Envy

I had an epiphany today which helped me to understand  about 80% of liberalism's basis. It's envy.

Liberalism, in it's current form, is a offshoot of Marxist theory. At the heart of Marx's ideas is the concept of class struggle. Formally, it's known as conflict theory. In a nutshell, the idea of conflict theory is that people are always going to revolt against upper classes because of inequity.

That, folks, is the crux of the matter. Somebody has something you don't so you're upset. You're not just upset, your mad and willing to fight over it.

Liberalism today seeks equity.  Don't believe me?  Take these few examples.

• The earned income tax credit gives poor people who don't pay income tax needs to get a refund too!
• Affirmative action programs force fairness in hiring, and enforce this fairness by assuming that any differences between the population of the workforce and the population in general are the result of racism.
•  Not keeping score in little league, because somebody will lose. 

Here is a shocking truth. People aren't equal.

Compared to me, some people are smarter.  Others are faster.  Some are healthier.  Lots are better looking, a few are harder working.  No society can ever ignore those differences.

Liberals want to. When they see one person who has more of something than someone else, it causes envy. Envy leads to guilt, so they want to take away that thing.


Fairness is not the government taking money from one and giving it to someone else.  Fairness is setting the boundaries, and letting the players play the game, using all the talent, skill and work ethic God gave them.

Invention of Lying

Saw the movie "Invention of Lying" this weekend. I rate it a 2 out of 10. I give it such high marks because of the creative and interesting premise the movie is based on.

For those of you who've not yet wasted your money to see this movie (don't by the way), let me give you a plot synopsis.

In a world where everyone tells the truth, all the time about everything, there is no fiction (since it is basically not true), all movies are a retelling of history. The Hero is a not-so-attractive writer for the movies who gets fired (his last two screen plays were based around the black death of the 1300s), then evicted from his apartment because he only has $300 in the bank, and rent is $800.

He has a love interest who doesn't think that he is a good genetic match to her ("our kids will be fat kids with pug noses)

He goes to the bank to close out his account, and their system is down. they ask him how much he has in the bank (nobody can lie, remember) and he says $800. The computers come on, they say "The system says you only have $300, so sorry for our mistake"

The main crux, though, starts when he tells his dying mom, who is afraid of the nothingness of death, that there is life after death. He is overheard by some nurses, and it just goes downhill from there.

Problems
Before the political analysis, I just want to point out some plot holes big enough to drive a bus through.

• In the movie, everyone is both truthful (a good thing), and lacking in any compassion or tact (not quite so good). They will say things that are hurtful, if true, without any concern about what how they are saying affects the other person. I can tell someone the truth without hurting them. Why would people lack the ability to care for each other just because they tell the truth?  If my wife asks me "honey do I look like a supermodel?  I would answer, "To me, you're just as beautiful, but your body type isn't one that would classify as a supermodel", not "No, you're too fat."  Both are true, the latter is hurtful.
 

• It is possible to speak what you think is the truth, but be mistaken. Sometimes, I forget about a transaction or two, so my account balance is not what I thought it was.  Why would the bank assume that that there was no mistake in fact.

• In the movie, nobody believes in God.  They have a comparable level of technology.  That means that speculation is possible, for without it, there can be no possibility of technical advancement.  Even, for the sake of argument, we ignore the fact that God did tell man He existed, why could not someone speculate on the biggest questions man have ever asked (e.g. "why am I here?"  "How did I get here?"  "What is the purpose to existence?" "Do I have a meaning?"  "What happens when I die?")

To say the movie is disparaging to religion is a rather gross understatement.  It makes the belief in God more laughable than Santa Claus. 

The movie, though, shows some thought (at least what passes for thought for pop-culture atheists.)  One point, a magazine shows the title "Finally, a reason to be good", referring to the 'man in the sky' God reference.  It also shows the meaninglessness of life and death in the absence of God, thought it doesn't really dwell on it.

