Hope and Change: Christmas

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, may I wish you a Merry Christmas?

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Yes, thank you!  I don’t mind because I’m Christian.  In fact, I welcome Christmas, because it reminds me of hope for salvation and change in the hearts of men.

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):   I don’t mind either, but it makes me a little nervous if other people are nearby because it might offend some of them.  IM, your idea of hope and change are not the same as that promised by the progressive’s Messiah—Barack Obama.  His hope is for all Americans to benefit from the redistribution of wealth managed by a central government.  Their form of change involves changing the institutions of individual liberty into institutions of collective liberty.

IM:  It’s sad that so many in America are not so free to openly believe in the hope and change promised by Jesus Christ—who actually died for our redemption. 

Old Gadfly:  What I find immoral about this is that progressives are using public education to program our children as to what they are allowed or expected to think.  Just yesterday, my daughter and her husband explained to me that they were specifically directed not to use words such as Jesus, Christ, Christmas, nativity scene, or any other Christian-related expression in their classrooms.  It is alright however to express other religious terms and concepts.  My daughter was seriously emotionally and spiritually wounded by this mandate.  She and her family recently returned from a seven-year stay in China where religion is mostly practiced in secret.  Now she has returned to her country to find that it is becoming like China.  She sympathized with the person explaining these policies because schools are becoming targets for lawsuits.  While many in these schools believe they would more likely win suits in the courts, they can’t afford the cost of litigation.

IM:  So, obviously there is a deliberate effort to deny Americans the freedom to proclaim their belief in Jesus Christ and the traditional national holiday of Christmas.  Yet, what if I told you that anyone who does not believe that global warming is human caused is a denier or Neanderthal?

AM:  Then based on that belief I am a Neanderthal.  While Jonathan Gruber, the Obamacare architect, is an opportunist now wealthy (from taxpayer funded payments via federal and state governments) from his scheming, he may be right about Americans being stupid.  I recently watched an interview of Al Gore at the Aspen Institute.  He is very passionate about his global warming crusade.  As co-founder and chairman of Generation Investment Management, and a senior partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Gore is amassing a fortune in green energy projects.  Most of the money comes from the government (that is taxpayer revenue).  This is definitely redistribution of the wealth, but it is not for those who might need it.  It is one of the benefits of crony capitalism.

Old Gadfly:  This year, the European Union realized that green energy initiatives were unaffordable.  They discovered that idealism must be reconciled with realism.  How many Americas who recite the green energy mantra know this?  What I find very concerning is that President Obama wants to “educate” our children to make sure they believe the right thing about global warming (or climate change).  He is doing this through the new “Climate Education and Literacy Initiative” through the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy.  According to the U.S. News & World Report, “The administration wants students and teachers to toe the line on climate change,” and that the Administration “will distribute science-based information—in line with the administration’s position on the issue—to students, teachers and the broader public.”

IM:  Progressives are threatened by Christianity—this is why they try to achieve a moral high road with their notion (and quite frankly, folklore) of science.  Christian values are not consistent with progressive values.  Thomas Woods, a Harvard and Columbia-trained historian, converted from Lutheranism to Roman Catholicism, and has written an informative book:  How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.  Here is the opening paragraph:

Philip Jenkins, a distinguished professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University, has called anti-Catholicism the one remaining acceptable prejudice in America.  His assessment is difficult to dispute.  In our media and popular culture, little is off-limits when it comes to ridiculing or parodying the Church.  My own students, to the extent that they know anything at all about the Church, are typically familiar with alleged Church “corruption,” of which they heard ceaseless tales of varying credibility from their high school teachers.  The story of Catholicism, as far as they know, is one of ignorance, repression, and stagnation.  That Western civilization stands indebted to the Church for the university system, charitable work, international law, the sciences, important legal principles, and much else besides has not exactly been impressed upon them with terrific zeal.  Western civilization owes far more to the Catholic Church than most people, Catholics included—often realize.  The Church, in fact, built Western civilization.[1]  

