A lighter topic: Palestine and Israel

[wellington1869]

It might have been eye-opening, but it doesn't sound like it was all that leg-opening.  You might want to work on that.

she broke all the commandments with me, what can I say something i'm very proud of actually.
thats actually why her mom hated me. thought i was the temptation devil leading her daughter astray, basically.
and hell, basically, i was.

[keyboardlover]

she broke all the commandments with me, what can I say something i'm very proud of actually.
thats actually why her mom hated me. thought i was the temptation devil leading her daughter astray, basically.
and hell, basically, i was.

ALL the commandments??

Dude...that's messed up...

[wellington1869]

i'm the only one of my very leftist friends who dated an evangelical for over 3 years. I'm actually proud of that too. most leftists would never do that.
in retrospect it was a huge mistake, lol, but i'm glad it happened.

[keyboardlover]

So...you broke up? I was under the impression you were still with her.

[wellington1869]

So...you broke up? I was under the impression you were still with her.

After three pretty good years we had to face reality. too many little differences. Her family was a huge issue, kept threatening to kidnap her away from school because of me. They basically disowned her. Lots of other issues too.
But it was all very interesting, if a bit traumatic.
Next time I'll go with a safe atheist.

[itlnstln]

Was she white?  I bet they were racist, too.  I can see pops saying, "thay took arrrr jerbz!"

fs=1&hl=en_US">

[wellington1869]

Was she white?  I bet they were racist, too.  I can see pops saying, "thay took arrrr jerbz!"

yea she was white.
I dont know if they were racist. overtly anyway they were not. Their overriding concern seemed to be that I wasnt christian (or remotely religious in any way).
The strong implication all around was that if I converted then things might be okay.  I absolutely refused to convert of course. On principle, that made no sense to me, of course.
so a basic conflict was there from the beginning. My humanism vs their biblical literalism.
it was great, lol.  no, it wasnt great, it was sad and traumatic. but in retrospect i have to admit it was amazing to experience that conflict for that long and so up-close. you cant but learn so much from the experience.
I know my gf learned a lot too, her life changed completely from the experience. not enough for us to work things out, but enough that she resisted them and her entire upbringing as a result. It wasnt easy for her. she was home-schooled and everything. her family was her whole world until she came to college. she was a real sweetheart btw. but i guess i'm a man of deep convictions too.

[wellington1869]

one of the funniest moments I remember was the first time I met her mom. I had just come out of the library, and for a class I had taken out two books. I had "The Lenin Reader" in one hand and a Marquis de Sade book in the other
Hahahahaha!  Hahahahaha. Thats how i met her mom. My gf was a bit miffed, lol. She's like you know we're trying to put the best face forward here.

[keyboardlover]

Wow. That sounds like a real chucklefest.

[Oranjoose]

Here's to democracy, straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/aluf-benn-lieberman-is-making-a-liar-out-of-netanyahu-1.316270

The comments are good too.

[wellington1869]

Lol! Aluf Benn is the horses mouth?!

and yea, you're amazingly anti-democratic.

[Oqsy]

I thought he said horse's ass.  I *have* to get that eye surgery soon.

[vils]

Here's to democracy, straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/aluf-benn-lieberman-is-making-a-liar-out-of-netanyahu-1.316270

The comments are good too.

Referring to Haaretz is a bit like referring to The Nation in a discussion about the state of democracy in the US.
I would've jumped on this thread, but I have spent some days in the hospital and the thread have gone stale.

[keyboardlover]

Can't help but notice that maclover hasn't posted since starting the thread...

...troll-baiter!

[wellington1869]

Referring to Haaretz is a bit like referring to The Nation in a discussion about the state of democracy in the US.

well said.

I would've jumped on this thread, but I have spent some days in the hospital and the thread have gone stale.

never too late jump in soon as you're feeling better  hope you're okay.

[mike]

i'd disagree with that. I think its an easy way out when faced with a complex situation to say "well everyone is to blame".

Of course it's the easy "way out" especially when it's true. "Blame" is perhaps the wrong word; whilst both sides have legitimate grievances, both have done things to make the situation worse. Pointing out that both sides are in the wrong in their actions as well as having legitimate grievances is a way of tackling those who insist that the Palestinians are right, or the Israelis are right.

