What do you call it when 152 out of 153 passengers die in a plane crash? A miracle!

The Gospels may have taken some liberties in describing the “miraculous” powers of Jesus.

Over the weekend, yours truly happened to leave a frighteningly prophetic comment on the website Totally-Useless in response to a post alleging the existence of miracles. The post highlighted the recent story of a baby who got a pencil stuck in its throat mere millimeters from the carotid artery. Subsequently, this was deemed a miracle because the child suffered no serious injury. In my comment, I wondered why the alleged miracle-maker didn’t prevent the pencil from getting jammed in the kid’s throat in the first place and at one point I made the following remark:

“All this talk reminds of people who, for example, point to the sole survivor of a plane crash as proof positive of the existence of miracles, while at the same time they ignore the other 300 people who weren’t so fortunate. What was wrong with them? Were they not miracle-worthy?”

At the time, I hesitated to posit this scenario since I couldn’t recall any major plane crash in which there was just a single survivor. After all, usually everyone dies in a plane crash, unless it’s a crash on a runway or some such thing and there are several survivors and fatalities alike. So even though my statement made its point, I wasn’t sure how realistic it was. That was until this morning when I read that a Yemenia Airbus had gone down near the islands of Comoros in the Indian Ocean. You may have guessed where I’m going with this. That’s right, rescue crews pulled a single fourteen year-old survivor from the water. As expected, the media has been using the word “miracle” ad nauseum to describe this improbable outcome, but the truth is, calling this a miracle is downright sick. Here’s a sampling of headlines about this disaster:

Miracle at Sea: One Person Rescued from Deadly Jet Crash (ABC News)

“Miracle child” rescued after plane crashes into Indian Ocean (Associated Press)

Miracle: Child found alive after Indian Ocean plane crash (CBS News)

Imagine the lack of cognitive dissonance required to believe this garbage. And yet, in the coming days we will hear all kinds of crazy pontificating in the media about the heartwarming tale of a plane crash that sent 152 people to their untimely deaths while one person somehow defied the odds and lived. That's a death rate of 99.3%. I love a happy ending, don’t you?

If the people who toss around the word “miracle” so readily stopped to think about the implications of what they’re saying, we might be on our way to ridding ourselves of this useless term. To be sure, the concept of a miracle falls completely apart upon even superficial analysis.

As far as I can tell, “miracle” is used in two senses. First, there’s the Humean sense. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume wrote, “A miracle may be accurately defined as a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.” (Chapter X) Philosophically, this definition is far from perfect, but it will suffice for our purposes at the moment. There has never in the history of humanity been a documented, proven instance of a law of nature being suspended or altered in any way. (Sorry Christians, the magic tricks of your snake-oil salesman messiah don’t count. See above.) While credulous, weak-minded individuals are all too happy to attribute this fourteen year-old’s survival to divine intervention, rationalists know better. Although the details are unclear, reasonable people logically assume that for starters, there was probably something about the position of the girl’s seat inside the plane that insulated her against the undoubtedly violent impact, making her less vulnerable than her fellow passengers. Also, perhaps she happened to situate her body in a way that was somehow favorable to survival under the circumstances. Furthermore, it is almost certain that she had a relatively easy way out of the fuselage so she could escape before it sank. While these are just guesses, they are totally plausible. And as investigators gather more information, we will have a more accurate picture of what happened to the plane and how this girl was able to live through it.

Even if we were unable to develop a satisfactory explanation for an unlikely outcome such as this, this does not mean that the causes are divine. Indeed, which is more likely given a mysterious and improbable event: A supernatural divinity intervened in human affairs for some reason? Or there is a perfectly natural reason, but one which we have yet to ascertain? If you chose the former, stop reading this immediately and get yourself sterilized.

The second sense in which people use the word “miracle” is to describe not a suspension of natural law, but an event that while physically possible, is so unlikely and improbable that they nonetheless regard it as evidence of the intervening of a deity or “some invisible agent.” But notice how “miracle” is used only to describe improbable outcomes that are regarded as favorable. No one says that a miracle has occurred when some unlucky son of a bitch gets struck by lightning, not even people who believe in miracles. Why not? It was extremely improbable, wasn’t it?

You see, in ascribing such improbable positive outcomes to the handiwork of a deity, believers in miracles must ignore the lightning strikes, car wrecks, bear attacks, autoerotic asphyxiations gone wrong, and other freak incidents in which people are said to have been “in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Although miracles are always invoked as evidence of some benign deity or force, one can just as easily point to all kinds of improbable and crazy and horrible shit to advance the opposite case for a god who’s a total asshole.

Also notice that “miracles” almost always arise out of calamity. The plane crash. The man who survives a lightning strike. The woman who’s diagnosed with cancer and is given a 5% chance of beating it and does. A child who gets a pencil lodged in its throat millimeters from a major artery and recovers just fine. If these are indeed actual examples of miracles directed by a benign force, then why doesn’t the benign force just prevent the calamities from happening in the first place? That would seem a lot more benign to me. Why go through all that trouble? Does the deity want to show off? I hope that someday some miracle-believing mental invalid will be able to explain all of this to me because clearly I just don’t get it.

Until that day comes, I will define “miracle” as I always have: a word gullible people use to describe a highly improbable outcome which they happen to like.

- Max

No Billy Mays? No Problem.

Billy Mays may be dead, but this dude from Magic Hugs is more than capable of filling the void left by the legendary pitchman. Plus he puts the ShamWow guy to shame. Get yourself some paper towels!

- Max

Greatest College Professor Ever

Sheldon Solomon is a renowned social psychologist and professor at Skidmore College who is best known for being one of the three founders of “Terror Management Theory,” a psychological theory and research paradigm born mainly from the ideas of the late cultural anthropologist, Ernest Becker. Over the past few decades, a slew of terror management researchers have compiled impressive evidence that helps explain how an unconscious fear of death affects human behavior in a variety of ways.

I had the pleasure of having dinner with Sheldon after listening to one of his talks back in March. This video clip serves as just a small taste of the unique personality, unparalleled charisma, and charming wit that makes Dr. Solomon one of the most captivating teachers around. If there were more college professors of his caliber in this country, the mass of dunces currently filling our higher education system might actually begin to give a shit about learning.

