what you see on the news, there are lots of perfectly normal-looking people in gay pride parades, but the drag queens and leatherboys get all the camera time. There's far more blatant sexual acting-out at your average Spring Break celebration or Mardi Gras -- but it's the majority's sexual orientation that's on display.
As you may have noticed, jethro's not the most articulate or voluble sort, so I made a guess that his reference to gays "wanting everyone to look into their bedrooms" was the expression of a desire to have gay people keep their sexual orientation hidden. I thought it might possibly trigger a thought or two if I pointed out that the heterosexual majority "flaunts" their sexuality by displaying pictures of their families; again, because it's the orientation of the majority, nobody thinks twice about it.
I hope you had a most excellent Christmas, and I have no doubt that you and yours were mindful of whose birthday was being celebrated.
the sexuality that is celebrated on TV is overwhelmingly hetrosexual.
I never mentioned parades, and neither did jethro.
You're right, you didn't, I did. I see the gay pride parade as an opening up of their bedrooms to the world, and that's why I used it as an example.
Contrary to what you see on the news, there are lots of perfectly normal-looking people in gay pride parades, but the drag queens and leatherboys get all the camera time.
I've been to several gay pride parades in Minneapolis, a majority of those in the parade are what I would call freaks. I don't say this because their gay, I say this because they're freaks. Thing is, I don't care if they're freaks really. I may not agree with their lifestyle, but they have every right to do as they wish.
There's far more blatant sexual acting-out at your average Spring Break celebration or Mardi Gras -- but it's the majority's sexual orientation that's on display.
I would agree with you, and find it disgusting. If I saw my son or daughter acting like that I'd kick their ass. :-) That being said, those events do not exist strictly as hetrosexual celebrations.
As you may have noticed, jethro's not the most articulate or voluble sort,
Neither am I. I, like Jethro, keep it short and simple. I know I'm never going to change anyone's mind via these forums. I'm mostly here to have fun, not to get any across.
so I made a guess that his reference to gays "wanting everyone to look into their bedrooms" was the expression of a desire to have gay people keep their sexual orientation hidden.
I can't speak for Jethro, but I don't want them to keep it hidden, I just don't want it shoved down my throat.
I thought it might possibly trigger a thought or two if I pointed out that the heterosexual majority "flaunts" their sexuality by displaying pictures of their families; again, because it's the orientation of the majority, nobody thinks twice about it.
Of course they don't think twice about it. That's perfectly normal behavior in the minds of a majority. It's not flaunting, as you like to call it, it simply is. I'm close friends with a few gay people, and have a working relationship with many, I simply don't care if they have pictures of their loved ones/families on their desks.
I hope you had a most excellent Christmas, and I have no doubt that you and yours were mindful of whose birthday was being celebrated.
Our Christmas was good, hope yours was the same.
BTW: I finally got to meet Jethro in person on New Years Eve. He comes off rather "Normal" in person.
the sexuality that is celebrated on TV is overwhelmingly hetrosexual.
What do you mean "celebrated"? I've yet to see a hetrosexual celebration, or a "Hetrosexual Pride Parade". However, an overwhelming majority of people are hetrosexual, therefore an overwhelming majority of TV shows, office workers with pictures on their desks, Churches.... are going to be "Hetrosexual". It doesn't mean there's some big conspiracy on the part of hetrosexuals against homosexuals.
the sexuality that is celebrated on TV is overwhelmingly hetrosexual.
I wonder if you mean that a lot of the sexuality on tv is heterosexual. I don't know if it's really "celebrated" though. Yeah, there's a lot more of it. Seems more like a marketing ploy than a celebration. And there are plenty of heterosexuals who don't like all the sexuality on tv.
I'm with THX on this one. Sexuality seems like something that should be kept in the bedroom for the most part. You can be defined by your sexuality, that's fine. As I think about it, homosexuals and heterosexuals have different driving forces for flaunting their sexuality. For homosexuals, it's about trying to gain acceptance. They want to be able to do what they want in private, but they have to show themselves off in a way to let people know they are okay and not bad. For heterosexuals, it's about selling something or gaining a greater audience, predominantly the male crowd. Sexuality is a part of who we are. I think it just needs to stay private for the most part because it is predominantly a private matter.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. THX
That's what I'm trying to get to; what constitutes shoving homosexuality down the throat of the public? For some people, the definition seems to be any openness about sexual orientation whatsoever, such as walking down the street holding hands with one's lover -- the sort of thing that nobody thinks twice about if it's a man and a woman. Given your expressed level of tolerance, I guess it would mean a gay couple you've had over to dinner necking on the sofa after dessert -- but I don't think most people, gay or straight, would do that.
I really don't like this space stuff right now either. We have too many other things to worry about other than space. Let's worry about things on our own planet before we spend a heck of a lot of money on going to other planets. Let's keep working towards improving the economy, improving the job market. Let's get a quick, tidy resolution to the middle east situation. The money spent on the space program could go towards more important endeavors, endeavors that will benefit a lot more people directly.
pieter b 1/10/04 11:49am
what constitutes shoving homosexuality down the throat of the public?
Wanting special treatment. For example, I hate the idea of "Hate Crimes". Can't all violent crime be considered a "Hate Crime"?
For some people, the definition seems to be any openness about sexual orientation whatsoever, such as walking down the street holding hands with one's lover -- the sort of thing that nobody thinks twice about if it's a man and a woman.
You're right, some people are so intolerant and homophobic that something as small as holding hands disgusts them. The thing is, they have that right in this country. Right or wrong, people are allowed to be racists, bigots, homophobes... in this country, as long as that bigotry doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Does that make any sense?
Given your expressed level of tolerance, I guess it would mean a gay couple you've had over to dinner necking on the sofa after dessert -- but I don't think most people, gay or straight, would do that.
Necking? Well if they did that, gay or straight, I'd be kindly asking them to stop, and probably wouldn't invite them over for dinner again. :-)
=========================================================================================
which he has thrown out ONLY to deflect attention away from the War, and to try to appeal to a wider audience of voters, many of which want us to waste hundreds of billions, on such a fools-errand.
Was it a fools-errand when Kennedy made such proposals?
The thing is, what Dubya is proposing is a long term plan, which won't solidify until he is long out of office.
That being said, I also happen to agree that space exploration is a waste of resources.
Hey Bill, by the way, how are you? Haven't seen you around in a while.
as long as you don't "shove it down people's throats"?
as long as you don't "shove it down people's throats"?
Define please?
it's your phrase, you tell me.