There won't be peace in that region until someone comes up with a reasonable solution that keeps both sides happy.

democracy or siding with progressive muslims, it doesnt matter. What matters is siding with democracy wherever it is found. And that means - indeed - choosing a side despite the violence on all sides.

Choosing a democracy ? Would that be Turkey, Lebanon, or Jordan ? To name just three countries in the immediate vicinity that are democratic despite being populated by mediavel muslims. Even the West Bank and Gaza are not strangers to the concept of democracy.

Choosing a side is also an easy way out. And is pretty much what has been tried by the US since 1948. As we can tell from the current state of Israel-Palestine, choosing sides doesn't appear to work.

[wellington1869]

Of course it's the easy "way out" especially when it's true. "Blame" is perhaps the wrong word; whilst both sides have legitimate grievances, both have done things to make the situation worse. Pointing out that both sides are in the wrong in their actions as well as having legitimate grievances is a way of tackling those who insist that the Palestinians are right, or the Israelis are right.

what I mean is, there is "blame" on the one hand, and there are larger questions about what is best for the middle east.
We can blame both sides, but that, to my mind, does not change the fact that only democracy will solve anything in the middle east in the long run. And that right now one side there is far more open to that than the other. ANd this creates a lopsided, unequal situation when it comes to longer term legitimacy and credit.

An analogy: The US did its share of atrocities in wwII. But I, not for one second, ever wish germany or japan won. Not because I'm a US citizen, but because of the very nature of the regimes they represented.

In wwII, there was no question of 'keeping both sides happy'.  It was not possible.
I dont think its possible in the middle east right now either, if one's commitment is to democracy, then hamas in gaza for instance, will not get my support no matter what violence is done by the other sides.

[keyboardlover]

Blaming the Israelis for protecting themselves from Hamas with violent force is like blaming the USA (or any other country) for protecting themselves from any terrorists with violent force. We all have a right to protect ourselves against terrorism.

[wellington1869]

Choosing a democracy ? Would that be Turkey, Lebanon, or Jordan ?

bad examples. Turkey first off wants to be part of the EU and was (until recently) a pretty good ally of israel, by the way.
The situation in turkey is volatile right now with a far right wing islamist party in power (and which is rewriting the constitution to prevent the military in turkey - which has been the staunchest defender of constitutionalism in turkey - at bay -- which doesnt bode well for constitutionalism in turkey, by the way, going forward).

Lebanon/jordan -- sure, and as democracies they support islamism in gaza, which doesnt say much for their belief in democracy.  We all opposed the US when it supported dictatorships in latin america; we need to do the same when lebanon or jordan does that. Otherwise we're just shabby hypocrits and our analyses and judgements arent worth ****, are not credible.

 Even the West Bank and Gaza are not strangers to the concept of democracy.

Democracy, as you probably know, doesnt just mean the fact of having elections. Democracy requires an ecosystem to function, which includes accountability and transparency to fight corruption, an independent judiciary and checks and balances in govt, a free press, and the protected right to dissent. None of this is operative in gaza, either under fatah or hamas, in any reliable way; under hamas in fact, one is reminded that hitler too, after all, was 'elected'.
So again its too easy to say gaza had 'democracy' (or in any way compare it to the robust freedoms and institutions of democracy in israel).

No one expects 100% perfection in the democracies (by definition, in fact, democracies must feel their way forward, incrementally and rather blindly). What marks a democracy is its long term commitment to democratic processes, not any straw-man argument about instant and eternal perfection.

If we see that kind of commitment by the regimes in lebanon, jordan, or gaza, then yea, the situation in the middle east will turn around 180 degrees overnight.

Choosing a side is also an easy way out. And is pretty much what has been tried by the US since 1948. As we can tell from the current state of Israel-Palestine, choosing sides doesn't appear to work.

Choosing sides means insisting on dialogic and democratic negotiations, not negotiations where one side holds the terrorism card and at regular intervals launches mass attacks on israel.

so yea, choosing sides is the only thing that has hope to offer in the middle east. I hope you're on the right side there.

[quadibloc]

If we see that kind of commitment by the regimes in lebanon, jordan, or gaza, then yea, the situation in the middle east will turn around 180 degrees overnight.

Of course, that may be kind of an unrealistic expectation.