~Wolf

Cosmic Narcissism: A New Psychological Disorder

Pat Robertson after receiving his diagnosis of Cosmic Narcissistic Personality Disorder

We are all familiar with people who think they are god’s gift to humanity and who routinely exploit others for their own personal gain. Psychologists typically consider such character traits to fall within the broader category known as narcissism. In the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders), the latest diagnostic bible put out by the American Psychological Association, nine specific traits and/or behaviors are listed as potential qualifiers for a formal diagnosis of what is called Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). People with NPD feel that they are supremely special in relation to those around them. They typically derive this sense of superiority from idealizing their own superficial accomplishments and/or characteristics (e.g., wealth, social status, special talents, etc).

The goal of this paper is to propose the existence of another group of people who potentially display the same narcissistic traits as those with NPD, but who do so in some important, qualitatively different ways. Instead of confining their narcissism to the superficial, interpersonal context, individuals in this group feel superior to others primarily based on certain religious or spiritual convictions. Narcissists of this type derive a grandiose sense of self-importance from being superior to others in the eyes of an imagined supreme being. Such individuals are thus more concerned with being important on a higher plane, or in the context of the wider universe. The purpose of this paper is to argue for the inclusion of this group within the current psychological literature. I will henceforth refer to this group as Cosmic Narcissists.

An analysis of Cosmic Narcissism reveals that this group likely displays most, if not all of the conditions that currently qualify for a formal diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. There are, however, many subtle differences with how these traits are manifested within this specific population. A review of the nine criteria listed in the DSM-IV for the diagnosis of NPD will be followed by an examination of how each of these criteria may or may not also qualify as accurate diagnostic indicators for Cosmic Narcissism. This examination marks an essential first step in addressing this potentially new psychiatric syndrome, and is the primary goal of this paper.

DSM-IV-TR Diagnostic Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, people (or institutions) who are also "special" or of high status.
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement
6. is interpersonally exploitative
7. lacks empathy
8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Cosmic Narcissistic Personality Disorder (An Assessment)

The cosmic narcissist displays a grandiose sense of self-importance (criteria 1) as witnessed by the rigid belief that their particular brand of religious faith is ultimately the only correct one, which is taken as evidence that they have been granted first-class status in the eyes of a supreme being, the only opinion of which truly concerns them. This sense of importance is often displayed outwardly by arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes (criteria 9). Extreme examples of such outward displays of haughtiness can be witnessed in the behavior of certain televangelists and Christian fundamentalists (e.g., Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen, etc). Most cosmic narcissists, however, display such arrogant behaviors in more subtle ways. A possible exception to this rule is frequently witnessed during circumstances where the individual’s faith is being directly challenged by others.

A certain percentage of cosmic narcissists attempt to hide their grandiose sense of self-importance by actively engaging in behavior that most interpret as acts of piety, compassion for others, and/or selflessness. In such cases, the individual’s actions should rarely be taken at face value. When a cosmic narcissist is doing charity work for someone ‘in need,’ for example, they are implicitly putting themselves above those who they claim to be helping in a selfless manner. This type of ‘charity’ is often guided by the cosmic narcissist’s unconscious motivation to inflate his/her sense of self-importance. In such cases, charity simply masquerades as ego boosting.

The current DSM states that narcissists may be preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love (criteria 2). Although the traits held by cosmic narcissists often overlap with those diagnosed with NPD proper, a narcissist of the purely cosmic variety rarely demonstrates intense fantasies of success, power, brilliance, or beauty. They are, however, usually quite preoccupied with fantasies of ideal love. The deity of their choosing is supposed to represent the one truly pure and ideal form of love in existence, a love which most would claim cannot exist within the human realm. Although a purely ideal love bestowed by a supreme being should be unconditional by nature, many of the actions taken by cosmic narcissists are claimed to be motivated by the desire to obtain, or to hold onto this imagined ideal love from god. Such individuals also seem motivated to behave in ways that demonstrate their own (human) ideal love for god, despite holding the aforementioned contradictory belief that humans are incapable of such love. Consequently, such actions as: questioning god, growing angry with him, or simply not glorifying him in commonly prescribed ways, can all cause the cosmic narcissist considerable stress due to the guilt that often accompanies their continual failure to demonstrate a capacity for perfect love.

Perhaps the most commonly witnessed trait of the cosmic narcissist is the belief that he or she is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, people (or institutions) who are also "special" or of high status (criteria 3). As mentioned earlier, people with strong religious convictions believe that they are supremely special, and this belief is fostered by the notion that a supreme being favors their group over all others. Individuals belonging to other groups then-- particularly to such groups that have substantially divergent religious beliefs-- are subsequently viewed as inferior. This sense of superiority harbored by cosmic narcissists often leads them to require excessive admiration (criteria 4) from others, particularly from those in different religious groups. When such admiration from the ‘inferior’ other(s) is not received, the cosmic narcissist’s extreme sense of entitlement (criteria 5) is left ungratified. When other groups (again, particularly rival religious groups) fail to demonstrate sufficient admiration for the cosmic narcissist’s special status, and thus neglect his right to special entitlements, an urge to retaliate often results. The potential for catastrophe that can ensue when the cosmic narcissist’s needs are not met is perhaps summed up best by the late George Carlin, in his “My god has a bigger dick than your god” scenario.

Cosmic narcissists, while rarely being as blatantly interpersonally exploitative (criteria 6) as those with NPD, still often display this characteristic in the context of promoting their religious ideologies (i.e., service work), for example. In most cases, when a cosmic narcissist is attempting to recruit an outsider into his religious organization, there is a hint of exploitation that takes place. In the most extreme forms, this can be witnessed in certain cult recruitment strategies, where members prey on specific types of vulnerable individuals that they know can be easily manipulated (i.e., brainwashed). Even in the more benign forms, however, convincing others to join one’s religious group or subscribe to one’s belief system still represent forms of exploitation, in that, again, the individual engaged in such solicitation is implicitly gaining a heightened sense of power and superiority in their ability to persuade others of the truth behind their beliefs. When such solicitation is successful (i.e., gaining a new member), the cosmic narcissist grows increasingly confident with regard to the righteousness of his actions and the truth behind his convictions. He is thereby able to even further convince himself of the special uniqueness he holds as a person; not only within the human world, but also within the greater universe.