Old Gadfly:  So far, progressives are “hopeful” that Pope Francis will “change” Catholic doctrine to be more compatible with progressive values.  Pope Francis recently punished an American Cardinal for his more conservative views.  The pressure being placed on Pope Francis is really no different from the temptations of Christ in the desert (Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13).  Progressives want to celebrate the victory of secularism over Christianity.  The real test is that Pope Francis is a Jesuit.  Jesuits have a controversial history with the Vatican.  Jesuits openly collaborated with Marxist efforts in South and Central America.    By the way, California Governor Jerry Brown was a Jesuit in training—so this may explain his Marxist approach to public policy.  We may soon see whether Pope Francis is a progressive Catholic or a Catholic progressive.  If he chooses to go against traditional doctrine of the Church, then he may demonstrate that he is a progressive Catholic, where his political views determine his religious positions.

IM:  It seems that this time of the year might be an opportunity to truly reflect on what really matters in this mortal life, especially for those of us who believe in accountability after death.

Old Gadfly:  Perhaps those who feel compelled to buy the “Happy Holidays” expression are the true Mother Nature deniers.

---

[1] Thomas E. Woods, Jr., How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005), p. 1.

Accountability Is Bittersweet

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, last month, I promised a strategy for how to redeem America’s political quagmire.  The strategy is simple:  American citizens must demand accountability.

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, told a Congressional committee this last week that she was accountable for the rollout of the healthcare insurance exchanges.

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  If Secretary Sebelius admits to being accountable, did she offer to resign?

IM:  She was specifically asked this question, and she said, “no.”

Old Gadfly:  So, if she admits to being accountable, what does “being held accountable" mean?

AM:  I would submit that if you are an American public servant in today’s bloated government, accountability means little to nothing.

Old Gadfly:  Amazingly, Watergate still serves as the notable example of corruption in government.  Yet, Nixon resigned.  Many of his aides were prosecuted.  Years later, after a spiritual epiphany, Chuck Colson turned himself in for obstruction of justice during the Watergate scandal.  He was convicted and served time.  He didn’t need to turn himself in.  Yet, as a man of character, Colson sought reconciliation with his conscience by holding himself accountable to the American people.  Colson shared his experience with the cadets of the United States Air Force Academy on November 17, 1993, nearly 20 years ago.  He opened his remarks with this statement:  “The breakdown of character is the number-one crisis in America.”

AM:  Now, we talk about other crises, like the 2008 financial crisis, the increasing inequality gap, and so forth.  Yet, Colson is so right in his assessment.  The character crisis of 1993 is minuscule compared to the absolute corruptness of character today, fueled either by greed in the private sector or power in the public sector.

IM:  I suspect this is what Pope Francis is implying when he said “We [the Catholic Church] cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

Old Gadfly:  What do you think Pope Francis meant by “we have to talk about them in a context”?

IM:  I think he means people find themselves in situations where the choices may be very limited and difficult.  The context means understanding the environment and conditions that that may be beyond an individual’s control, and that constrain the choices an individual can reasonably make. 

Old Gadfly:  Excellent point, IM.  I recall discussing some of these considerations in our conversation earlier this year about the reification of marriage.

IM:  Building upon these notions about context, are children more or less inclined to make bad choices when they grow up in a loving and virtuous family?  I think we know the answer.  A loving and virtuous family provides boundaries and rules for life, such as “the golden rule,” “the Ten Commandments,” “the Tau,” and so forth.  Children learn manners and respect for other people.  Unfortunately, the concept of family has been under assault in America.  The following Table compares poverty rates by family type in 2006 (the last year Republicans controlled Congress) and 2012.

AM:  The pattern reveals two important distinctions.   First, single parents are more likely to be below the poverty level, with single-mother families showing significantly higher rates.  Single-mother families are five times more likely than married couple families to be below the poverty level.  The second distinction is that the percent of the population below the poverty level has significantly increased since 2006:  9% for single-mother families, 24% for single-father families, and 35% for married-couple families.

IM:   These dynamics clearly explain why a certain party claims to protect women’s rights.  This party has been in power for nearly seven years now.  When will this single-mother voting demographic understand that a “protected class” and entitlement contract does not improve their conditions?  To the contrary, it worsens them.