Democracy does mean other things besides elections, but elections are still one of the things that it means. Right now, in most of the Islamic world, the majority of the people either support most of Shari'a law, or are afraid to speak out.

If the South had been independent of the rest of the United States in 1920 or so, the majority of the people there supported segregation. So it wouldn't have gone anywhere - and so an independent South with free elections would not really have been a democracy. Attitudes in the Islamic world to unbelievers are a lot like Southern attitudes to blacks.

That means that either the solution comes from the bottom up, with a change in the attitudes of the masses of the people, or, if it is a top-down solution, it won't be a democratic one, but an imposed one.

[ricercar]

We all have a right to protect ourselves against terrorism.

Even the Nazis in WWII.

[keyboardlover]

Even the Nazis in WWII.

So...you're saying the jews were terrorists???

[ricercar]

No, I'm saying the Nazi's called them so.

[keyboardlover]

No, I'm saying the Nazi's called them so.

Ok...but my point was about people who ACTUALLY ARE terrorists.

[ricercar]

Definition is in the dictionary of the victorious.

Israeli protection against Islamic Palestinians also kills Christian Palestinians.
United States' protection against Islamic Pakistanis also kills Hindu Pakistanis.
Protection from terrorists also kills non-terrorists.

Is the "right" to self defense also a right to kill innocents who happen to be near? Or do they bring it on themselves for being near (since it's been demonstrated you feel all people have the opportunity improve themselves out of the area)?

That's not sarcasm. I'm curious to see a response.

[quadibloc]

That's not sarcasm. I'm curious to see a response.

Was G. W. Bush some kind of madman, who thought Muslims were the scum of the Earth, to be rounded up and put in concentration camps? No.

From his days in the oil industry, he had many personal friends in Sa'udi Arabia. When air travel across the United States was shut down for three days after 9/11, he authorized an exception so that the sister of Osama bin Laden could fly back home away from New York to be safe from any emotional acts of violence.

We're fighting because we really were the victims of an unprovoked attack by terrorists. Our goal isn't to exterminate or enslave others just because they're Jews or Poles or Russians - or Arabs or Muslims. Our goal is to live in peace, in freedom, and in safety. That is something we, and everyone, has a right to expect.

If we are not given it by others, if they refuse to live in peace, we will fight back.

I've already recounted my take on the history of the Middle East conflict here, and so I won't take up space repeating it. Israel's conduct may not have been perfect - but as long as the violence against them continues, they cannot be expected not to resist.

[keyboardlover]

We're fighting because we really were the victims of an unprovoked attack by terrorists. Our goal isn't to exterminate or enslave others just because they're Jews or Poles or Russians - or Arabs or Muslims. Our goal is to live in peace, in freedom, and in safety. That is something we, and everyone, has a right to expect.

If we are not given it by others, if they refuse to live in peace, we will fight back.

This. Ricercar is missing the point completely, as per usual.

[mike]

bad examples. Turkey

As examples demonstrating that the muslim world can in fact cope with democracy they do well enough. Sure they could be better democracies, but it puts the lie to your "Again something we are still waiting to see develop in the quasi-medieval politics and values in the muslim world today."

Democracy, as you probably know, doesnt just mean the fact of having elections. Democracy requires an ecosystem to function, which includes accountability and transparency to fight corruption, an independent judiciary and checks and balances in govt, a free press, and the protected right to dissent.

Actually that's pretty much exactly what I understand by "democracy". Given your list, I feel the phrase you're grasping for is "free and open society". If you include societies which are on their way to becoming "free and open", then democracy doesn't have to be involved - Britain for example wasn't truly democratic before 1918 (I'm ignoring the issue of woman's suffrage), but met many of the requirements to be counted as a "free and open society" well before then.

So again its too easy to say gaza had 'democracy'

I didn't claim that Gaza was democratic; merely implied that they had a taste of what democracy was like. Amongst other things, democracy is a habit - you get used to having a say in your government.

Choosing sides means insisting on dialogic and democratic negotiations, not negotiations where one side holds the terrorism card and at regular intervals launches mass attacks on israel.