Most religious folk pride themselves on their capacity for empathy with others. Many argue that most of the saintly individuals (e.g., Mother Theresa, Mahatma Ghandi) that human history has thus far produced have served as exemplars of the remarkable capacity for human empathy. Of course, on philosophical grounds, many would argue against this idea (see Nietzsche), calling into question whether pure empathy is even attainable. [This argument, although important to the discussion will not be elaborated any further, as it was previously alluded to when I suggested that charitable works often masquerade as methods for increasing one’s sense of power.] In the case of the cosmic narcissist, however, a lack of empathy (criteria 7) is most clearly illustrated in their dealings with individuals from other religious groups. An example of this can be witnessed by Christians of all stripes who claim to adhere to the word of Christ (e.g., love thy neighbor, condemn the sin and not the sinner, etc), but who nonetheless consider all Muslims and members of some other religious groups to be inferior human beings. I have personally heard many devout Christians divulge their secret wish to annihilate the entire Arab world, so as to permanently remove the scourge of Islam from our planet once and for all. This is a typical statement made by many cosmic narcissists, particularly in the U.S.

The psychological understanding of narcissistic dynamics teaches us that all narcissistic traits and behaviors are, at the core, defenses against deeply embedded feelings of inferiority. Nonetheless, these defenses are often very effective at keeping unpleasant emotions at bay, which helps explain how people with NPD and Cosmic Narcissism can often cruise along through life relatively unscathed while maintaining their inflated sense of superiority and entitlement. This ability to cruise through life, however, almost always leads to a mental breakdown of sorts after the individual incurs a particularly severe ‘narcissistic injury,’ or blow to one’s inflated self-esteem.

Long before such a breakdown occurs, however, narcissistic people can reveal some of these unconscious inferiority feelings by being outwardly envious of others (condition 8a), usually of those who they view as competition and thus feel threatened by. Narcissists also frequently believe that others are envious of them (condition 8b), which is a reflection of their defenses working in the most appropriate fashion (e.g., “If she did not like my performance it is only because she is jealous of me”). Cosmic narcissists display the aforementioned traits of being envious of others and assuming others are envious of them in similar ways that classic narcissists do. For example, a cosmic narcissist who identifies as a born-again Christian may feel envy and rage towards a practiced Buddhist monk after watching him do some weird meditation stuff and then talk about enlightenment. He is unaware, however, that this envy is rooted in his unconscious insecurities regarding his own religious convictions; insecurities that, if ever made conscious, would cause him to question the absolute legitimacy of his chosen faith. If this same Buddhist were to offend the cosmic narcissist by questioning some aspect of his faith, he may then defensively conclude that the Buddhist is being antagonistic simply because he is envious of his special relationship with Christ. Such a conclusion would help this individual feel more superior to his new religious rival.

This paper has put forth the argument that a new clinical syndrome exists that should be considered as a subcategory of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder as defined by the DSM-IV. If five of the nine criteria listed in the DSM can qualify one for a diagnosis of NPD, the same rule should apply for Cosmic Narcissistic Personality Disorder (CND) given the evidence put forth here, which suggests that all nine criteria may be appropriate for diagnosing this newly proposed clinical disorder. To confine narcissistic disturbances of personality solely to the interpersonal realm may seem prudent, but could constitute a substantial oversight within the current psychological diagnostic system. A differentiation should not be made, for example, between the individual with NPD who sees himself as superior to all individuals around him because of his remarkable talents and good looks, and the person with Cosmic Narcissistic Personality Disorder (CNPD) who thinks himself superior to most others because of the belief that an imagined deity specifically favors him (and his religious beliefs). Both individuals can rightly be deemed narcissistic, as they both have exaggerated feelings of superiority over others. The only difference between the two is the primary method by which they establish and maintain this sense of superiority. These differing reasons should not be the basis of diagnosing one group as opposed to another.

Afterword

It is time for religious fundamentalism to be regarded as a severe and potentially dangerous mental condition. I will be accepting donations to help advance this agenda. Please contact me if interested in making a contribution.

~Wolf

Michael Jackson Dead at 50. Nauseating Media Frenzy To Ensue

Jackson leaves a strange and unparalleled legacy

Farrah who?

The death of Michael Jackson is the media’s version of the perfect storm. Here we have arguably the greatest musical icon of the twentieth century, combined with a knack for the whack, including bleached skin, nose jobs, and an unhealthy interest in children. Throw in an untimely death possibly brought on by a diet of prescription meds and Jesus Juice, and you have yourself a Category 5. If you thought the media’s extravagant nonstop coverage of Anna Nicole Smith’s death was rough, brace yourselves for the oncoming Hurricane Jacko.

In these next few weeks, Jackson’s death will be reported as if it’s an ongoing event. It will be everywhere. News channels, MTV, VH1, E!, radio, the internet, newspapers, magazines, Food Network, you name it. There will be no rest for the weary. Anything relating to Jacko’s death that can possibly be reported, will be reported, no matter how insignificant or factually specious it might be.

Speaking of factually specious, after several television stations had initially reported that Jackson had died, they retracted their announcements and said they couldn’t be sure whether he was dead. Thus, for a few moments, from the viewers’ perspective Jacko had gone quantum—he was a real-life Schrödinger’s cat, existing in an indeterminate state where he was both dead and not dead. This superposition, however, was lost when the networks reported that they had opened the box to find that Jackson had indeed died.

While the King of Pop can only die but once, his public charades will be replayed ad nauseum by the perpetually celebrity-obsessed media. How many times can the public be shown a clip of Jackson dangling his baby son off a balcony? How much discussion can there be about his music legacy, his legal troubles, and his rocky personal life? Who will get custody of his kids? Just how much coverage can the death of a single person possibly garner? The answers to these and many other questions will be revealed in due course, whether we want to know them or not. Unless you plan on avoiding all forms of media for the nest few weeks, as well as coworkers, friends, and relatives, prepare for a Michael Jackson overload. If you don’t know a whole about the man right now, you will soon enough.

