The Next Hurrah

Ten Years and Counting

By Mimikatz

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released its fourth report (summary here), which synthesizes for policymakers attending the forthcoming UN conference in Bali  the three reports that it issued earlier this year as part of its Fourth Assessment Report.  Some of its conclusions are that

climate change is "unequivocal", that humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases are more than 90% likely to be the main cause, and that impacts can be reduced at reasonable cost.

But climate change may also bring about "abrupt and irreversible impacts" such as glacial melting and extinction of species.

"Approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5C (relative to the 1980-1999 average)," the summary concludes.

Other potential impacts highlighted in the text include:

• between 75m and 250m people are projected to have scarcer fresh water supplies than at present
• yields from rain-fed agriculture could be halved
• food security is likely to be further compromised in Africa
• there will be widespread impacts on coral reefs

One problem with the IPPC consensus process is that it takes a great deal of time, and thus it is not clear whether the newest report takes into account the accelerated arctic melting seen this year.  But it is clear that things are happening faster than anticipated, the BBC reports:

"If you look at the overall picture of impacts, both those occurring now and those projected for the future, they appear to be both larger and appearing earlier than we thought [in our 2001 report]," Martin Parry, co-chair of the impacts working group, told BBC News.

"Some of the changes that we previously projected for around 2020 or 2030 are occurring now, such as the Arctic melt and shifts in the locations of various species."

There are indications that projected increases in droughts are also happening earlier than expected, he said, though that was less certain.

Interestingly, the IPPC finds that absent human factors, the climate would have cooled over the last 50 years (due to volcanoes and solar changes); only models that simulate human effects produce warming over this period.  Warming is greatest in the northern polar regions and then in the north temperate and tropical zones (with the exception of the ocean area influenced by the jet stream).  It is least in the southern temperate zone and southern seas.  Human influences are "very likely" to have led to sea level increases.

The IPPC consensus now exhibits greater confidence in projections about droughts, heatwaves and floods, and their adverse consequences, plus stronger evidence of adverse impacts now on vulnerable ecosystems, such as polar and high-mountain regions and coral reefs. 

In the ffuture, as temperatures rise, Africa and Asia will be particularly hard hit, in part because they already face shortages of good water and areas of extreme drought.  Overall dry areas will become drier, low-lying areas will be wetter, smaller islands will be imperiled.  Arctic areas will be transformed.  Climate and weather will become more extreme.  The widely-held impression that North America will suffer the least seems to be somewhat true, although serious effects are anticipated in cities that already experience heat waves, as are water shortages in the West, significant variability in agricultural impacts, increased intensity of Atlantic hurricanes and stress on coastal areas generally.    

Projected changes are accelerating, and will persist for a millenium even if changes are made, raising the specter of whether, and how soon, we are facing irreversible changes or a "tipping point."  Most serious seems to be accelerating Arctic ice melting, as this could cause meters of sea level increases, beyond what the models anticipate.  The Jet Stream looks safe to the end of the century, despite some slowing, which will help moderate rising temperatures in Europe.  (In case you were wondering, Dubai's spectacular islands have been designed to withstand at least a half meter rise in sea level, which was the high end anticipated by the end of this century.  Some projections are now for three times that.) 

Dealing with climate change has costs, but so does failing to deal with climate change, given the near certainty of the trajectory of change.  The report concludes that

There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilisation levels can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialised in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing related barriers.

But we need "substantial investment flows" and "effective technology transfer," meaning lots of money and getting the solutions to where they are needed.  The longer we wait, the harder it is, because we need to begin to reverse that nasty increasing trendline, and the longer we wait, not only is it getting steeper, but because of the persistence of greenhouse gases, the stabilization level, and the attendant changes (such as temperature and sea level increases), will be higher.  It looks from the chart like we have about ten years if we want things to stabilize at or near 2005 levels of greenhouse gases.  If the CO2 peak comes after the 2010-2030 period, the resulting world will look very different from what we have now.

Update:

Surprise, surprise.  The US representative tried to water the report down.   More of the Bush/Cheney regime's attempts to make policy by denying reality.  By contrast, the UN chief Ban Ki-moon calls for action.