Overall, this movie stunk.  Don't waste your time.

Obama a Socialist?

I made a statement that I believe that Obama is a socialist. That was not meant as an insult to him, nor was I trying to throw verbal firebombs. I am only obectivily classify his belief system.

I will attempt to explain why I say that, but first, let us start with the definition of Socialism. According to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Socialism is.

1. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2. (a:) a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
   (b:) a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state


3. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

It is in the manner of definitions 1 and 2b that I refer to President Obama as a socialist.

Since being in office, he's

• taken effective control over many banking companies (Through TARP)
  
• taken control over GM and Chrysler.
• attempting to eliminate surface mining in WV by having the EPA endlessly review mining permits that have already been approved.

These three steps shows governmental control and ownership over the production and distribution of goods.

If the Health Care legislation goes through, nearly 1/6th of the economy will be under either direct or indirect control of the government.



Birds of a Feather
Obama's goal is to make the U.S. like European powers, which are uniformly socialist. The Euro-style socialism is less insane than the Easter European model (U.S.S.R style), and less totalitarian and brutal than the Nazi National Socialists.

This is a telling quote from a communist group

"This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat." from http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/MarxistsSocialistsCommunistsforObama

Or another socialist group seeing Obama as a candidate who can move the nation towards their goals.

DSA believes that the possible election of Senator Obama to the presidency... represents a potential opening for social and labor movements to generate the critical political momentum necessary to implement a progressive political agenda. We know that a proactive and progressive government can come only on the heels of a broad coalition for social justice united against a reactionary Republicanism as well as a Democratic neoliberalism. Democratic Socialists of America Statement on the 2008 Election

The ten points of the Communist manifesto sound a lot like the DNC national platform. Here are seven of them. Remember that Communism IS socialism but taken to its logical extreme. USSR stood for United Soviet Socialist Republics

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (EPA routinely goes after private land for 'environmental' purposes)
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Read GM)
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.[8]

I believe that Obama has good intentions, but what was the statement about the pavement on the road to hell?

Some other good links
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/why_obamas_socialism_matters_1.html
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-06-12.asp

The One Part of Obamacare I agree with

It is no secret that I am not a rabid Obama supporter. I feel the man is not qualified for the job he holds (no, I'm not a birther. I am simply alluding to the fact that he has very little experience for the most powerful executive position in the world.)

But, that being said, one aspect of the proposed medical reform package actually makes some sense.

A lifetime ago, I used to sell heath insurance. I know a little about this.

Ever wonder why most people get their insurance through their employer? The reason is 'adverse selection '. Insurance is about risk. We buy insurance to cover us for the chance something bad will happen to us that would be devastating financially (house burn down, we get sick, etc) . By pooling large groups of people together, the insurance company can run statistics and perdict about how much claims will be, and can figure out how much everyone has to pay to cover the claims (and a make the company a profit).

Sick people are more likely to want to buy health insurance than healthy people. If you try to buy health insurance on your own, the chance that you are healthy and being careful is small, but the chance that your sick and want them to pay your bills is large, hence a larger bill.

Group insurance (like the policies sold to employers as part of a fringe benefit package), though, covers the healthy and the sick. The reason the people are being cover is because of where they work, not their health status. Thus, group policies are way, way, way cheaper than individual polices.

Part of Obama's idea (if you can call a bill originating in the House or Senate Obama's Idea) is to mandate health coverage. This would reduce the amount adverse selection, and allow individuals to start getting much rates.

While it makes sense, I do worry about the government saying "you must buy a product, even if you don't want to."

Marvelous design

I am astounded at the marvel of God's creation!

While doing some study on spiders, I learned a great deal about their circulatory system (they don't really have one in the same manner as we), and read how their systems, while much simpler and less efficient than ours, fits perfectly with their needs.

On one hand, the sources (mostly Wikipedia) talk of the design and explain its complexities and how well it fits the animal, then talk about how it all occurred by chance.