Despite his amazing achievements and unmatched success, Michael Jackson was obviously a sad figure in many ways. Pushed further and further into the entertainment business by an abusive and overbearing father at a very early age, Jackson was robbed of a normal childhood. Building his “Neverland” ranch was a strange and futile attempt to regain what he long ago had lost. Although Jackson’s interest in children was downright creepy and possibly led him to inappropriate and illegal behavior, we can’t say for sure. After all, the parents who accused Jackson of molesting their children turned out to be total scumbags in their own right.

Reclusive in life, Jackson will be ubiquitous in death. At least for awhile. His talents, his antics, and his sudden death will make sure of that. And although every story doesn’t have to have a lesson, perhaps Jackson’s does. Kids today are under so much pressure to do well in school, to participate in sports they don’t care about, and to engage in all kinds of structured activities designed to build “character.” The truth is, unless a child is a total hellion, he or she is best left receiving as little supervision as possible. But instead, there are parents who freak out because they have little grade-schoolers who are hyperactive, and so they take them to see prescription-happy doctors who diagnose them with ADD, ODD, RLS, or whatever the fuck is the disorder du jour.

Having a domineering parent probably won’t make a kid grow up just like Michael Jackson, but over-parenting can have lasting negative effects. You see this in overachievers who are miserable and never satisfied with their lives, forever trying to gain approval from mummy and daddy, even after they're dead. You see it in underachievers too for the same reasons. Parenthood is inherently tyrannical, but it need not be totalitarian. It’s possible that had Jackson’s father not forced him and his siblings on the music scene, we might not even know the name Michael Jackson. He might have been a mechanic instead of a musician for all we know. Since Jackson plainly admitted to being miserable and lonely in his later years, it’s perfectly legitimate to ask whether he would have traded in his millions and his musical successes in exchange for life as a happy and content commoner who had that childhood he never got.

-Max

Do Not Ever, EVER, Read Thomas Friedman

Thomas Friedman engages in one of his classic starry-eyed woolgatherings that will become the foundation for his next great thesis

It’s funny that Tom Friedman begins his latest clusterfuck of a column in the New York Times with the phrase, “There has been a lot of worthless chatter…” because worthless chatter is precisely what follows for 900 words. Reading Friedman is usually very unpleasant and confusing, not because he has a knack for writing profound prose or making dense arguments, but because he rarely makes any sense at all. If you read enough Friedman columns, you’ll eventually realize that in the cases where he actually does make a well-reasoned argument, it is purely accidental.

Friedman starts off by positing that if only oil were cheaper—$25 a barrel—he would be in favor of the United States entering into talks with the Iranian regime about its nuclear program. But, he says, with crude at $70/b the Iranians would simply have too much leverage in the negotiations. So Tom, what would conditions be like with crude at $25/b? “Trust me, at $25 a barrel, [President Ahmadinejad] won’t be declaring that the Holocaust was a myth anymore.” What else? “[N]othing would tell Iran’s leaders that they must change more than collapsing oil prices.”

Now, I seem to remember crude plummeting to $32/b just this February. What I do not remember from that time is Ahmadinejad admitting that the Holocaust happened, or the mullahs saying, “Gee, maybe we should put our nuclear program on the back burner and start thinking about the future of our economy because oil is down and our inflation and unemployment rates are out of control.” I don’t remember these things because they didn’t happen. Friedman is essentially saying that if crude had just dropped another seven bucks, the Iranians would’ve been ready to cry “uncle.” This scenario might be realistic for a state with a proven track record of giving a shit about its economy, but certainly not Iran. If Tom had done his homework, he’d know that for years Iran’s leaders have stood by with indifference as the country’s aging oil infrastructure has gone to hell, causing an estimated annual 10% decline in crude output. On top of this, Iran has to import over 40% of its gasoline and diesel needs because it simply lacks the capacity to refine its own goddamn crude, which is utterly ridiculous. And so I’m not quite sure why Friedman thinks $25 oil would have the Iranians whistling Dixie when nothing else has, but the man’s certainly entitled to hope.

Not content with giving a completely baseless and phantasmagoric hypothesis about how Iran would behave with oil at $25/b, Friedman proceeds to explain his half-baked “First Law of Petro-Politics” idea. Now I must warn you, it seems that whenever this man ponders some pressing political issue, his deliberation about it goes something like this: He conceives a rudimentary, black-and-white solution or explanation for the problem and asks himself, “Could it really be that simple?” to which he always answers, “Yes.” Hence he says,

“I believe in the ‘First Law of Petro-Politics,’ which [I pulled out of my ass and] stipulates that the price of oil and the pace of freedom in petrolist states—states totally dependent on oil exports to run their economies—operate in inverse correlation. As the price of oil goes down, the pace of freedom goes up because leaders have to educate and unleash their people to innovate and trade. As the price of oil goes up, the pace of freedom goes down because leaders just have to stick a pipe in the ground to stay in power.”

It sounds impressive for about 0.3 seconds until you realize that this “law” has no basis in reality—not on this planet, anyway.

Friedman presents us with the case of the Soviet Union, or “Exhibit A,” as he calls it. Keep in mind that the following remarks are supposed to support his “First Law of Petro-Politics.”

“In a 2006 speech entitled ‘The Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia,’ Yegor Gaidar, a deputy prime minister of Russia in the early 1990s, noted that “the timeline of the collapse of the Soviet Union can be traced to Sept. 13, 1985. On this date, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the minister of oil of Saudi Arabia, declared that the monarchy had decided to alter its oil policy radically. The Saudis stopped protecting oil prices, and Saudi Arabia quickly regained its share in the world market.

“‘During the next six months,” added Gaidar, ‘oil production in Saudi Arabia increased fourfold, while oil prices collapsed by approximately the same amount in real terms. As a result, the Soviet Union lost approximately $20 billion per year, money without which the country simply could not survive.’”