AM:  Are we digressing, Gadfly?

Old Gadfly:  Not at all.  You and IM are describing facts that can help to articulate the context for the American political quagmire and how it can be remedied through accountability.  Unfortunately, for many on the political left, the facts will not matter if they do not fit their mental frame.  Many single-mothers are convinced by Democrats that Republicans, and even worse, Tea Party members, are committed to making life miserable for them.  Yet, historical data does not support this mental frame. 

Let’s look at the broader picture.  We look to the President of the United States for character-based leadership.  President Obama campaigned on a promise of hope and change.  He claims to be fighting for the middle class and that his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, will bring affordable healthcare to millions who have not had it.  He may have had good intentions, but his approach has had adverse outcomes.  Fighting for the middle class means advocating policies that give them jobs, not entitlements.  This is very consistent with the Catholic Church’s notion of social justice as explained in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.  Item 76 states, “Economic decisions and institutions should be assessed according to whether they protect or undermine the dignity of the human person. Social and economic policies should foster the creation of jobs for all who can work. . ..”  Item 77 states, “Welfare policy should reduce poverty and dependency, strengthen family life, and help families leave poverty . . ..”  As your poverty data reveals, the demographic impacted the most are married-couple families.

IM:  Data indicate economic decisions and policies under the Obama Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress have “undermined the dignity of the human person” and have increased “poverty and dependence.”  The next graphic show actual labor participation rate (62.8% as of October 2013) is the lowest in 35 years.

The next graphic shows the average number of weeks unemployed (and drawing government-funded unemployment compensation) over the past 35 years.  The number peaked in October 2012 at 39.9 weeks.  Last month the rate was 36.1% and corresponds to the increasing number of “discouraged workers” who have exhausted unemployment compensation.  Under the Obama Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress, dependency on the government has more than doubled.

The next graphic shows the number of Americans having to resort to part-time jobs.  As of October 2013, this number includes 8,050,000 Americans.  Complicating this particular labor statistic is that part-time jobs do not provide benefits, such as healthcare.  Again, the numbers have more than doubled under the Obama Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress. 

Finally, the following graph shows the number of Americans who are classified as “discouraged” by the Labor Department.  These are individuals who want a job but believe no jobs are available.  The number peaked in December, 2010 with 1,318,000 individuals.  The number of discouraged workers as of October 2013 is 815,000.  These numbers are in addition to those listed as unemployed or part-time only.  Again, the numbers have more than doubled under the Obama Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress.

 

AM:  These data clearly indicate the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress are failing to achieve positive social justice outcomes as encouraged by the Catholic Church.

Old Gadfly:  This is true.  Now, let’s look at a major policy that aggravates these circumstances:  the Affordable Care Act, that is, Obamacare.  Now that the government has reopened, the main news cycle topic is Obamacare, in particular getting individuals on insurance policies through the government website.  The website to this day is not working well.  And, we hear reports that most of the individuals signing up through the “exchanges” qualify for government subsidies or Medicaid.  Millions who had insurance have been dropped by their insurance companies because the policies did not meet Obamacare standards.  Many are discovering their options are more expensive.

IM:  President Obama did apologize in an interview on November 7 with Chuck Todd of NBC News.

Old Gadfly:  His apology was a superb example of sophistry.  Here is what he said:  "I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me."  He did not say “based on mandates in the Affordable Care Act.”  He said, “based on assurances they got from me.”  Think about what he is implying:  “People are losing their insurance and/or doctors because I, President Obama, said they can keep their doctors or insurance plans if they like them.”  Since Obama believes there is nothing wrong with the mandates in Obamacare, then people must be losing their insurance because insurance companies want people to lose their coverage despite assurances from President Obama.  This is consistent with his Freudian slip later in the interview when he said, “Now that -- you know, having said that -- given that I've been burned already with -- a website -- well, more importantly, the American people have been burned by -- a website that has been dysfunctional.”  I’m glad he added “the American people.”  But, it was an after-thought.