California Shows the Way

By Mimikatz

This morning's paper reveals that California has made real progress in both reducing energy consumption and reducing greenhouse gas emissions since 1990, while at the same time enjoying overall growth in per capita GDP.  The California Green Innovation Index, a report detailing the state's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, contains some stunning data:

-- The amount of greenhouse gases produced for every Californian has dropped since 1990. At the same time, California's per-capita gross domestic product - the value of the services and goods produced in the state - has risen. The state's economy, in other words, has been thriving despite the reduction in per-person emissions.

-- California emits less greenhouse gas per person than any other state except Rhode Island. California's economy produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions for every dollar of gross domestic product than Germany, Japan or the United Kingdom.

-- Californians pay less on their monthly electricity bills than do residents of many other states. In 2005, for example, California's average monthly electricity bill was $74, compared with $135 in Texas. Although mild weather plays a part, so do tough energy-efficiency standards adopted in the 1970s for buildings and appliances.

-- Those energy-efficiency standards saved California residents and businesses $56 billion between 1975 and 2003.

-- About 22,000 Californians were directly employed by green-tech companies in 2006. In the same year, California's green-tech businesses soaked up 36 percent of all the money venture capitalists spent on the industry within the United States.

My morning paper contains a stunning graph (not in the online version) showing that since 1990 per capita emissions have dropped almost 10 percent while per capita GDP growth has increased 20 percent, despite downturns in 1992-3 and 2001-2002.  Other surprises:  Californians drive less per person than the national average and miles driven per person has dropped since 2002. 

In other words, solid public programs and creative but stringent and science-based, innovative regulation can have a salutary effect.  It is not only possible to have solid economic growth and make progress on environmental issues, the two may just go hand in hand. 

While the report notes that much more needs to be done to make a real dent in global warming, it should help reinforce the idea that improvements in emissions and energy usage can be good economically as well as environmentally.

Meanwhile, in another part of the forest, the natives are praying for rain.  For those not aware of it, the southeast, not the west, is the region hardest hit by drought in the US.

Mukasey Gets the Nod From Senate Judiciary

By Mimikatz

The nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General has just been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 11-8.  Senators Feinstein and Schumer were the only Dems voting aye.

With his confirmation now assured, we will get to see whether having Mukasey instead of an acting loyal Bushie in charge really makes any difference.  Somehow I doubt it, as long as David Addinton is the legal consigliere for the Bush/Cheney regime.

DiFi's website seems to be down, indicating perhaps some incoming criticism of her.  I had intended to suggest she redeem her recent transgressions by voting against the Unhealthy Diet Promotion Act, aka the current Farm Bill.  It subsidizes the large producers of corn for high-fructose corn syrup and corn-fed beef, while giving only a buy-off to producers of the fruits and vegetables we are all supposed to be eating to improve our health and contributing to the coninued impoverishment of third-world farmers.  One of the largest recipients of federal largesse is a cotton-growing enterprise in California's Central Valley.  At last report neither DiFi nor Barbara Boxer had declared on the bill or it's alternative, the Fresh Act.  IN an ironic twist, Bush threatens a veto because the bloated bill is fiscally irresponsible and would violate various WTO agreements.  Sure to be another triumph of party over principle and money over good policy.

John Tanner Doesn't Know Jack

By Mimikatz

John Tanner is the head of the Voting Rights section at DOJ,  He's the one who believes Georgia's voter ID law discriminates against whites because fewer elderly have photo ID's and Black people "don't age like white people, they die first."  It is ugly but entertaining to watch him squirm under questioning by Artur Davis and Keith Ellison.  Artur Davis pointed out that in Alabama actually a higher percentage of Black people vote than white people, and got Tanner to admit that he did not look at actual statistics, he is going by his prejudices.  Ellison tries to get him to see what was wrong with his comment, but Tanner just doesn't get it, except that his "tone" and "clumsy phrasing" hurt people.

But what no one seems to realize is that Tanner is just dead wrong statistically.  You can look it up.