Did anyone else notice that Friedman basically just torpedoed his own argument simply by mentioning the Saudis? Let’s concede that his account of what brought about the USSR’s demise in the 1980s and the subsequent democratic reforms is accurate, even though there were definitely other factors at work, such as an already faltering economy and ongoing political decentralization. Unfortunately for his “law,” our loveable protagonist invokes Saudi Arabia rather nonchalantly, as if no one will think to inquire how freedom in this ultimate “petrolist state” faired during the same period of time. After all, if any case should be “Exhibit A” then surely Saudi Arabia, then or now, is it.

If Friedman’s hypothesis is correct, we should find that Saudi Arabia (and other states “totally dependent” on crude oil exports), like the USSR (even though the Soviets weren’t “totally dependent”) underwent political reform. So the question is, did Saudi leadership “educate and unleash their people to innovate and trade” during this time? I’ll let our State Department lead off and cite a 1989 report to Congress:

“No new major developments affected human rights in 1988. As in previous years, there were continuing reports of mistreatment of prisoners and incommunicado detention. Civil liberties remain significantly restricted.”

Furthermore, there was (and remains) no freedom of religion and criticism of the government is prohibited. Oh yeah, and it’s a monarchy. The extremely low level of both political and religious freedom has been the status quo for a very long time and during various fluctuations in the price of crude. Therefore, Saudi Arabia, which Friedman tangentially mentions in an argument that is supposed to prove his “law,” completely discredits it.

But what about other “petrolist states” at this time? Surely at least some of them were in the process of educating and unleashing their people to innovate and trade in response to falling crude, right? Unfortunately for our mustachioed Morgenthau, the evidence points in the other direction. Take the year 1988, which like the preceding two years, saw relatively low (inflation-adjusted) crude prices. What was going on in 1988? Well the Ayatollah’s Iran responded to the cheap prices by continuing to arrest and execute thousands of political prisoners, which culminated in that year’s mass execution of anywhere between 10,000 to 30,000 people. Also happening in 1988 was Saddam’s attack on the Kurds in Halabja in northern Iraq. People weren’t being educated for innovation; they were being oppressed or outright killed. If anything is the opposite of giving your citizens more freedom, it’s mustard-gassing them. Granted, Iran and Iraq were embroiled in a war, but if the presence of conflict is going to be cited as an exception to the rule, then Friedman’s “law” is no law at all.

Besides, the Saudi case, along with the sorry state of freedom in other OPEC countries such as Angola and Nigeria (to name two less-Islamic oil states), are plenty enough to blow Friedman’s argument into a million little hydrocarbons. Let no one accuse the man of violating Occam’s Razor. If there’s a simple explanation for an immensely complex phenomenon, then by god Tom Friedman will find it. Even if it doesn’t exist.

-Max

The Road To Hell Is Paved With Tweets

“Let the hate flow through you.”

- Emperor Palpatine

Fuck Twitter.

The American media is presently engaged in a shameless ganghumping of Twitter for its alleged role in stoking the flames of freedom in Iran. CNN, which sucks, has been the most self-indulgent participant in this orgiastic exhibition of pseudo-journalism and minutiae-peddling. Minutiae that may not even be accurate, to boot. Not only is CNN intensively reporting that Iranians are using Twitter to coordinate protests, it is reporting Twitter tweets from Iran as breaking news. And not just tweets. “The most trusted name is news” has also seen fit scour the pages of Facebook and MySpace for newsworthy information generated by users in Iran. Although CNN admits that pretty much none of these stories can be verified, the station continues to report them anyway.

At this point I have one very important question for CNN. What the fuck? I know you don’t have reporters on the scene, but in all seriousness how fucking lazy can you be? If your go-to sources for breaking information on the Iranian shit-show are Twitter and Facebook, then what do we need CNN for when we can just fire up the internet and guess with the best of them? And believe me, it is a guessing game. Tweets that report “eyewitness” accounts of the protests from “Naseem in Tehran” could for all we know actually be coming from Ted in Cincinnati.

As I was reading up on this Twitter bullshit in the New York Times the other day, I happened to notice a piece about good old Ray Bradbury. It turns out that the curmudgeonly old writer, now eighty-eight, spends his days traveling to cash-strapped libraries to help them raise the money necessary to stay afloat. You remember the library, right? That’s that vast repository of books and accumulated knowledge and insight available free to anyone who cares to concern themselves with such things. Although both Twitter and the library deal in information, the library is the exact opposite of Twitter.

Having already realized that the coming self-imposed hell of ours will be arrived at on a road of tweets, upon seeing the article I suddenly remembered Bradbury’s very stark warning in his 1953 futuristic classic, Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury’s mouthpiece for this prophetic admonition was the Orwellian Captain Beatty of the book-burning fire department. Beatty explains to fellow fireman and protagonist Montag why book-burning is so necessary:

“Peace, Montag. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change. Don’t give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy.” (p. 61)

While Twitter is not the only networking medium that lends itself to banality, in many ways it is worse than its peers. Twitter is the only “service” that prominently advertises itself chiefly as an intermediary for the transmission of hopelessly useless information. It is a tower of triviality. Indeed, it appears that most tweets are so unimportant that it would be considered impolite or even presumptuous to send their content via any other means, including text messages, if you can imagine that. In fact, there’s a good slogan. “Twitter: When your words are too unimportant to text.” To text!

When I went to the Twitter website for an explanation as to just what in god’s name those people think they’re doing, I was expecting to read all about it. Silly me. No reading. Instead, I watched a video telling me that the point of Twitter is to ask what people are doing at any given moment in their quiet lives of desperation. I thought, isn’t this just too much information? Twitter was prepared for this question: “No, Twitter solves information overload by changing expectations traditionally associated with online communication.”

Huh?

“At Twitter, we ask one question, ‘What are you doing?’ The answers to this question are for the most part rhetorical. In other words, users do not expect a response when they send a message to Twitter.”

Users don’t expect a response? Then what the fuck is the point of this horseshit?

“On the receiving end, Twitter is ambient—updates from your friends and relatives float to your phone, IM, or web site and you are only expected to pay as much or as little attention to them as you see fit.”