Ah! So that's the sort of choice you mean. I'm all for negotiations where somebody can and will give a slap to either the Israelis or the Palestinians when deserved. For instance, Israel deserves a slap for not temporarily extending the ban on settlers building whilst negotiations were underway, and the Palestinians deserve a slap for not doing more to stop terrorists based in Palestinian territory from attacking Israelis.

As to regularly launching mass attacks on Israel, I don't believe Hamas takes part in the negotiations currently underway.

[maclover]

I think Sergey Lavrov says it best.

CHARLIE ROSE:  Exactly.  And so what do you advise the United States,
or what caution do you have for the United States in Afghanistan?  

SERGEY LAVROV:  It’s not for me to make any advice to the United States.  The United States is doing a huge job in Afghanistan which is very difficult.

CHARLIE ROSE:  Is it doable?  

SERGEY LAVROV:  I don’t know.  It’s only possible to say that I think the recent realization in Washington that you need to be -- you need to involve more regional factors, you need to rely on the neighbors, you need to rely on their knowledge of each other and of Afghanistan, and it’s a very welcome site.  

I think that neighboring countries -- by the way, Iran is one of them, can play a very important role.

CHARLIE ROSE:  Iran can help in Afghanistan if approached the right way?  

SERGEY LAVROV:  Absolutely.  

CHARLIE ROSE:  And are prepared to do it based on what you know of your relationship with the Iranians?  

SERGEY LAVROV:  And the right way is a very simple way.  It’s an equal way.  It’s a way of equality, inviting all neighbors to participate as equals in discussing how you shall proceed.

CHARLIE ROSE:  It seems to me you’re suggesting by that small example that the United States would be a lot better off if it engaged Iran more.  

SERGEY LAVROV:  Everyone, including the United States, would be much better off if it does engage everyone.  "Engagement" is the key word for
the foreign policy of today.  Isolation does not work.  Look, Hamas three years ago, four years ago, I don’t remember when, winning fully democratic elections.

And the United States and some Europeans saying yes, the elections were very free and fair, but we cannot recognize the outcome.  Let’s isolate Hamas.  So now we have the Gaza problem.  The same was the attempt sometime ago to isolate Hezbollah from Lebanese politics, though Hezbollah
is not an important product of the produce of Lebanese Shia.  

CHARLIE ROSE:  Yes, but you have influence in Lebanon, too.  

SERGEY LAVROV:  Well, now the government of Prime Minister Hariri is a coalition government with Hezbollah sitting in, and Lebanon is much better off than some time ago.  

My point is that if and when you decide to take a course of isolation,
you don’t normally get the better results.  

CHARLIE ROSE:  So how can the United States engage with Iran?  

SERGEY LAVROV:  Diplomats are paid for this.  You must be creative.  

(LAUGHTER)

CHARLIE ROSE:  Give them some free advice.  

SERGEY LAVROV:  Well, U.S. negotiators are very creative in trying to keep in one piece the Palestinian negotiations.  One-tenth of that creativity applied to Iranian track I think would resolve many problems.  

CHARLIE ROSE:  And are you optimistic about the Israeli-Palestinian at this point?  

SERGEY LAVROV:  I cannot say yes, because being optimistic means it depends on you and you would influence things.  We are trying to influence things.  I can only say that when negotiations started, we all welcomed this, and we want the negotiations to continue.  

But of course being reasonable and diplomatic doesn't win elections unfortunately as the American and Israeli politicians are using Iran to scare people into voting for them and the Iranian politicians are doing the same with the USA and Israel.

In some cases more totalitarian regimes like China and Russia can make more reasonable decisions when it comes to foreign policy because they do not have appease their voters.

[keyboardlover]

But of course being reasonable and diplomatic doesn't win elections unfortunately as the American and Israeli politicians are using Iran to scare people into voting for them and the Iranian politicians are doing the same with the USA and Israel.

In some cases more totalitarian regimes like China and Russia can make more reasonable decisions when it comes to foreign policy because they do not have appease their voters.

Engaging Iran? Easier said than done. It's a regime that controls and teaches its people that the Holocaust never happened, that the West is to blame for all their internal problems and that Israel is a country that should be wiped off the map. How do you engage a regime that is so irrational and ignorant?

Sergey said it best? Even in your quote it seems obvious that he has no idea how to engage them.

[wellington1869]

I've taken up meditation.  Responses like mike's dont 'bother' me anymore.