It is commonly known that at birth the life expectancy of white people is higher than Black people, about 6.4 years for men, 4.5 years for women), although the difference has been shrinking and the discrepancies between men and women within each race are about as high (+5 years for white women, +7 years for Black women).  The differences between the races persist at about the same rate into the mid thirties.  But then they begin to shrink, year by year, and by age 65 are down to about a year and a half.  By age 80 the difference has disappeared, and after 80, Black people actually have a higher life expectancy than whites within each gender.  And the life expectancy for Black women is actually higher than white men at every age.  (But we all know women don't really count.)  So Tanner is not only insensitive, but wrong.

Just another example of the Bush-Cheney regime making policy based on prejudice and with GOP dominance as their goal.  And just another example that things that "everyone knows" sometimes aren't really true.

That Would Be The Leader of the Free World

By Mimikatz

Via Huffpost

President Bush had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day at the Sydney Opera House.

He'd only reached the third sentence of Friday's speech to business leaders, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, when he committed his first gaffe.

"Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit," Bush said to Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

Oops. That would be APEC, the annual meeting of leaders from 21 Pacific Rim nations, not OPEC, the cartel of 12 major oil producers.

It gets worse from there.  He confuses Australia (his host country) with Austria.  And then, in a reprise of his performance in Bejing, he went out the wrong door.  Too bad there wasn't a tiger behind it.

Can We Really Afford Twenty More Years of Iraq?

By Mimikatz

Fred Kaplan has a good piece at Slate on the questions that Congress should ask General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker when they report next week.  As Kevin Drum notes, towards the end Kaplan quotes military analyst Stephen Biddle (an adviser to the Administration):

Biddle also said (again, expressing his personal view) that the strategy in Iraq would require the presence of roughly 100,000 American troops for 20 years—and that, even so, it would be a "long-shot gamble."

"The strategy" being the bottom-up attempt to achieve reconciliation among factions like the reconciliation between the US and Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar.  Leaving aside all the questions Kaplan raises about why it may be not only harder but impossible to reconcile the Iraqi factions, is this "long-shot gamble" what the Democrats in Congress really want?  And can we afford it?

Meanwhile, the GAO Report says that nearly all benchmarks are failing to be met in Iraq and that the Administration's statistics claiming to show the opposite are bogus. And the report issued by a 20-member Commission headed by retired General Jones  says that our excessive footprint in Iraq is actually counterproductive to our stated aims and also says that any declines in Baghdad sectarian violence are probably the result of  ethnic cleansing.  General Jones also says we can begin withdrawing early next year.  And everyone agrees that we will have to start bringing home some troops next year  because we don't have the replacements for them.

And yet, our Democratic Congress appears ready to give the Bush/Cheney regime its demanded $200 billion Iraq Supplemental funding even though the Bush/Cheney regime can't get its request together in a timely way.  (via Atrios.)   They appear ready to abandon the plan to impose withdrawal timetables, all in a futile effort to get a few GOPers to join them.  But why?  With the public--virtually the entire known universe on their side, why are the Dems thinking so small?  Why aren't they making the GOP own and defend this unpopular war?

And over at the economy, the jobs report showed a net loss for the first time in 4 years, the Dow Jones average is down 200 points at this moment and the subprime mortgage mess threatens to morph into a recession, at least in several of the most populous parts of the country. As if this were not enough, the cumulative debt has gone over $ 9 trillion.   This is more than the current debt ceiling of $8.965 trillion, (raised 4 times already during the Bush/Cheney regime) but there are some items that are not subject to the limit, so the Treasury may still be able to  borrow money for a short while.

With all this factual firepower and with not only the approriations power but the leverage of the debt ceiling, why oh why can't the Democrats learn to stand strong and do what the public wants instead of capitulating to the Bush/Cheney regime at every turn?

Is War With Iran Imminent?

By Mimikatz

Being more or less an optimist by nature, I am generally skeptical of the stories that periodically surface claiming that we are months, weeks or even days away from war with Iran, given how insane it would be on so many levels.  But the new spate of stories has me worried.