First of all, your average Twitter user doesn’t know what ‘ambient’ means. Second, I don’t know about you, but the only time I really give a shit about what people are doing is when I want to make plans with them. In which case, I call them on the phone. And you know what’s great about the phone? It doesn’t limit what I want to say to 140 characters. One hundred forty characters. As if our language hasn’t been vulgarized enough, Twitter is helping to raze our discourse to the base level of hoi polloi jargon and jive-talking. How did we get to this point where everything is abbreviated, nothing is unabridged, and expediency reigns supreme over substance? I’ll let Captain Beatty handle this one also:

“Picture it. Nineteenth-century man with his horses, dogs, carts, slow motion. Then, in the twentieth century, speed up your camera. Books cut shorter. Digests. Tabloids. Everything boils down to the gag, the snap ending…Classics cut to fit fifteen-minute radio shows, then cut again to fill a two-minute book column...

“...Speed up the film, Montag, quick. Click, Pic, Look, Eye, Now, Flick, Here, There, Swift, Pace, Up, Down, In, Out, Why, How, Who, What, Where, Eh? Uh! Bang! Smack! Wallop, Bing, Bong, Boom! Digest-digests, digest-digest-digests. Politics? One column, two sentences, a headline! Then, in midair, all vanishes! Whirl a man’s mind around so fast under the pumping hands of publishers, exploiters, broadcasters that the centrifuge flings off all unnecessary time-wasting thought!” (pp. 54-55)

I am by no means a Luddite. My problem is not with technology, but with people who use it for harebrained purposes, such as disclosing the utterly insignificant to all those unfortunate enough to receive their vapid tweets.

This month Harvard University released the results of a study conducted on over 300,000 Twitter users (or Twits, as I’ll call them). It turns out that 90% of all Twitter content is generated by 10% of the users. Furthermore, the results showed that a huge portion of Twits use Twitter simply to follow others instead of tweeting themselves. After a lot of number-crunching, the study found that the median number of tweets per user in an entire lifetime is one.

Naturally, this means that there is a relatively small group of staggeringly pretentious douchebags out there who think they’re so important as to subject their toolbag followers to a daily farrago of frivolities, inanities, buffooneries, and outright absurdities. Let’s have a look at some sample tweets, shall we?

“Taking a shit at Starbucks.”

“I really like avocados.”

“Shaving my grundle.”

“Where’s that J I just rolled?”

Brilliant. Anything else you’d like to tell us, you pompous asshole?

“I’m tweeting.”

Go fuck yourself, you philistine.

-Max

Obama Rightly Cautious on Iran Turmoil

Iranians continue to protest Ahmadinejad’s implausible landslide “victory”

Barack Obama is under fire from Republicans, Iranian-Americans, and even many liberals because of his “timidity” in the face of the all but certain election fraud committed by the Iranian regime in that country’s presidential election. Incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inexplicably garnered 63% of the vote for reelection over his reformist rival Mirhossein Mousavi who tallied 34%.

The results are inexplicable because under the incompetent and nepotistic Ahmadinejad, Iran finds itself in dire economic straits of the kind never before experienced by most of Iran’s population. The country has been dealing with inflation hovering around 25% and an unemployment rate of over 10% for some time now thanks to this man’s disastrous fiscal policies. Furthermore, like his predecessors, Ahmadinejad has failed to address his country’s crumbling oil infrastructure and lack of refineries. Increasingly, Iran is being viewed as a potentially unreliable source for crude, not because of internal strife, but because of the seeming inability of any Iranian leader to make the most of the country’s vast oil reserves.

It is uncertain whether the current protests over the dubious election will bear any fruit and bring about change in Iran’s government. What is certain, however, is that President Obama’s circumspect response to these events is an appropriate reaction given the dynamics of the situation. When people such as Senator John McCain or the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto call for a strong rhetorical response from Obama condemning Iran’s regime for the questionable election and its subsequent crackdown on protestors, they show just how gauche their understanding is of this volatile state of affairs.

Iranians have a mixed perception of the U.S. While many Iranians—especially young professionals—admire the U.S. for its freedom and openness, they view America with some suspicion given our history of unwelcomingly intervening in their internal politics. To understand why Obama is acting with such caution, a few words must be said about the history of American-Iranian relations.

In 1953 the U.S. and the United Kingdom clandestinely orchestrated a successful coup attempt against Iran’s prime minister, Mohammed Mossadeq. Mossadeq had committed the crime of believing that at least half of Iran’s oil profits should go to the Iranian people and not the British-run Anglo-Iranian Oil Company—a company borne out of a 1901 contract between Shah Mozzafar al-Din Shah and a wealthy Londoner named William D’Arcy, in which the latter received exclusive rights to the oil reserves in a huge chunk of Iranian territory. Shortly before Mossadeq became prime minister, the Iranian parliament voted outright to nationalize the AIOC, sparking a bitter dispute between Iran and the U.K., and prompting Western oil companies to boycott Iranian oil. Previously the U.S. had attempted to mediate the quarrel, even trying to pressure Britain into agreeing to a 50-50 share of the profits, which would rectify this lopsided imperial-era agreement through which a sovereign state had been robbed blind. Despite America’s efforts, the Brits—who had actually occupied Iran a decade before with the Soviets after their successful (and now forgotten) joint invasion of that country in 1942—refused.

Frustrated and politically weakened, Mossadeq intimated that if America could not help Iran, perhaps someone else could. That someone else was the Soviet Union. While we may not know how sincere the prime minister was in threatening to seek out Soviet assistance in its dispute with the West, Iran expert Ray Takeyh notes that Mossadeq simply wanted the Americans to step up pressure on the Brits, and that threatening to play the Communist card was likely just a bargaining tactic. If so, this was a catastrophic miscalculation. The Eisenhower administration took this “threat” quite seriously and proceeded to exploit the politically weak Mossadeq’s fractured coalition by supporting a group loyal to Iran’s exiled Shah—Mohammad Reza Pahlavi—which it funded via the CIA. Subsequently, Mossadeq was overthrown and the Shah returned to power.