AM:  Ironically, none of this would be an issue had Reid and Obama “compromised” in September by agreeing to delay the individual mandate for a year.  Politically, this compromise was not feasible for the progressive Democrats because it was important to shut down the government in order to blame Republicans.  I think we argued a good case for what actually happened here in our October 18, 2013 discussion, “Obama’s Rubicon.”

Old Gadfly:  So, where is the accountability for the dismal economy?  Admitting mistakes might be a good first step.  Alan Greenspan does a great deal of admitting mistakes in a brilliant analysis of the global (yes, global—this was more than a U.S.-only manifestation) financial crisis of 2008 in a recent Foreign Affairs article, “Never Saw It Coming:  Why the Financial Crisis Took Economists by Surprise.”  In essence, Greenspan is critical of existing macroeconomic forecasting models (currently based on Keynesian principles), and calls for updated models that factor in herd behavior and investment risk factors.  Of course, these models are for policy-makers in government.

AM:  Speaking of risk, doesn’t Obamacare present a major risk to our economy?

IM:  More than people know.  Just imagine the damage already done.  Millions have lost their insurance.  Millions are being added to subsidized programs.  Remember, “subsidized” means taxpayer revenue filtered through the government. 

Old Gadfly:  Who should be held accountable here? 

IM:  Obama cannot run for reelection.  History will hold him accountable, possibly equating him to a modern Sisyphus, a chronically deceitful King of Ephyra. 

AM:  Yet, there are many elected officials who collaborated in the creation of the Obamacare monster, even though most of them were clueless as to what was in the legislation. Speaker Pelosi advertised this notion when she said we needed to “pass the bill to know what was in it.”  These irresponsible individuals can be held accountable in the 2014 elections.  Here is the list of Senators and Representatives who voted for Obamacare, who did not vote to repeal any of its provisions, and who are up for reelection in 2014:

            IM:  What is challenging about the relationship between elected officials and their constituents in some cases is a case of “self-fulfilling prophesy.”  For example, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee represents Houston, Texas.  Houston represents constituents heavily in need of government subsidies, such as Medicaid.  How could she vote against Obamacare?  Yet, “going along to get along” on the government dole did not benefit Detroit.  Is this scenario what “you pay me now, or pay me later” implies?

AM:  Politicians ignore “the context” and people they represent suffer because of their blind lust for power.  Politicians play and the people pay. 

Old Gadfly:  All good observations, gentlemen.  Now, despite political and cultural differences, I believe people throughout the world generally look to America to lead the way beyond current circumstances.  Don’t forget, the economic woes afflicting America are being experienced throughout the world.  Right now, Iceland, which has gone through what America is experiencing, seems to understand the importance of accountability as a means for moving forward.  Icelanders have assumed sovereignty and are now codifying a new government. 

            IM:  Accountability seems to be a backward-looking activity.  We need leaders to look forward in order to move our nation beyond its current circumstances.

            Old Gadfly:  True. And, this is where Pope Francis’s “context” is so important.  Politicians of the progressive movement operate from a normative worldview.  They see the world the way “it ought to be” and set out to make it so.  As we have discussed numerous times, George Lakoff assures his progressive cohort that it is this frame that matters; facts are merely convenient or irrelevant.  The character-based leaders we need are idealists grounded in reality.  These leaders must understand the context that bounds possibilities before advocating policies that advance the human condition.  These leaders understand, as God intended, the power of individual freedom.  These leaders understand that governments merely “promote the General Welfare,” as prescribed in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America.  Governments do not “provide” welfare.  Welfare is a condition that results from cooperative efforts among individual citizens and the institutions of which they form, where government, whether federal, state, or local, is merely one among numerous institutions.  For example, corporations and small businesses are institutions.  Government regulation can enable or constrain the extent to which corporations and small businesses can operate to create wage-paying jobs and wealth for communities and the nation.  Right now, government regulation and the suffocating effect of Obamacare are heavily constraining corporations and small businesses.  The graphs we examined earlier are strong evidence of this constraint.