Evidently they began with a directive sent by Vice President Cheney to various neocon think tanks to begin drumming up support for the war.  Via George Packer,

They [the source’s institution] have “instructions” (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained.

Evidently 35-40% support is deemed to be enough--that would be the 25% of the population who are Bushbots (including the neocons) and  5-10% who either profit from war or who just think things going boom is cool.

Spencer Ackerman finds a connection between our embrace of new BFFs the Sunni tribal leaders and former insurgents and the talk of war with Iran.  These same Sunnis warned the US in 2005 that elections would deliver the country to Iran.  Is the increased support for the Sunnis and the undermining of Prime Minister Maliki a harbinger of a switch in who we are really backing?  Was that part of the subtext of Bush's surprise visit to Anbar?  After all, in the view of Reuel Marc Gerecht, it is the Shi'a militias, particularly the Mahdi Army, and their Iranian suppliers, who are now responsible for most American deaths.  Best we teach those pesky Iranians a lesson now.

Ackerman sees the Cheney-led campaign as directed as much at the Pentagon as the American public.

Cheney's likely motivation for issuing such instructions to his think-tank allies would be to win an inter-administration battle over the future of Iran policy. Cheney, an advocate of confronting the Iranians militarily, faces opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where the primary concern is preventing an open-ended Iraq commitment from decimating military preparedness for additional crises. A new war is the last thing the chiefs want, and on this, they're backed by Defense Secretary Bob Gates.

This theory makes war with Iran much less likely, except for one thing--The Decider.  Of all the people who seem to really get off on war, Bush has to be the head cheerleader.  And he does have a record of not listening to his generals, like Eric Shinseki.  And we know he really likes kicking (Muslim) ass.  In fact, showing them just how tough we really are is, to me, the most plausible reason for the misbegotten and mismanaged war we are still mired in.

The shakiness of the financial markets had seemed to me to argue against war with Iran, since the economic implications of war (increase in oil prices, possible damage to oil fields leading to even higher prices, China gets involved on some economic front,  stock market goes down, debt goes up, etc)  would seem to exacerbate most if not all of the problems we have now.  But The Cunning Realist thinks that events in the global finacial markets related to the packaging and selling of subprime mortgages make war with Iran more, not less, likely.  I'd like to see this theory elaborated.

In any event, if it comes to that we know that Bush doesn't think he has to ask permission to start a war.  He's the Commander-in-Chief!  And there's always the Authorization for Unlimited Military Force (that was the name, wasn't it?)  passed after 9/11 that gives him Congress' blessing.  Declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be terrorists and blaming all the weapons in Iraq (that aren't ones we gave the Iraqi Army) on them provides the provocation.  If more is needed, it can be manufactured.

So now I'm worried again.  What do you folks think?

Getting it Wrong on the Central Issue of our Times

By Mimikatz

Fifty years ago I was about to turn 15, it was 1957, and the central issue of our times was clearly seen to be the Cold War, the struggle with the Communist Soviet Union and its allies such as China.  In retrospect, at least from the US perspective, that was probably accurate, although expanding civil rights and economic opportunity to those other than (straight) white men probably runs a close second.  Fifty years from now, in 2057, when today's 15-year-olds are my age, when people look back at the beginning of the 21st Century, what do you think they are going to see as the central issue of our times?  And how are they going to think we did?

I am willing to bet that it will not be the struggle with Islamic extremists, or even with terrorists generally, as the Bush/Cheney regime and its sycophants believe.  Rather, it is much more likely to be the intertwined problems of the end of fossil fuels and global climate collapse.  And depending on what we do in the next 5-10 years, they may be wondering why we didn't feel more of a sense of urgency, why we didn't do something while there was still time, why we threw so much money and effort at a crazy, endless war in the Middle East while the temperatures and sea levels rose around us. 

While both major parties saw the struggle against communism as the central issue in the 1950's, it has been devastating to the cause of mitigating climate change that the GOP and its patrons have not only denied the urgency, but fought the effort tooth and nail for the first six years of the Bush presidency.  But that began to change, as so much did, with Katrina, then with last summer's fires and heat waves, and now this summer's extreme weather events, all of which have cost many lives on all our coasts and the interior.

While Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" was seen as a political event, last night's Tom Brokaw special on the Discovery Channel was global warming 101 for the mainstream.  A poll taken a year ago reported 70% of the public convinced that global warming is happening, an equal amount having become more convinced over the previous two years, with severe weather being a major factor in that change.  This summer's severe rains and floods probably increased the number.

With a sufficient segment of the public now convinced theere is a problem, we sorely need real leadership on the issue.  Based on the 1970's gasoline shortages and our experience here in Califonria with periodic shortages of water and electricity, I firmly believe that the public will respond favorably to clear direction and mandates for change.  In parts of the country without such leadership many people do not do more because they believe that if the problem were real, the government would be doing something.  Thus, we need first and foremost a clear statement that the problem is real, serious and must be addressed. 

Second, people need to understand that while climate change cannot be arrested at this point, it can be mitigated, and that a little effort actually can go a long way.  One of the most informative graphics in the Discovery Channel show depicted the carbon dioxide output of various activities and machines of a typical family as blocks of soot above the house.  An amazing amount can be saved through conservation and efficiency around the home with negligible change in lifestyle.  The California Flex Your Power website claims that if every household replaced one incandescent bulb with an energy-saving CFL bulb it would be the equivalent of taking a million cars off the road.   (Flex Your Power is a model partnership of utilities, residents, businesses, institutions, government agencies and nonprofit organizations working to save energy formed during the 2001 energy crisis here.  Its website has a wealth of ideas for saving energy.)   In fact, addressing energy use in buildings and construction is at least as important as addressing conservation through better means of transportation, a point also made by the Discovery Channel special.  Municipal, residential and business lighting is another area ripe for conservation.  A fascinating article in theAugust 20, 2007 New Yorker discussed how improved outdoor lighting not only saves energy and allows more enjoyment of the night sky, but is actually safer as well.  Tucson has long set an example in this area.   

Finally, it is obvious that even as we conserve, we need to develop new technologies for building, transportation and power generation.  Rather than costing jobs, this could become the next entrepreneurial frontier, if there were more incentives (such as fuel efficiency mandates, seed money and regulatory changes that mroe fairly internalized, rather than externalized, the costs of existing fuel sources). 

Concern for the environment is one major area where young voters are disenchanted with the GOP.  Along with the traqgic blunder that is Iraq, I believe that GOP denial of global warming and refusal to confront it as a major problem may prove the undoing of conservatism as an appealing ideology even to an extent in the ultra- conservative parts of the country.  Certainly that would be the case if the Democratic Party leadership and candidates made addressing global warming and coping with declining supplies of fossil fuels through conservation and innovation a major part of their platform.   Not to do so is to be wrong, colossally wrong, about the central issue of our time.

Gonzales has Resigned

By Mimikatz

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned effective September 17.  Nothing definite on a successor, but Think Progress says it will be Dept of Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff, and that an untested young Bush loyalist named Clay Johnson will be named as Chertoff's successor.  No details yet on any deals with the Dems, although Senator Dianne Feinstein claims to have made suggestions for a successor.  As for DHS, certainly the Dems must not allow another incompetent to be installed in the agency that is supposed to protect us and coordinate the resonse to any disasters--we all saw that movie two years ago to the day. 

Consider this an open thread.  I'll post details as they become available.

First Update:

TPM reports that Solicitor Paul Clement is also under consideration, at least for Acting Attorney General,  that Chertoff is likely, and that Bush does not seem to be thinking in terms of a recess appointment.  As I said Saturday, I don't think that is likely and the fact that they are floating people who have already been confirmed once suggests they are looking to submit the name to the Senate.  That Gonzales' resignation is effective September 17 also suggests they are looking at a confirmation process.  Here's hoping the Dems really get serious and extract some promises in writing, in addition to sunjecting any nominees to very serious scrutiny.  This is one of those times of maximum leverage for the Congress, and they really should take their duty to the American people seriously.