The rest is history. Over the next quarter-century the tyranny of the Shah was backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government until his overthrow by an unlikely coalition of professionals, clerics, intellectuals and others fed up with this autocrat beholden to Western interests. Unfortunately, the professionals and intellectuals lost the post-Revolution power-grab to Ruhollah Khomeini—a cleric who formed a government that reflected his dualistic persona as an imam who was also well-versed in Western political thought. The result was a hybrid political system in which most power was vested in a religious Supreme Leader chosen by the clerics of the Guardian Council. The remaining powers were instilled in a democratically elected president.

Over the years, many Iranians have sought to blame the U.S. for certain ills endured by their country. Sometimes these feelings have been justified, sometimes they have not. Nonetheless, the perception in Iran is that there is a long rich history of American meddling in Iran’s affairs. If Obama were to intensify his rhetorical condemnations of the Iranian regime at a time when the (U.S.-favored) opposition has some promising momentum, this could only have a negative effect on the outcome. Ahmadinejad has already accused the U.S. of butting into Iran’s post-election turmoil, not because he actually believes this, but because he knows that if he can convince Iranians that America is somehow actively backing his opponents, the Mousavi faction will be seen as tainted goods—a proxy coalition for the advancement of Western interests whose accession to power would undermine Iran’s political sovereignty.

At this moment the Iranians aren’t buying Ahmadinejad’s lie, partly because there is no evidence to suggest that it is true. But if Obama were to heed the clumsy advice of critics and come down strongly on Ahmadinejad and the ruling clerics for shrugging their shoulders in response to the credible allegations of massive voter fraud, he would be playing right into the hands of these hardliners. For if Iran’s ruling elite can show that the U.S. is playing favorites in this dispute, the implication would be that the side favored by America must the wrong one.

The momentum behind Mousavi and the opposition is so palpable that the prospect for positive change is quite real. While the clerics will almost certainly retain their power when all is said and done, they may find that going to bat for the unpopular Ahmadinejad is simply not worth the trouble. Hundreds of thousands of protestors continue to line the streets of Tehran, and they show no signs of going away. If the opposition can convince the clerics that their grip on power is in jeopardy, Ahmadinejad will suddenly become expendable. As much as Supreme Leader Khamenei and the rest of the mullahs want to keep a self-proclaimed reformer like Mousavi out of national office, they would readily allow him the presidency if it meant holding on to their power were it threatened by the growing anti-Ahmadinejad coalition. The longer these protests persist, the more likely it is that Ahmadinejad will indeed be thrown under the bus.

-Max

Fung Wah Bus Lines: Ride At Your Own Risk

Apparently “Fung Wah” is Chinese for “Shit Happens”

I like reading Slate because I can always count on it to entertain me with some crazy-ass article about grass-eating Japanese men or a Christopher Hitchens column doing cartwheels in response to the death of Jerry Falwell. But this morning when I opened up slate.com I found myself drawn to an article on the best discount bus lines in the country. Why I felt compelled to read it I don’t know; I haven’t been on a private bus line in seven years and I don’t plan on being on one any time soon. However, the article turned out to be one of the most unintentionally funny pieces I’ve read in awhile for the plain fact that it maintains that the Fung Wah bus company is one of the best discount lines. Here’s the reviewer’s final assessment on Fung Wah: “For my money, all $15 of it, that’s worth the risk.”

What “risk” is she talking about, you ask? Well, New Englanders and New Yorkers are quite familiar with the comically calamitous ineptitude of Fung Wah, which provides service back and forth between New York and Boston, as well as Providence. Since about 2005, Fung Wah has made headlines with startling frequency owing to a series of literally unbelievable mishaps; and yet, here’s this reviewer from Slate claiming that the cheapo ticket prices are “worth the risk,” as in worth the risk of injury or death. Think I’m exaggerating? Let’s review Fung Wah’s record, not just as a public service for those searching for a discount bus line, but for the sake of a good laugh too. And believe me, collectively these incidents make for goddamn top-notch hilarity.

August 16, 2005: A New York-bound bus catches fire on Interstate 91 near Meriden, Connecticut. The passengers criticize the driver for being totally worthless during the evacuation of the bus.

Fung Wah afire

September 2005: In a prophetic safety assessment of Fung Wah bus drivers, federal regulators give them a collective score of 73 out of 100—100 being the worst score possible. The national average is 24 out of 100. Still, Massachusetts state regulators insist the bus line is safe.

September 6, 2006: A Fung Wah bus rolls over in Auburn, Massachusetts (site of the isolation tank story) and causes minor injuries to 34 passengers. Excessive speed is cited as a factor and the company is fined.

January 3, 2007: In Framingham, Massachusetts, a New York-bound bus loses its two rear wheels. No injuries are reported.

February 14, 2007: The driver of a New York-bound bus loses control in a winter storm and hits a guardrail on the Massachusetts Turnpike (I-90 in Allston). No injuries are reported.

Yet another Fung Wah fuck-up

March 23, 2007: A New York-bound bus becomes stuck on a concrete barrier in front of a tollbooth on the Massachusetts Turnpike at Route 128 in Weston, when the bus drives up on a cement lane divider. The driver had entered an automobile-only lane and tried to change lanes. No one is injured in the incident, but the bus is taken out of service and passengers board another Fung Wah bus that arrives later. Lucky them.

Rare photo of a Fung Wah bus that isn't on fire or crashed into something

It’s worth mentioning that on June 23, 2008 a Fung Wah bus boarding passengers was inexplicably nailed by a dump truck in New York’s Chinatown, forcing the bus into a bank and causing a traffic light to fall on a woman who later died. While the dump truck’s company was found at fault, one has to wonder whether Fung Wah has some seriously negative Feng Shui.

Now, I’m not saying that Fung Wah ought to be put out of business because I really don’t care. Indeed, if I’m feeling adventurous the next time I have to go to New York, I might just look under my couch cushions for enough change to buy myself a ticket and enjoy the ride. But for a reviewer of a major online magazine to say that Fung Wah is “worth the risk” as if she’s talking about buying stock in the company instead of actually using its services, is insane.

