Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Vote Wisconsin values, not corporatist beliefs

Originally posted at

One shouldn’t ordinarily encourage people to cast votes against candidates. If you’re going to vote for someone, it should be for a proactive reason, not one that stands against a particular viewpoint but rather FOR something of substance, FOR a set of values that a candidate espouses that you yourself share.

Wisconsin this year is set to have a series of important elections. One of them is the U.S. Senate race between incumbent Democratic candidate Russ Feingold and the presumed Republican candidate Ron Johnson.

Recent polling has suggested that Johnson is tightening the race in what should be an easy win for Feingold – incumbents traditionally win more often than not, and Feingold has faced tough competition in years past. Though this polling was done by a noted conservative organization, it is still cause for concern. When you take a look at the candidates themselves, however, it’s clear who Wisconsin should choose and whom the voters should reject.

Wisconsinites should be familiar with the values Russ Feingold holds; he’s been the Junior Senator from Wisconsin for nearly two decades. In 2001, he was the sole vote against the USA PATRIOT Act, a law that severely undermined the civil liberties of private citizens. He set the trend for conducting listening sessions, going to all 72 counties within Wisconsin yearly. He’s been an ardent supporter of responsible budgeting, fighting for progressive spending policies but being a staunch opponent of wasteful pet projects that do no good for the country (Feingold himself has never requested an earmark during his time in the U.S. Senate, and has rejected all pay raises as a senator). Feingold is also a champion of campaign finance reform, having coauthored the largest overhaul to campaigning rules in decades in a bipartisan manner with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

Contrast that to Ron Johnson, the Republican nominee to replace Feingold in the U.S. Senate. Johnson, a successful businessman from Oshkosh, has very little political expertise – an attribute that Republicans say is beneficial, especially in this election cycle where an anti-incumbent attitude has taken hold.

Whatever Johnson offers as a fresh face, however, he lacks significantly as a candidate. His values are directly at odds with those of average Wisconsinites. And while Feingold gets recognition for his being a true “maverick” in the Senate (not always touting the party line and working in the interests of the people whom he represents), Johnson’s positions mirror those of the GOP playbook to a “T.”

His reasoning for pursuing office in the first place raises many an eyebrow. When asked about why he was seeking office, Johnson told several sources in several different venues that he was inspired to run by a not-so-conventional source: FOX News’ Dick Morris. Most people by tradition answer the call to public service for something greater, to help the people or the economic landscape, not because a commentator suggests that a person with great wealth should run against an established politician.

We can push that aside, however, because it’s not necessarily why Johnson is running that we should concern ourselves with but rather what he would do if he were to win the seat. Using that criterion as our barometer of whether we should support him or not, though, should render even more concern for the average Wisconsin voter.

Take, for example, his stance on oil drilling. During a time when one might prescribe a more cautious approach to offshore oil exploration and eventual drilling, Johnson takes the opposite approach and defends BP’s actions. In fact, Johnson has suggested we need to expand our drilling – to the Great Lakes, if necessary.

“I think we have to be realistic and...get the oil where it is,” Johnson told WisPolitics recently when asked about whether we should drill in the largest freshwater reserves the world has to offer. Several other GOP lawmakers around the Great Lakes region have also expressed support for doing so as well.

Picture the devastation that is affecting the people in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida right now. Do we really want to gamble with our natural resources here in the Midwest? Ron Johnson doesn’t seem to mind.

Environmentally, Johnson is on the wrong page, especially given Wisconsin’s rich history of conservation. But it isn’t the sole issue that the GOP is out-of-touch on.

By his own admission, Ron Johnson claims to desire a health care system where children especially receive the necessary treatment they need. It’s an issue that touches him personally – Johnson’s daughter had heart surgery herself eight months before she was born. Today, she’s a neonatal nurse, a noble profession to be sure.

We can commend his daughter for the work she has done, and we can empathize with Johnson after such a tale. But what doesn’t make any sense, then, is his stance on the issue of health care reform: Johnson opposes the bill passed this year, going on record saying he would support a repeal of the law if elected.