Update No. 2

Bush is not naming a replacement today and, according to MSNBC one has not been chosen.  Per Americablog Bush was very angry at his press conference, so it is probably best that he's going to raise money for Pajamas Pete Domenici and Dave Reichert,  WA-08.  TPM Muckraker reports (and CNN confirms) that Chertoff may not be it.  So who floated his name to US News?  They are saying Bush may appoint a successor before he leaves for Australia on Monday, but it ain't going to be before Emptywheel comes back to give us her trenchant take on all this.  And plenty of time to get those calls to the Senators going to urge them to take this very seriously.

Update No. 3

Our colleague Trapper John has a simple criterion for anyone nominated to replace AGAG:  S/he cannotr have served in the Bush Administration.  Since the one and only qualification for serivce in the SBush/Cheney regime is loyalty to Bush/Cheney, and what we need most is someone who is not a crony, making that (along with basic competence) the determinant will eliminate any more Brownies and Gonzos and Bozos and, yes, Chertoffs without getting personal about it.  Hello Senator Leahy?

Listening to the Generals

By Mimikatz

One of Bush's standard lines is that Iraq policy shouldn't be made by politicians in Washington (other than him) and that he will "listen to the Generals."  Of course this isn't true, as a long list of generals starting with Eric Shinseki, who tried to get Bush/Cheney and Congress to understand they didn't have the forces to do what they wanted in Iraq, and ending with former Iraq Commander General George Casey who was replaced by General Petraeus, and Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who were essentially demoted recently, could testify.  But what are the generals saying now?

General Casey, now the Army Chief of Staff, was the architect of the Iraq conflict from mid 2004 until the end of 2006.  His prescription was to try to reduce the US combat role and concentrate on training Iraqis to provide their own security.  This was the plan Bush rejected in late 2006 when he decided to escalate and replaced Casey with counter-insurgency expert General David Petraeus.  But according to the Thursday Wall Street Journal, the once vilified Casey has now seen his influence return under Defense Secretary Robert Gates, as it is clear within the Pentagon that the "surge" has not accomplished much and cannot long be continued.  Casey opposes extending tours of duty beyond the current 15 months and would like them scaled back, if possible.  Casey's views are evidently shared by much of the Washington brass.  Not only are the services losing many talented young officers, according to the Journal, because of the strain of multiple deployments, but recruitment levels, especially among black youth are down.  If the armed services are to remain flexible and effective, the brass feel, the Iraq commitment must be scaled back.  Marine General Pace,  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs until his term ends on September 30, an original opponent of the surge before publicly backing it, has also called for steep troop reductions next year. 

General Petraeus is known to favor keeping the surge going for as long as possible and reducing troops only to the extent necessary to avoid overtaxing them. 

So what we have here is the generals at home, who are responsible for the overall health of the American military, now willing to speak out and urging that the number of troops in Iraq be scaled back, to as few as half what we have now.  The Defense Secretary, who was a member of the Baker-Hamilton Commission before his appointment, was also no great fan of the surge.  Meanwhile Petraeus, installed by Bush as his savior, is pleading not to have the troops withdrawn when we are on the brink of success, although he acknowledges that insurgencies can take 10 years to defeat.

Obviously there is a good deal of positioning going on here, as there is among the politicians, to avoid taking blame for Iraq and for the poor state of readiness in the event of some near-term challenge. But it is ironic that Casey's pullback to bases and concentrate on training seems to be reemerging as the leading alternative to continuing the surge. 

So what should we do?  We should remember Georges Clemenceau's WWI dictum that "War is too serious to be left to the generals."  We have a system of civilian control, not a military junta.  While input from the generals is important, it is politicians who must make the call.  In addition to their constituents, who oppose the war by large margins, they should also listen to those concerned with the long-term health of the military, not those trying to validate their chosen strategy by continuing warfare that is not facilitating reconciliation.   Certainly the troops themselves, the ones risking their lives every day, seem to be less than enthusiastic about the current policy. 

If the Dems can just bring themselves to continue calling for a scaling back of the war and rotations out (but not in) to Iraq next year, it would seem that there might soon be a majority for just such a position.