Seriously, I'm working on not getting worked up.  I know some of ya'll will agree I needed to do that a bit.  Well, let it be said on my gravestone.



Will reply at some point, mike, but at the moment I have to go assume the lotus position.

[keyboardlover]

I've taken up meditation.  Responses like mike's dont 'bother' me anymore.


Will reply at some point, mike, but at the moment I have to go assume the lotus position.

Zen Welly:



Badly shopped, I know, but only for pure lulz

Edit: This one's a bit better

[wellington1869]

lol, nice

you should see the look on beaker's face when he levitates

[Oranjoose]

Hey guys, since we're still on the topic of Democracy,
there's a particularly interesting read on CounterPunch
that delves into Democracy as an idea, rather than just
a political buzzword:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook01252003.html
Since Iran is being brought up, a recent article on CounterPunch
had an interesting take on Iran's relationship to United States'
political/economic interests.
There are some pretty good reads on that site.

[wellington1869]

lol! counterpunch, thats hilarious. Yea, democracy is really imperialism, and there's no difference between democracy and islamist fascism, and so its just a war of all against all with no morality.
yea, the "new left". no thanks.

sigh. Back to the lotus position.

[keyboardlover]

sigh. Back to the lotus position.

"Hommmmmmmm"

"Hummina hummina hummina hummina"

[maclover]

Engaging Iran? Easier said than done. It's a regime that controls and teaches its people that the Holocaust never happened, that the West is to blame for all their internal problems and that Israel is a country that should be wiped off the map. How do you engage a regime that is so irrational and ignorant?

Sergey said it best? Even in your quote it seems obvious that he has no idea how to engage them.

The US could start by not threatening to attack them. The US have normalized diplomatic relations with other countries before. Russia, China. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton even managed to get U.S. citizens released from North Korea. In fact talks are in motion with North Korea. Diplomacy works.

Acting like a gung-ho insecure thug might seem like the most badass option but it's not the most reasonable course of action if your objective is peace and prosperity.

The Bush Axis of Evil theory is simplistic and belongs in a movie. The cold war is over. Deal with it.

[keyboardlover]

The US could start by not threatening to attack them. The US have normalized diplomatic relations with other countries before. Russia, China. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton even managed to get U.S. citizens released from North Korea. In fact talks are in motion with North Korea. Diplomacy works.

...easier in some countries than others.

Acting like a gung-ho insecure thug might seem like the most badass option but it's not the most reasonable course of action if your objective is peace and prosperity.

And...how have we acted like gung-ho insecure thugs with Iran??

The Bush Axis of Evil theory is simplistic and belongs in a movie. The cold war is over. Deal with it.

As is your theory that diplomacy with Iran can easily be gained by simply reaching out to them. We have tried time and again, and so far it's not working. Were you one of the many who thought the great Obama would suddenly make dispomacy with everyone possible? If so, I'm sorry that you were one of the many who were duped to believe he was some kind of god/rockstar. When something seems too good to be true, it typically is.

Is diplomacy possible? Yes, of course it is. Is it going to be a difficult struggle with Iran? Completely.

[maclover]

As is your theory that diplomacy with Iran can easily be gained by simply reaching out to them. Were you one of the many who thought the great Obama would suddenly make dispomacy with everyone possible? If so, I'm sorry that you were one of the many who were duped to believe he was some kind of god/rockstar. When something seems too good to be true, it typically is.

I'm, sorry sir but I must insist that you stand by our President in a time of war. President Obama is the most powerful man in the world. He is the leader of the free world. He is the closest thing to god there is in on this planet. It is the duty of every American Citizen to support the Commander-in-chief in a time of war and we are at war, sir. If you criticize the President you weaken our position in the world and embolden our enemies. American lives are at risk. Support our troops.

We have tried time and again, and so far it's not working.

This time we are pressuring Israel at the same time. Are you implying that the diplomats of the United States are not the best in the world, that the United States is not #1.

If you do not support the President you support the enemies of the US. Pick a side. We're at war.

[keyboardlover]

maclover -- I don't get what your sarcasm is trying to infer. It appears to be way off the point. Like most of your posts.