If the law were repealed, then children like Johnson’s, who may face lingering health problems as a result of such surgery, could face the additional stresses of being denied coverage in the future. You see, the health reform bill that passed had a provision that would abolish the practice of denying a person coverage simply because someone had a pre-existing condition, starting in 2014 – but for children it begins immediately, meaning no insurance company can deny a child coverage based on previous health concerns.

There’s no doubt that many children of non-millionaires the nation over have been denied coverage for important medical conditions that they have. Because of their “pre-existing” conditions, it is their parents’ own fault if they can’t afford to be treated, at least in the eyes of the free market that candidates like Johnson put their faith in. Ron Johnson would rather have us revert to that old system, to the health insurance companies dictating who lives and dies through the private sector’s own “death panels.”

By now, the list of problems associated with Ron Johnson is enough to make anyone question whether he should even be a viable candidate for city dog catcher, much less an office as dignified as the U.S. Senate seat he is seeking. But there are far worse positions one can take that would ruin a person’s political ambitions. Sadly, Johnson goes down that road in his pursuit to appease an extreme right conservative base.

In January of this year, the state legislature considered a measure called the Child Victim’s Act. Though it eventually never made it out of committee, the bill would have allowed victims of sexual abuse the right to seek a claim against their abusers without a time limitation of any kind.

There are many reasons why one might wait years, even decades, to make a claim as serious as sexual abuse. Confronting an abuser is never an easy thing, and allowing those who had been abused to be able to right a wrong over an indefinite time period would have been a step in the right direction for Wisconsin.

Ron Johnson opposed this measure. He opposed it not only in private, but through public statement, speaking directly to the committee considering the measure during the public forum that takes place before any bill is passed through legislative committee.

His reasoning? It wasn’t to protect the rights of those accused. It wasn’t because he felt a statute of limitations should be in place. No, Ron Johnson was concerned about the image of businesses and organizations that employed those who were accused of perpetrating sexual abuse.

“I believe it’s a valid question to ask whether the employer of a perpetrator should also be severely damaged, or possibly destroyed, in our legitimate desire for justice,” he told the committee.

In other words, Ron Johnson was more concerned with the reputation of employers of abusers than the rights of those who were abused to seek justice. It is a concern that a businessman like Johnson may have, of course, but it is secondary in the minds of many when it comes to helping victims of sexual abuse.

Pro-drilling and anti-environment; anti-health care reform and pro-market control of your health decisions; and perhaps most troubling, concern for the business community over the well-being of those affected by sexual assault. Are these the values we want from a senator representing our state?

Certainly there will be some in Wisconsin who will agree with Johnson’s positions – this long-winded diatribe isn’t addressed to them. Those who are on the fence, however, heed these words: Ron Johnson is not looking out for the people of this state. He’s a businessman who is working to make Wisconsin more corporate-friendly, at the expense of the people who reside here.

Yes, Russ Feingold may be a “career politician,” but he has always looked out for the people of this state first and foremost, working with them directly through listening sessions and other modes of communication. Who will Ron Johnson listen to? Pro-corporate business lobbyists like Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce?

There are plenty of reasons to support Feingold for Senate; he has been one of the few politicians in Washington that have consistently voted for the interests of the people whom he represents. But if you are one of those who are unsure that he deserves another term in office, and you’re considering another candidate, please consider instead the catastrophic tenure that would be six years of Ron Johnson as the Junior Senator from Wisconsin. It’s a scenario that, frankly, Wisconsin can’t afford to risk taking.

WI Sup. Ct. upholds same-sex marriage ban

The Wisconsin State Supreme Court released a decision regarding the legality of the same-sex marriage ban that passed in the state in 2006. In a 7-0 judgment, the Court upheld the ban, denying a legal challenge based on how the amendment had been passed.

William McConkey, who brought the suit forward following its passage into law, alleged that the amendment itself was unconstitutional, presented to the electorate under terms that violated rules for passing amendments.

Under Wisconsin's State Constitution, a proposed amendment must first pass in two consecutive sessions of the state legislature. Following that, the measure is put to the people, who vote "yes" or "no" on the proposal. If there is more than one amendment being asked, the ballot must separate each to allow the people the right to decide each individually.

The same-sex marriage ban that passed in 2006 included two separate questions, but only offered voters to vote "yes" on both or "no" on both.