I don't get it. How can these very bright people look at something so complex, so well suited to their environments, and more efficiently engineered than the best sports car and say,
"It all happened by accident. Just chance. There is no designer of this design."

Prayer

Normally, if I blog about my faith, I do so here in my other blog, but this is a political reflection.

There has been a serious change in this nation since the 1960's, thanks mostly to the ACLU. Yes, our friends, who champion removing God, promoting homosexuality, protecting child porn, and pediophiles, have been bringing law suites against schools in which prayer is offered by a non-student. They cite the crystal clear line of a wall of separation between church and state as their motivator.  This wall of separation is found in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in the Bill of Rights.

For those who may not be familiar with the Constitution, it would seem the issues was clear cut.  After all, doesn't the Constitution say that government and religion should have no interaction whatsoever.  As oil and water, government and religion can't be mixed.

The Text
The text is found in the First Amendment to the Constitution. The text in question is ...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is rather dense. In this one amendment we have freedoms of press, of speech, assemble and petition.  Let's uncompress it a bit, since were interested in the section dealing with freedom of religion.  That section reads.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Since the words of the Constitution do not magically change when the Supreme Court reads them, let's try tor understand what this is saying.  It forbids the Federal Legislature, i.e. Congress, from either establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. 

At the heart of the debate of student-led prayer, the display of the Ten Commandments, the hosting of Nativity scenes on the court house lawn and a million other issues is that little word "establishment."

At the time this was written, nearly every nation had an official religion, supported by taxes, and imposed on the people against their will. Usually, the religion of the monarch was the official religion of the land, and those who practiced something else were either at best, taxed to support the State religion, while their own beliefs were tolerated, or at worst, hunted down and killed.

The establishment of religion actually can be rephrased as

"the government shall not create, nor fund an official church"

Please Notice the second clause. Congress cannot prevent the FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. This is co-equal to the first clause. They are both valid. They both are talking about FREEDOM OF RELIGION!

We have now come to a place where the "FREE EXERCISE" of religion is squelched in order to preserve the fallacy of "separation of Church and State"

Jefferson said

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, ... that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

The intent was not to be hostile to the expression of religion!  It was not to prevent religion from having any impact on government.  It was to keep the state out of the matter of the church, as he said "that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god."

Furthermore, this limits ONLY THE CONGRESS, not the courts, not the executive branch, nor the states!  See the phrase "Congress shall"?  Look at the wording of the Second Amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 The key, dear reader, is that the Second Amendment was written such that the Federal, State or Local governments could not infringe on this right.

Now, I am not advocating for Catholic Priests teaching catechisms in public school.  Nor am I suggesting that Mormons, Muslims or Baptists do the same.  As a Christian, I believe in the Golden Rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do to you."  We should show respect for other's beliefs while expressing our own.

And student led prayer is free exercise of religion, with is unambiguously protected by the First Amendment.  (Sort of.)

Immigration Stupidity

I was reading this article today, and had to comment on the stupidity therein contained.

The author kept using the euphemism "Undocumented immigrants." That's like saying "unauthorized, non-customer withdraws" to describe a bank robbery!

Mr. Koulish's position is irrational. This nation has laws on immigration that are being violated wholesale, and it seems his position is that we should ignore the violation.

If the laws are wrong, fine, change them. No nation of laws can exist by ignoring the laws it finds inconvenient. By doing so, it devalues all laws.

Furthermore, his statement about the "destruction of families" caused by deportation of an illegal arrested for a "minor infractions" ignores that they are already lawbreakers by being here illegally. If I robbed a bank, and then got picked up for littering, does it mean that the police should ignore the bank robbery charges?