            Character-based leaders understand the importance of education.  Yet, today’s progressive approach to education is to program our children with a certain set of values, bounded by political correctness, to shape the way they see the world.  C. S. Lewis observed this approach as early as the 1940s and sounded an alarm about the “conditioners” and the “conditioned” in his book, The Abolition of Man.  Character-based leaders would understand that an authentic education is based on the Latin root verb, “educare,” which means “to draw out.”  Educators then should facilitate this process of “drawing out” individual capacity to love others at the level of agape and to advance original thought and invention.  Jesus “drew out” such a capacity of agape in His Sermon on the Mount (and its Beatitudes; Matthew 5:1-12).  Jesus inspired individual accountability as a liberating commitment.  This notion is elegantly described in the parable about Zacchaeus, the wealthy tax collector, in Luke 19:1-10.

            As Chuck Colson demonstrated in his actions, accountability is more than rhetoric.  Authentic accountability, while bittersweet, is a liberating experience that can benefit the advancement of the human condition.  We should demand it for ourselves as character-based citizens, and as husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, and neighbors; and, we should demand it from those in public service who choose to serve the citizens.

            AM:  It looks like we all have a lot of work ahead of us.

            Old Gadfly:  Yes, and it must start with each of us right now. 

Dry, Parched Lips

An American citizen with an inquiring mind (IM): Gadfly, I apologize for taking so long in reporting my dream after President Obama accepted the Democratic National Convention nomination for president.

Gadfly: What happened?

IM: Quite frankly, I am recovering from an illness. My doctor has since medicated me for high blood pressure. But I must say that I took a triple dose of my medicine while watching the 60 Minutes interview of President Obama tonight, September 23, 2012. Steve Kroft acted as though he were interviewing God, Himself, and grateful for not being turned into stone for asking even softball questions.

Gadfly: Your dream and the Kroft interview caused your blood pressure to rise?

IM: Yes, for what they symbolized.

Gadfly: In our last conversation, you said the dream was in black and white and that President Obama’s white toothy smile was bounded by dry, parched lips.

IM: I’ll get to the meaning of the black and white later. For now, I want to focus on the dry, parched lips.

Gadfly: You have my attention.

IM: I wanted to know the meaning of Obama’s dry, parched lips. I thought long and hard about why this image caught my attention. Then, I remembered a book by Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov.

Gadfly: Dostoevsky? Are you referring to the author of Crime and Punishment?

IM: Yes.

Gadfly: Dostoevsky wrote in the late 1800s.

IM: You are well-read, Gadfly. What is your recollection of how to characterize Dostoevsky’s Russia in the late 1800s?

Gadfly: As I recall, Russia was still pretty much a feudal state. Peasants were at the mercy of royalty. And Dostoevsky was imprisoned for views contrary to the political elite.

IM: This is true. He even faced a firing squad for his political dissent. Later, he wrote The Brothers Karamazov, which was considered a biographical sketch of his family within the context of a harsh Russian culture.

Gadfly: How does this relate to President Obama?

IM: I’m getting there. In Chapter 5 of Brothers Karamazov, there is a parable about the Grand Inquisitor.

Gadfly: Do you mean as in the Spanish Inquisition?

IM: Yes. As most of us know, the Spanish Inquisition took place between the 1400s and early 1800s.

Gadfly: Are you trying to indict the Catholic Church?

IM: Absolutely not. The history and role of the Catholic Church has been terribly misrepresented and misunderstood, even within the context of the Spanish Inquisition—a story for another day. Yet, the inquisition, as reported in The Brothers Karamazov, is a story that must be told and understood within today’s context.

Gadfly: I want to hear more.