The original text of the ballot read:

"Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?"

Two questions were clearly asked there: first, should marriage be defined as between one man and one woman only; and second, should we refuse to recognize any other status to those who don't fit those criteria that would want benefits similar to marriage?

The Court earlier this week ruled that, even if those two questions were asked, "both sentences of the marriage amendment relate to marriage and tend to effect or carry out the same general purpose of preserving the legal status of marriage in Wisconsin as between only one man and one woman."

But that ruling, from the opinion written by Justice Michael Gableman, is an inaccurate assessment. Previous rulings by the Wisconsin State Supreme Court have ruled that amendments with multiple clauses need to relate with one another. And while both questions had to do with denying benefits to same-sex partners, one was denying the specific title of marriage while the other would deny any other title that could possibly be offered (like civil unions, for example).

It's not enough to say that the two questions are related and therefore required no separation on the ballot -- the entire point was that they carried two separate distinctions. A person who supports same-sex unions but not necessarily under the title of "marriage" was never given the choice to express that view. They either had to support same-sex marriage or side with those who didn't want ANY benefits granted to same-sex couples.

So while the letter of the law was carried out -- it technically WAS part of one amendment -- the spirit was clearly ignored. Two questions on a single ballot constituted two separate outcomes. The people were never given the choice to decide on them separately.

Monday, June 28, 2010

A tribute to U.S. Senator Robert Byrd

West Virginian U.S. Senator Robert Byrd, the longest serving member of Congress in the history of our nation, passed away this morning. The so-called "dean" of the Senate, Byrd was a historian of the esteemed chamber, often reminding his colleagues of the important role they played through his eloquent use of the English language.

Some will focus on the mistakes of Byrd's life -- he was once a member of the KKK in the 1940s, and filibustered against Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s.

But if there's one thing Byrd's storied career symbolizes, it is that redemption of one's character is not out of reach for any man, no matter what his sins may be. Byrd rejected his racist past, describing it as one of the biggest regrets of his life. "I apologized a thousand times," he once said, "and I don't mind apologizing over and over again."

In recent years, Byrd's age didn't stymie his progressive values. He adamantly opposed the Iraq War from its start. Earlier this year, despite his ailing health, being wheeled in on a wheelchair by an aide, he proudly voted for health insurance reform.

Byrd isn't just a person, just a member of government -- he's an institution within the Senate body itself. Regardless of your feelings of him, Sen. Robert Byrd's death marks the end of an important era of statesmanship within the United States Congress.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Structural problems plague MKE Co. due to Walker's cuts

Earlier this week, a large piece of decorative stone fell off of the O'Donnell Park parking garage in Milwaukee near the Lake Michigan lakefront. A fifteen-year old was killed, while two other persons were injured.

I cannot begin to imagine the emotions running through the families of those who have been affected by this terrible tragedy. It is a loss of life that could have been prevented.

It's always a terrible thing when people turn events like these into political arguments. I'm not writing this blog blaming Scott Walker for the loss of life -- it is not as if he is directly responsible for this tragedy. So while it might be easier for some to lay the blame directly on the Republican County Executive, such blame is misdirected. It was an accident to be sure.

But there were certainly clues that something like this could have happened, clues that, as County Executive, Walker chose to ignore.

First off: As Milwaukee County Board Chairman Lee Holloway points out in a statement, Milwaukee County has seen its fair share of problems as a result of Walker's desire to gut the county of revenue.

"Earlier this year, stone chunks fell off of the Milwaukee County Courthouse," Holloway said. "We are also dealing with numerous structural problems at the Mental Health Complex. Now, we are dealing with a terrible tragedy."

Second: an audit earlier this year shows that Milwaukee County officials knew of the structural problems at the O'Donnell parking garage, knew that almost $600,000 worth of repairs were needed, including preventative measures to reinforce concrete that might be crumbling.

When you take that into account, and add the other structural problems going on at Milwaukee County properties, it should make your heart pump faster. This tragedy could have been prevented. It was known that the parking structure was in need of repairs. It was shown that other Milwaukee County buildings were in disarray as well, were crumbling before our very eyes.

This didn't matter when budgeting was being done. County Executive Walker didn't care, wanted to save a buck. The repairs could be done a year or more later.