Finally, he stated that '"securing the border" is indefinable, unmeasurable". This is hogwash total, ridiculous pig's bath water! How about we define securing the border 'preventing unauthorized border crossing'? How about measuring it by the number of legal interdictions?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Illegal immigration is a topic neither party wants to deal with, and this creates a de facto slave class, which is so wrong I could just scream. It is not fair for lower-income Americans, it's not fair for the Mexican, it's not fair to the community asked to bear the burden of the influx of low skill, low income, poorly educated people. It needs fixing, but I doubt I'll ever see it.

Hypocracy

Folks, we conservatives aren't known for protesting. Sure, we'll vote, and complain, and sometimes even pass out literature. But protest..?

Now the liberal line is that the recent protests during town hall meetings as fake, 'astroturf' is the term.

They say that the protesters are not everyday people. They say that these people are planted. They say that there is an organization. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer even said it's unamerican. 

Oh, you filthy hypocrites!  It is you, fair-minded liberal, who said that protesting is the highest form of patriotism!  It is you, members of the far left, that have  bussed in protesters by the hundreds all over the nation!  Lefties, you are the ones who have done everything short of paying people to protest to drum up support for your cause!  And you have the gull, the unmitigated audacity to complain about us?

Sure, I know our side is hypocritical as well. We've criticized the wackos from code pink and act up for being rude and interrupting events, while we sit back and cheer when the red-faced tea partier screams down a senator.  But our level of hypocritical behavior pales in the face of your past stances, dear liberal.

What does the following people and organizations have in common?

• Code Pink
• Act Up
• Cindy Sheehan
• ACORN
• Jane Fonda(who is now a born again Christian as of 2001.)
• most unions
  

The common thread is that each of these people or organizations have protested, organized, spoke out, and attempted to influence both elections and public policy. These efforts were heralded by the media as wholesome and fully American.

When the SAME EXACT behavior occurs from our side (although, usually, it's much more sedate and mannerly.  We Conservatives like to follow rules, even when protesting.  We pick up our trash too, afterwards.) you point your crooked fingers at us, foaming at the mouth, and stammer out baseless accusations such as racism and call us unamerican.

Suck it up, stop your whining, pull up your big boy underwear, and deal with it! 

For decades, our side has been mostly silent and passive, while yours has been loud and aggressive. 

What's good for Code Pink is good for the tea parties, and it's about time you got a taste of your own medicine!

Obama's Birth Certificate

Ok, I admit that I don't like Obama. It's not personal. I'm sure he's a great guy to hang out with, but his socialist policies are too much for me.

That being said, there is some chatter about Obama's birth certificate. There are statements that he's never produced one showing that he was born in the USA.

The U.S. Constitution requires a man to be a natural born citizen in order to serve. There are two ways to become a natural born citizen. First, be born within the borders of our nation, and second, to be born from at least one U.S. citizen.

In other words, say Barak was born in Kenya. So what, his mom was a citizen, so he would be as well.

Also, I did see a birth certificate produced by his campaign. It is an abstracted certificate from the state of Hawaii. It looks legit to me, and I do know birth certificates (I work for Vital in WV)

Fussing about something stupid does not help the cause to push back his policies, it just makes our side look like kooks.

Why?

If there is no media bias then...
Why is every movie about a president picture the Republican as

• stupid
• greedy
• insensitive
• brutish
• immoral (or at least amoral)
  
• uncaring
  
• for 'evil corporate concerns'
  

while the Democrat is

• loving
• kind
• smart
• whity
• moral,
  
• cares for the poor
  
• for the 'working man'

Don't belive me? American President. Dave. Swing vote, need I go on? West Wing, MASH, etc.

NASA's Impending death

Next year, the Space shuttle will be retired. For nearly 30 years, the space shuttle system has been the symbol of pressing the boundaries, and moving to the next step in space exploration.

Now, NASA is giving up it's heavy lift Constellation Systems.  We are going to lose our position as leader in space because bureaucrats can't make up their minds on what goals to reach for.