IM: In Dostoevsky’s parable, an old Spanish Cardinal observed a man healing people within a crowd and also recognized the man as Jesus Christ. So, the Cardinal had Him arrested and sent to the dungeons. Later in the day, the Grand Inquisitor visited Jesus, relishing the opportunity to admonish Him for not giving in to the three temptations. The Inquisitor went on to explain to Jesus all the good things the church had done for the people. He provided example after example with no response from Jesus. The Grand Inquisitor then emphasized that people want the church to provide for their personal safety and security. Expecting some response from Jesus, the Inquisitor said, “I have given you evidence of all the things I have done for the people, yet you give no affirmation to the good things I have done for them.” Jesus continued to listen with no response. The Inquisitor continued, “I know your purpose for dying on the cross was to give people freedom to choose how to live their lives. I know you had faith in their capacity to make good choices.” Jesus continued to listen with no response. The Inquisitor further pressed Jesus: “Unlike you, I know people don’t know how to make good decisions. This is why they need people like me, who know much better how they should live their lives.” Jesus continued to listen with no response. Exasperated, the Inquisitor finished with a confession: “I also know that people like me have aligned themselves with the devil to satisfy earthly needs and desires.” At that moment, Jesus gently leaned forward, kissed the Grand Inquisitor on his dry, parched lips, and walked away.

Gadfly: Powerful!  Who is today’s Grand Inquisitor?

IM: I know what I am about to suggest is not politically correct; yet, I choose to be a man with a chest (Note: men without chests represent the consequences of political correctness in C.S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man). President Obama is a modern Grand Inquisitor, and members of the progressive movement represent the modern secular church.

Gadfly: IM, the comparison seems bold and harsh at the same time.  And the implications of the parable are disconcerting. How do you explain the symbolism of black and white in your dream?

IM: Black and white symbolize a previous era. President Obama and his collaborators want to shape America in ways similar to a previous era—an era where political elite moved entire nations in the direction of a collective utopia. Many intellectuals attempted to bring such thinking to the United States in the early 1930s. Amity Shlaes described these efforts (with significant evidence) in Chapter 2 of The Forgotten Man. By the way, unlike some comparisons to Abraham Lincoln, Obama seems closer to Vladimir I. Lenin. Both were trained as lawyers and both were community organizers, agitating and organizing for social justice and collective freedom. The Center for American Progress is Obama’s (and the progressive movement’s) epicenter for today's public narrative. What more do non-Copernican drones (see Cogito Ergo Sum, August 9, 2012) need for evidence that the United States of America is under ideological assault?  

Gadfly: Surely, other people feel differently.

IM: Absolutely. Some of my own friends disagree with me.

Gadfly: This must trouble you.

IM: Yes, it does. However, I just remind myself of Hannah Arendt’s discovery about wide-spread comfort with mendacity in her book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.

Gadfly: Are you serious? People actually find refuge in untruthfulness?

IM: For some, yes. Now, I don't think most people deliberately embrace mendacity. The condition may be what Benedict Spinoza calls "human bondage" in his book, Ethics, Demonstrated in Geometric Order. Human bondage is a condition where passions or emotions trump reason. Nearly 500 years later, Leon Festinger published his seminal theory of cognitive dissonance. The theory explains the same dynamic that Spinoza called human bondage. Human bondage has occurred throughout the history of humankind.  Even the Book of Proverbs 26:11 claims, “As the dog returns to his vomit, so the fool repeats his folly.”

Gadfly: Very powerful, IM. You obviously believe that President Obama is a modern Grand Inquisitor, similar to the guardian concept we already discussed (see “The Art of Economy Surfing,” September 7, 2012). Grand Inquisitors or guardians determine how the rest of us will live our lives, which sounds familiar (e.g., Mao's China, Lenin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Castro's Cuba, Chavez's Venezuela, and so forth). But, what if these guardians can truly make life better for everyone? After all, my progressive friends believe this is a noble thing to do.

IM: We have recorded history to be the judge of these "noble" intentions. Collective freedom is not sustainable; and, political systems based on collective freedom devolve into totalitarianism. To avoid a similar fate, our nation needs a balance of liberal and conservative values, facilitated by character-based leaders in the public and private sectors.

Gadfly: Your assessment sounds like the classical liberalism that characterized America during its founding as a nation.

IM: Yes, Gadfly. But there are forces working hard to prevent a balance of values. In our next conversation I want to describe one of these powerful forces: engineering public sentiment.

Gadfly: Thank you, IM. I look forward to our next conversation.