Fung Wah’s first and only foray into air travel also ended in disaster

I should also mention that in January when three friends and I were driving down to D.C. for Obama’s inauguration in blizzard conditions on the Mass Pike, a Fung Wah bus blew by us in the left lane as if it were 70 degrees out with clear skies. It was clearly driving way too fast for those conditions, especially for a cumbersome bus. “I think we can expect to see that bus again,” I told my travel companions, “Off the road.” I was wrong. We didn’t see it again, so naturally I assumed that the bus had crashed, but in a ditch so big we couldn’t see it.

So that’s the deal with Fung Wah. The next time you’re looking for a bus to take you to Boston or New York, remember what you’ve read here. And if you should ever find yourself standing on the side of a highway in Connecticut waiting for crews to clear your bus off the road so you can board another one of Fung Wah’s death traps, don’t say you weren’t warned.

-Max

The Hypocrisy of the Anti-Defamation League

Now someone tell the ADL

In the wake of this month’s shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. in which an 88 year-old white supremacist killed an African-American security guard, the Anti-Defamation League and its representatives have been making their rounds in the national media. The ADL is an organization whose stated mission is “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” But in reality a large part of their mission is to smear and stifle public figures who dare criticize the Jewish state of Israel, particularly for its use of aggressive (and sometimes unlawful) tactics against Palestinians.

Take for example, the case of William Robinson, a sociology professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. In April it was revealed that Abraham Foxman, the old fart who heads the ADL, insisted that the university investigate Robinson because in his class he had distributed photos of Israeli crimes against Palestinians juxtaposed with photos of Jews being brutalized in ghettos by the Germans during World War II. Apparently two students were so offended they withdrew from the course, and shortly thereafter Foxman and company were on the scene demanding that the professor be investigated for anti-Semitism.

Can the ADL really be so daft as to not see the point of the juxtaposed photographs? Crimes are crimes no matter who carries them out, or whom they are carried out against. Of course, the ADL knows this perfectly well, but Foxman et al. will be damned if they let a professor at a public university make such a powerful statement at the expense of the Israeli military. Indeed, that they cannot have; for the ADL may be against “the defamation of the Jewish people,” but they are certainly in favor of defaming those who speak out against the actions of the Jewish state, and they do so by declaring or implying that such people are anti-Semites, which is a social kiss of death in our society, especially for academics.

I could furnish several other instances where the ADL has sought to terrorize academia by targeting professors critical of Israel. Certainly this happened with Noam Chomsky in the infamous Faurisson Affair. While one can learn a lot about the dishonesty of the ADL by examining such cases, the most damning indictment of the organization’s disingenuousness can be found in its position on the Armenian genocide and that event’s relevance to contemporary international affairs.

In 2007, a seemingly uncontroversial resolution was submitted to Congress by Representative Adam Schiff (D-California and a Jew) recognizing the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1918. Then President Bush—that great defender and upholder of the sanctity of human life—urged Congress to reject the resolution. Here’s what he said: “We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915, but this resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to relations with a key ally in NATO, and to the war on terror.” Bush was of course referring to the fact that Turkey—the Ottoman successor state and Muslim ally of the U.S.—would be none too happy with a simple non-binding resolution which would rightfully indict their forebears for perpetrating one of the greatest atrocities in history. From Bush’s incredible statement we are forced to draw the conclusion that he is (was) in favor of recognizing mass killing and genocide only when America’s political and foreign relations are not inconvenienced by doing so.

What does this have to do with the ADL? Well amazingly the ADL—a Jewish organization which knows all too well the horrors of genocide—was behind the president 100% on this. Like the U.S., Israel is also an ally of Turkey, and an even closer ally of the U.S. And so the ADL felt that this resolution represented a threat to this relationship because it would alienate the Turks. In one of the most cowardly statements ever issued, this is what Foxman had to say about the controversy:

We have never negated but have always described the painful events of 1915-1918 perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians as massacres and atrocities. On reflection, we have come to share the view of Henry Morgenthau, Sr. that the consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide. If the word genocide had existed then, they would have called it genocide.

I have consulted with my friend and mentor Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel and other respected historians who acknowledge this consensus. I hope that Turkey will understand that it is Turkey’s friends who urge that nation to confront its past and work to reconcile with Armenians over this dark chapter in history.

Having said that, we continue to firmly believe that a Congressional resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation between Turks and Armenians and may put at risk the Turkish Jewish community and the important multilateral relationship between Turkey, Israel and the United States.

Short of maintaining that the genocide never happened, or that it did happen but that it was a good thing, can you imagine a more deplorable statement to issue about such a terrible event? For a moment, imagine that a group of Jews in the United States wants Congress to pass another resolution recognizing the horrors of the Holocaust. Now imagine that the German American National Congress (a nonpolitical group simply seeking to preserve German culture among German-Americans) protests by declaring that they “firmly believe that a [U.S.] Congressional Resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion.” We can easily predict what the response would be—something along the lines of nationwide indignation at the suggestion that recognizing the Holocaust would be a “counterproductive diversion.” And yet this is precisely what the ADL said what recognizing the Armenian genocide would amount to. While I understand that the ADL is an organization dedicated primarily to Jewish causes, its mission statement nonetheless declares that it seeks “justice and fair treatment for all.” Furthermore, one would think that the ADL would be a bit touchier when it comes to the subject of genocide and would thus refuse to tolerate any pussyfooting around the issue in any and all instances of it. One would think that, but one would be wrong.

Thankfully some in the ADL broke ranks with Foxman. Among them was Andrew Tarsy, the regional director of the ADL in New England, who was fired after he called Foxman’s position on the issue “morally indefensible.” Additionally in Watertown, Massachusetts, where Armenians comprise a sizeable minority, the town council voted unanimously to withdraw the town from the ADL’s “No Place For Hate” campaign in what was a very appropriate response to the organization’s abhorrent stance.

In short, ladies and gentlemen, the ADL is an organization which cloaks itself in the righteousness that comes with fighting for human and civil rights. But yank away this spurious shroud and we can plainly see the ADL for what it really is: an ugly organization which, though it sometimes legitimately crusades against real forms of anti-Semitism, is at bottom more about preserving political agendas and alliances at the expense of the very ideals it claims to be protecting.

-Max