NASA is dying.  Without a vision, the Bible Says, the People perish, and without a goal NASA languishes.  They have wasted billions building a shuttle replacement, the changing their minds, and going a different direction. 

NASA is dying.  It's lost it's cutting edge.  It's lost it risk-tolerance, without which there is no real exploration.  In a few decades, our space program will be a distant memory.

I hope and pray I'm wrong.

Torture

Torture

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession..." United Nations Convention Against Torture

Torture is a horrible practice. It's been used since before recorded history. Some modern forms of torture are

• physical assaults (i.e. beating up the prisoner)
  
• Stabbing, cutting, suffocating
• electrocution
• starvation
• breaking of bones
• chemical burns

Obama is thinking about prosecuting those who approved 'aggressive' interrogation techniques. The following are some of the "torture" inflected on detainees

• keeping somebody from falling asleep
• Exploiting someones fear of insects to coerce information from them
  
• Making somebody stand for hours, in an uncomfortable position
• Pushing someone into a specially built wall that bounces. Steps are taken to prevent any injury. The wall just makes a big sound (like the mat in pro wrestling)
• Holding the detainees' face
• Slapping the detainees' face (with spread fingers) no more than twice
• Grabbing the detainees' shirt and pulling him close (think Clint Eastwood style)
  
• Pouring water into somebody's face.

Compare this to the torture inflected upon our POWs in Vietnam.

In all honesty here folks, that isn't torture! It is not warm and cuddly. It's not comfortable. These same techniques have been used for years on over 10,000 U.S. airmen in the Air Force's Survival, Evasion and Escape program.

Do we torture our military? No. The training is tough, it gets close, but still fails on the 'severe pain and suffering.' Causing fear is a common interrogation technique used by all police departments in the world. Fear itself cannot be called sever pain and suffering.

The crux of the issue is

1. What constitutes torture? We agree that beatings and cutting off body parts constitutes torture, but does slapping someone? How about sleep deprivation?
   
2. Is morality absolute, or is it dependent upon the situation. If we caught someone planting a dirty bomb in a major city, and we knew that there were five more bombs, how far would we be willing to go to extract the locations of the other bombs from the terrorist we captured? Would our self-righteousness balm the knowledge that thousands, in not millions, are now dead because we decided not to get rough?
3. Are we fighting a war or are we doing law enforcement? Soldiers kill the enemy. Police arrest criminals. Police require evidence, and assume innocence. Solders neither require nor assume either. These are mutually exclusive worldviews. We cannot be of two minds about this question.

If we become like those we are fighting, we loose the very thing for which we are fighting. We can also be sure that our enemy will not limit themselves in this fight to what we consider moral, no matter how much nice we are.

The basis of our nations policy should be reality before philosophy. There are groups of people in this world who want to do us harm. The way to prevent them from inflicting harm on us to to hunt them down, and stop them. Stopping them may mean killing them.

There are two different moral implications at work in this decision. First, the governments obligation to act in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States, and with the traditions of this great nation. The second is much more basic. One of the first responsibilities of governments is to protect its citizens against attack. How moral would it have been if Bush could have prevented 3,000 deaths on 9/11, but choose instead not to be rough with a conspirator?

In light of the threats on this nation, and after reading the memos, I honestly believe the Bush people attempted to apply reasonable techniques that attempted to balance the morality of action against the morality of inaction. While harsh and aggressive, these methods fall short of out-right torture. All of the techniques were required to do no actual harm. Pain was to be kept to a minimum. Do you think that our enemies would be as considerate or moral?

Disgusting

In doing research of a paper I was writing for history class, I came across something I never heard before.  

During the early part of WWII, the Soviet Union invaded Poland and in the course of events, executed at least 22,436 Polish POWs.  Of course, the Soviet Union denied it had done so, until the Nazis discovered the mass graves.  FDR rejected a report from one of his underlings detailing Soviet responsibility and banished him to American Samoa for the rest of the war. American POW  Col. John H. Van Vliet wrote a report that concluded that the Soviets were responsible.  U.S. Maj. Gen. Clayton Bissell, assistant chief of staff for intelligence to Gen. Marshall (of the Marshall Plan fame) destroyed it to keep from offending our allies, the Soviets.