Like I said, this is not Scott Walker's fault. Things like this do happen.

But Scott Walker didn't do much to prevent it, either.

Same-sex parents need equal adoption rights

A recent ruling by an appeals court in Dane County has determined that a woman who has cared for her children for years cannot be deemed a mother of those children herself – simply because she was in a same-sex relationship.

The woman, who went by the alias of “Wendy,” and her partner split up but decided to have shared custody of the two children. However, Wendy did not have the official status of being a guardian of the children since under Wisconsin state law gay and lesbian couples cannot adopt together – only one of the parents can officially become the guardian of a child.

Wendy sought to change that through the legal system, but the court this week ruled that Wendy could not seek the same recognition that her former partner has over their two children despite having had all of the same responsibilities of parenthood during their relationship.

The issue here is definitively institutional: two straight parents under the same situation would have been given the same right to adopt both children initially, from the moment the adoption took place. The issue isn’t whether Wendy should be able to adopt the children now, but rather why the state refused to allow her to adopt from the get-go.

The only equivalent situation to Wendy’s that a straight couple might encounter would be where one of the parents didn’t choose to adopt the children, perhaps in a step-parent model where the formal adoption never took place. However, even in this situation equality eludes same-sex couples: the step-mother or –father would have had the option to make their guardianship more formal if they had chosen to; couples in same-sex relationships cannot have that option at all under Wisconsin state law.

The result: parents like Wendy, who was a stay-at-home mother during the entirety of the children’s lives up to the couple’s split, cannot have the recognition of being a legal parent. Because some people in the state want a “traditional” family model for ALL families, because they want to determine how each of us should live our lives (and because anything that deviates from that model is inherently “wrong” in their view), real Wisconsin families are being broken apart in a legal sense.

Should one of Wendy’s children – and yes, they’re just as much hers as they are her ex’s – have to be taken to the hospital, she would need the permission of her former partner before she would be allowed to see them at all. If, God forbid, her ex should die, it would be unlikely that Wendy would get custody of their two children.

Things could have been different: Wendy could have been the primary guardian. But that would mean her partner would have lost recognition rights, too. The fact remains that, under Wisconsin state law, only one of two parents in a same-sex relationship can have custodial rights in an adoption. It’s a double-standard that, as we see in Wendy’s case, has the potential to split real families apart.

Why should straight parents be given the right to adopt their partner’s children themselves, while homosexual parents have no such rights? It’s a terrible injustice, and needs to be remedied. Families, even the so-called “non-traditional” ones, need to have equal rights – and with the way things work in Wisconsin some families are treated as less than equal, all because they don’t fit into a certain frame that lawmakers deemed “best.” In the end, it’s the children who suffer the most, not because they are part of a “different” type of family, but because lawmakers can’t accept that those differences don’t necessarily equal “bad.”

A “different” type of family is full of the same amount of love as any other kind. It’s time the state of Wisconsin recognizes that fact.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

My long absence...explained.

I haven't posted anything for quite some time. This is due to a very important life change -- moving. I still reside in Madison, so no worries there :) however, because of the move, the internet wasn't transferred over to my new place as fast as I would have liked. Additionally, moving takes a lot of energy, more so than writing, so I probably wouldn't have been writing much anyway.

Anywho, the internet is up at my new place now, so hopefully I will start posting some substantial things once again. Thanks for checking in on the site.

Saturday, June 12, 2010

DPW Speakers on night one: we're ready to fight

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin came out swinging last night, touting legislative accomplishments both nationally and locally.

Many speakers, from local offices to national, both incumbents and candidates, spoke about many issues, too numerous to list here. A common, threefold message, however, was clear, one that will hopefully resonate with the public in a positive way.

First, Democratic speakers last night celebrated their accomplishments, thanking their constituents for helping them to pass important legislative priorities. Health care reform was chief among them, a policy that Democrats have been seeking to change for generations. The ARRA was also celebrated, not as the end-all solution to our economic worries, but as a positive start towards recovery in the years to come. Local achievements were also touted, like getting 98 percent of Wisconsin citizens access to health care, reforming drunk driving laws to stop repeat offenders from being able to endanger our states lawful drivers, and a bill passed that prevented the sale of baby bottles, pacifiers, and other products that contained BPA in them, authored by none-other than Julie Lassa, Democratic candidate for Congress to replace the retiring Dave Obey.