[wellington1869]

I really dont get the democracy-haters on the left.
its supposed to be the very core of our values. what we get instead is a bunch of ninnies intent of "righteously" defending theocracy and fascism. And they think of themselves as 'left'. no wonder the left collapsed.

theocracy is secularism!
democracy is fascism!
ignorance is knowledge!
humanism is imperialism!

the doublespeak is amazing to see.

[keyboardlover]

I really dont get the democracy-haters on the left.
its supposed to be the very core of our values. what we get instead is a bunch of ninnies intent of "righteously" defending theocracy and fascism. And they think of themselves as 'left'. no wonder the left collapsed.

Me neither...they go so far left to the point that they can't even justify their non-sensical opinions. They often claim that other countries do things better than ours, yet many have never traveled outside this country. These folks worry me just as much as the ones who are too far right.

[wellington1869]

The worst part is: meanwhile in these islamist (and maoist) countries, the liberals there, who are clamoring for reforms and freedoms and who are against imperialism - they wind up getting no support from our "left"! As a result. They're just thrown to the wolves by the "left"!  The logic of our far left is so completely non-sensical its like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

[keyboardlover]

The worst part is: meanwhile in these islamist (and maoist) countries, the liberals there, who are clamoring for reforms and freedoms and who are against imperialism - they wind up getting no support from our "left"! As a result. They're just thrown to the wolves by the "left"!  The logic of our far left is so completely non-sensical its like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Yea and that's partly why if you tell people from other countries that you're 'conservative' they think that you're some kind of loony tunes fascist - because that's all they know of conservatism! And this is the same kind of fear that the far left in our country uses against conservatives!

[Oranjoose]

The US could start by not threatening to attack them. The US have normalized diplomatic relations with other countries before. Russia, China. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton even managed to get U.S. citizens released from North Korea. In fact talks are in motion with North Korea. Diplomacy works.

Acting like a gung-ho insecure thug might seem like the most badass option but it's not the most reasonable course of action if your objective is peace and prosperity.

The Bush Axis of Evil theory is simplistic and belongs in a movie. The cold war is over. Deal with it.

Good observation. The US has been actively trying to engage in "talks" with
many countries including North Korea, but you are correct, The US has been
avoiding diplomacy with Iran.
In fact, Iran has tried numerous times this past decade to discuss issues of
"national concern." Even this year the Iranian President requested meeting
with Obama for talks, but the US predictably refused once again.
With those known facts, you can come to a conclusion, depending on what
your political beliefs are. None, however, can argue that it is not in the US' national interests to avoid diplomacy in this special case, because otherwise
it'd obviously make sense to.
Once again you may not agree, but it seems clear to me that the historical
pattern is that the US has attempted "talks" only with troublesome nations
that the US does not plan to engage in military combat. Apparently,
diplomacy would throw off 'the plan.'

[wellington1869]

says the guy who thinks 9/11 was a US conspiracy.

Hey OJ, so a "mumbai-style" attack in europe is apparently imminent.  When the gunmen open fire with their ak47's in your hotel, I hope you dont turn into an "islamophobe" and run away. If you do, you wont hear the end of it from me

[wellington1869]

p.s., oh I forgot. If an islamist massacre of the public happens in europe, its probably a conspiracy by the US and Israel to put the blame on hapless muslims.

[keyboardlover]

In fact, Iran has tried numerous times this past decade to discuss issues of "national concern."

Good observation. Issues of national concern to Iran:

1. Doing everything they can to make their citizens as miserable and oppressed as possible

2. Denial of the Holocaust

3. Planning how to blow Israel off the map

4. Putting more funding into their nuclear program (because having this power is really more important than keeping people happy...or fed.)

[itlnstln]

Bush made a strategic error invading Iraq.  The constant wars between the two kept the power of Iran in check.

This is very important.  Despite the all the human rights abuses in Iraq, having Sadaam in power did keep the power balanced in the region.  I think this gets overlooked when examining the area and the situation.  When those countries had to worry about each other, they didn't need to mess with us.

[keyboardlover]

I'm more disappointed in us not getting the Oil.

Do people really still think it was about oil? I never got that.
Anyway, while a good point was raised I still believe intervening in Iraq was important. When genocides like those perpetuated by Saddam happen, we often get the blame for NOT stepping in.

Basically as a country we get **** if we do and we get **** if we don't. We just can't win.