Murder of POWs is an atrocity that the Soviet Union repeated.  At the end of the war, when Germany surrendered, 91,000 German were taken as prisoners of war by the Soviet Union in Stalingrad.  Of these, only 6,000 survived.

The U.S. leadership showed no moral authority what-so-ever.  Political commentators condemn Reagan for supporting the Contras but give a pass to their favorite president, FDR, who did much worse.

Cap and Trade

Environmentalists, are you stupid?  You are behind Obama's Cap and Trade deal despite the facts that

• The major polluters will not be affected (China, for example)
• Cap and Trade will destroy our economy by raising energy prices to such a level that our current economy will fall.
• Cap and trade will bring poverty, and poor nations have some of the poorest environmental records.
• For years, environmentalists have complained about pollution, and companies have responded by cleaning up  emissions, redesigning products and so forth.  The result is that the only by-product produced in quantity now is CO2.  CO2 is also a by-product of breathing. How surprising it is that this useful gas, without which there would be no food, is now the state enemy # 1 with environmentalists.  If a device was made tomorrow that made burning coal as clean as wind power, do you think environmentalists would support it?

The problem isn't pollution.  I believe that a certain core of hyper-environmentalism is behind the recent pushes.  I seem them as religious fanatics who worship mother earth.  They view humans as a pestilence on the face of the planet, and loath any lifestyle above that of the Aborigines.

Their goal is to destroy modern life, and decrease population to 'sustainable' levels.    Most 'greens' are not among these, but buy into the whole notion that man is destroying the earth by not living like animals.

I am a conservationist.  I believe we huamns need to preserve and care for our envirnonment, while we make use of its resources.  Cut down that tree, but plant one.  Kill that deer, but leave enough to ensure the survial of the species.

The Pope, AIDS, Condoms, and the Liberal Mindset.

I am not Catholic.  I typically have no opinion on anything the Pope says, nor do I generally care what other people say about him.  

Back in mid March, the Pope went to Africa, and said that condoms are not the way to prevent AIDS/HIV.  

The liberals foamed at the mouth.  Here are their talking points.

• How dare he!  There are people dying and he doesn't care.
  
• Telling people to abstain from sex is nonsensitical.  People are going to have sex, and if we don't have them use condoms, they'll die!
• He's an old man, and therefore is either confused or is so old he doesn't remember what its like to have a libido.
• The only way to prevent HIV/AIDS is to push condom usage hard!

I don't know if the Pope cares or not, but I would bet that he did care.  That's not his point.  Do you know what's driving the pandemic in Africa?  Sexual immorality.

The New York Times says " researchers agree that extramarital sex has been a major factor in the AIDS epidemic. At least four million Africans, 80 percent of those infected, are believed to have acquired the AIDS virus through heterosexual intercourse."(emphasis mine)

Another publication mentions that researchers have identified  Transactional Sex , a euphamizum for armature prostitution, is a major driving force in the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa.

The Pope's point wasn't "Do not ever have sex"  but rather, "Have as much sex as you want, as long as it is only with your wife or husband."

If both the husband and wife are  monogamous, and clean of the virus, guess what.  They can't catch it!  

What is stupid, though, is encouraging condom use as if it is a cure all.  If used perfectly, condoms fail about 20% of the time.  Let's take a six-shot pistol, put one bullet in it, spin the revolver, and put the gun to our heads and pull the trigger.    That's real close to the actual odds of condom breakage. 

I'm not against passing out condoms to adults in Africa, but I think the better solution is to encourage men to be faithful to their wives, or the disease will.  If there were no extra matrial sex, the epidemic would stop very quickly.