The second tier of the message was equally important: the work we have done is just the beginning. We are not yet done fixing things, and the accomplishments passed, though great and significant, are just a drop in the bucket of things we need to remedy. Locally, clean energy legislation needs to be passed, both to make Wisconsin an example of green energy as well as to create more jobs in the Badger state. Nationally, Wall Street investors need to be reigned in, as well as big banks, who helped create the economic disaster we’re currently in.

“Don’t let anyone forget who got us in this mess in the first place!” Tammy Baldwin’s voice rang out. Gwen Moore added her own words that roared across the hall, bringing the people to a standing ovation: “Who was on my side?” she asked repeatedly, listing several challenges Americans have faced without any help from Republicans. These two examples rounded out the third part of the overall message the Wisconsin Democrats spoke about: Republicans did nothing to help American families while in power, and will continue to do nothing if they take power – or worse yet, will roll back the reforms just recently passed.

A resonating message that should not be forgotten: Democrats in office have helped Americans and Wisconsinites; the work is not yet done, and those Democrats still need your help; and without your help, the GOP will take back control, and with that control will reinstate the very policies that Americans can’t survive under.

The message is clear: we NEED progressive Democrats in office.

DPW New Media event @ Sprechers Pub

Wisconsin leftist bloggers, unite!

Yesterday, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin hosted a New Media Event at their State Convention. Though the scene was lit darkly at the newly constructed Sprecher’s Pub in Middleton, conversation itself was light, almost festive, despite the deep political concerns of the writers that were in attendance that evening.

Drinks were delivered – beer was free! – and a delicious spread was served for the writers of progressive blogs from around the state. Familiar names were placed with unfamiliar faces, with many of the writers meeting one another for the first time. Witty and oftentimes light-hearted sarcastic remarks mixed with questions towards candidates who came to mingle with these new media writers – candidate for Attorney General Scott Hassett, 5th Congressional District Candidate Todd Kolosso, and current U.S. Senator Russ Feingold.

What a way to welcome bloggers to the state convention – bringing in one of the most beloved liberal legislators not only in the county, not only in the state, but beloved by bloggers and lefty writers across the nation!

So thank you, Democratic Party of Wisconsin, for granting the humble writers on the left this great opportunity to speak with and meet with Sen. Russ Feingold, as well as other candidates in the 2010 election.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

DPW Tomorrow Night

Tomorrow night will mark the first of a two-day event that I have been looking forward to for quite some time: the Democratic Party of Wisconsin's State Convention.

Though many see party politics as part of the problem of electoral politics these days, I happen to believe that an organized party structure isn't necessarily a bad thing. State and other local parties I generally support as vehicles of change.

The DPW has received my support because of some of its great modern-day leaders, such as Russ Feingold, retiring Congressman Dave Obey, and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. The party is more progressive than most around the country, and for that I consider myself a Wisconsin Democrat.

As for tomorrow, I will ATTEMPT to do some live-blogging. I am using a bit of a relic, however, when it comes to laptop it's not guaranteed yet if it will work. If it doesn't, then expect some blogs later tomorrow night, or a complete rundown of what happened Saturday or Sunday night.

Monday, June 7, 2010

GOP Sen candidate: protect reputations of abusers, their employers

Ron Johnson is more concerned about protecting the reputations of abusers -- and their employers -- than the rights of those who have faced abuse.

Johnson, the Republican Party-endorsed candidate to oppose Sen. Russ Feingold, testified earlier this year against a proposal in the state legislature that would have greatly extended the statute of limitations for those who had been abused sexually.

The Catholic Church -- itself a part of many sexual abuse cases (including Wisconsin) -- opposed this measure. And when a member of the Catholic community came directly to Ron Johnson about the proposed measure, Johnson, who donates large sums of money to Catholic schools (though he himself is a Lutheran), had to display his disgust as a businessman to the state legislature personally.

"I believe it is a valid question to ask whether the employer of a perpetrator should also be severely damaged, or possibly destroyed, in our legitimate desire for justice," he told a legislative committee in January.

The Child Victims Act (which eventually didn't pass) would have allowed victims of abuse an indefinite time to make a claim against their abuser. Those who have already passed the statute of limitations (after the victim turns 35) would have been given an additional three years to make a claim following the bill's passage.

That Senate candidate Ron Johnson has a problem with such a bill speaks volumes -- not only is he more concerned with protecting the reputations of abusers, but he's actually more worried over the employers of abusers rather than those who have survived abuse!

One has to wonder, if Johnson would support suppressing the testimony from a person who had faced abuse if it ruined the reputation of the Church itself (which many believe it already has). Would Johnson try to fight to suppress that person's claim? Would he vote in a way to do so on the national stage, as a U.S. Senator?

Now, is Johnson's concern legitimate? Yes -- there CAN be negative effects that stem from an allegation of abuse. But what we have to ask ourselves is what we consider more important: protecting a business's image or protecting the community that has to deal with a child predator, not to mention protecting the rights of those abused? I would hope that, if the employer truly were innocent in the situation, most could see past blaming them for the deeds of one of its employees. Ron Johnson, however, doesn't seem to believe people have the ability to do that.

Aren't Republicans supposed to be pro-crime enforcement? Why allow perpetrators of sexual abuse the right to escape punishment, to live among our children, because of state limitation laws that protect pedophiles? For Johnson (and other Republicans who support his views), it's because their pro-business attitudes outweigh any concern for the community whatsoever, even if it has to do with law enforcement or protecting the lives of children.

Is this the sort of family values that Wisconsin Republicans want from their leaders? Will Wisconsin voters support a candidate that would rather protect the reputations of businesses rather than those who have lived through abuse? Anyone who opposed such a law should be ashamed...including Ron Johnson.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Madison Council to Mahoney: stop reporting immigrants!

The Madison Common Council voted unanimously last night to issue a resolution condemning Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney's practice of reporting undocumented immigrants he arrests to federal immigration authorities.

The resolution is non-binding, meaning Mahoney doesn't have to adhere to it. In fact, the Sheriff has gone on record saying he won't change his tactics, insisting it helps him to determine if an undocumented immigrant is a criminal elsewhere.

Still, critics of this practice say that it does more harm for authorities than good.

Because of deportation fears, "Immigrants and Latinos are scared to call 911 when they see crimes around them or even when they are harmed," said one supporter of the resolution, Fabiola Hamdan.

The resolution passed by the Madison Common Council encourages Mahoney and other local law enforcement to continue reporting undocumented immigrant criminals to the feds if the crime they commit is a felony. For lesser crimes, the council would like Mahoney to hold back on reporting these people.

The Council's decision to voice its concern is a direct repudiation of a recent anti-immigration law passed in Arizona in late April. The law is controversial because it allows state law enforcement officials the right to detain a person based on personal suspicions rather than reasonable cause, and to hold them until proof of their citizenship is presented. Such a law would undoubtedly lead to racial profiling, a problem that existed in Arizona just days before the law was even passed.

There's no doubt that a serious immigration problem exists in our country, and that it needs to be dealt with. But much of the fear surrounding the debate is rooted in covert racism, with many believing all immigrants (especially Hispanic ones) are job-stealers, violent criminals, and anti-American.

If people want to be serious about immigration reform, they need to look at the root causes of why immigrants are trying to enter the country illegally. One of the main causes is that businesses hire undocumented immigrants at below the minimum wage, doing so illegally and without documentation in their own records (that is, under-the-table). If we want to curb illegal immigration, we should start there -- the focus should be on those businesses, not the individuals that simply want a better life.

Too often, those on the right blast immigrants in ways that make you wonder, "Do conservatives think they are sub-human?" Immigrants formed the backbone of this country for centuries, a tradition that must be respected.

The Madison Common Council is right to condemn the practice of reporting undocumented immigrants, especially if they're non-violent offenders, to the federal government (an action that isn't even required of Mahoney to do). The Council recognize that immigrants aren't trying to take hold of our country, but rather are trying to be a part of the greatest nation on earth.

If we're to condemn such motives, then we are condemning the very reason our ancestors came over to this country to begin with. And if that's the case, then I want no part of it.