Irrational Review
Posted on August 2nd, 2009
by Clark Stooksbury |
|
I finally found a subject on which I can agree with Robert Stacy McCain. We both disdain National Review. But the similarity ends immediately. McCain doesn’t hate NR because it’s the home of dishwater-dull rightwing apparatchiks like Kathryn Jean Lopez and Jay Nordlinger. Instead he thinks that it’s a hotbed of intellectual snobbery.
Oh, the stories that D.C. conservative journalists could tell you about their dealings with National Review! Since I cannot breach any confidences, let me just ask you to imagine a D.C. press conference or discussion panel.
Mingling around the danish-and-coffee table in the back of the room, you’ll see representatives of all the various Right-side media: Washington Times, Human Events, American Spectator, CNS, etc., etc. Camaraderie and conviviality are the prevailing spirit — a spirit of which the National Review representative does not partake.
The National Review man is not a mere reporter, you see, but an intellectual! . . .
. . . the insufferable snobbery of the NR crowd is notorious, and even the most down-to-earth of them cannot resist succumbing in some degree to this esprit des snobs.
. . . the magazine’s repeated blunders under the Lowry regime — remember, it was Lowry’s NR which deemed Rod Dreher’s “Crunchy Cons” deserving of a cover story and later gave Dreher his own separate blog to promote that ridiculous philosophical cul-de-sac — have become an embarrassment.
I don’t attend D.C. rightwing gatherings and thus I never feel the sting of being snubbed by snooty NRniks. I do regularly check the Corner and occassionally scan articles on NRO. I acutally bought a copy of the magazine recently to see Jonah Goldberg’s remarkably thin article on energy. The only genuinely interesting piece in the issue was a review by Terry Teachout of the book What America read.
Back in the pre-Lowry days, NR occasionally featured writers such as Chronicles editor, Thomas Fleming. Prior to the Iraq war, it sometimes published Andrew Bacevich. They have been replaced by the likes of Victor Davis Hanson and Mark Steyn. Nothing to get snobby about there.
Filed under: Conservatism, Magazines
The Corner is nice, but every single instance of my ever picking up the print NR magazine has ended in distaste. I have not read a single thing worth reading there, ever. The American Spectator sometimes contains pleasant surprises, I once read a good article in the Weekly Standard, and even The Nation will occasionally make me think or laugh, but NR?
Not even once.
They are good at writing attention-grabbing headlines, but that’s about it, in my opinion.
I can see both points of view. Sure, today’s NR is a boring herd of bleating sheep, but its staff seems to view themselves as the true heirs of WFB, and they continue to emulate his air of patrician intellectualism even though they have no substance to give it meaning. I think McCain’s point is not that they are intellectual snobs, but that they are snobby about the mindless bloviation that they mistake for intellectualism.
Only the very commonest will be admitted. Shall be admitted?
Robert Stacy McCain is a slightly upscale Michael Savage. And, the way he becomes unhinged when discussing Rod Dreher is bizarre. Like him or not, Dreher takes the high road unlike McCain.
Mark Steyn has been paid to write for publications all over the English speaking world. He writes brilliant pieces and best- selling books on any subject one could name. Thus, he smokes YOUR ass with dried corn cobs in an ice- fishing shanty before he gets up in the morning. In your favor, I probably wouldn’t pay to read NR were it not for him.
Mark Steyn’s appeal relates to a complete absence of anything resembling condescension towards his readers (and listeners, when he guest hosts). That, and the fact that he shows Obama up for the narcissist snob that he is, better than anyone else.
I don’t think Steyn is aware of his own brilliance- regardless of what one thinks of his views, he has to be one of the most gifted writers of our time. I love his stuff over at the Corner.
Robert Stacy McCain makes me laugh. He’s such a right-wing type — so deeply, incurably insecure, intellectually and culturally, he has to lash out at anybody who makes him feel unworthy in any way. Whenever I see a fellow right-winger resort to the “elitist” jibe these days, I know that nine times out of 10, they are saying nothing about the thing or person they deem “elitist,” but revealing a great deal about themselves.
Whatever else one might say about National Review, the idea that its writers consider themselves above socializing with other conservatives is just ridiculous. I’d bet cash money that the NR scribe present at this event saw Robert Stacy McCain in the crowd, and thought, “Oh great, that hotheaded kook again. I’ll stay over here.” I know I would.
Clark, I appreciate your semi-agreement. Allow me to suggest that the ideological problems (or dull-as-dishwater problems) you have with National Review are directly related to the sociological issues — a function of organizational dynamics — that I am talking about.
When I left Georgia in 1997, I consider it my mission to discover the answer to a question often expressed by grassroots conservatives down home: “What the [expletive] is wrong with those Republicans in Washington?”
The answer is complex, and directly related to the incentives produced by the hierarchical structure of the Official Movement in Washington. Oddly enough, the most insightful examination of this subject was produced by David Brooks in his book, “Bobos in Paradise,” where he devoted a chapter to the “ideological entrepreneurs,” whose chief political orientation is their own career ambition to ascend to the status of “public intellectual.”
Much of what *appears* to be ideological combat in DC is actually better understood in terms of *ambition* — and until you’ve spent a few years in Washington getting stabbed in the back by your “friends,” it’s very hard to understand how this works.
Remember, I came to The Washington Times about three years after Sam Francis was fired there, Having survived 10 years at The Times, and left in January 2008 by my own decision at exactly the right time — freeing myself to cover the 2008 presidential campaign, the type of hard-news reporting assignment I was repeatedly denied when I requested it at the Times — I think I’ve learned something about Beltway survival, as well.
Think back to when the SPLC was hammering on me, and The Nation was preparing to go to press with its “expose” of The Times. How did I survive that? If I told you the full story, you might not believe it. But to make a long story short, I had reverse-engineered the previous takedown on our friend Sam, and had some good hunches — and good advice — about avoiding a repeat performance.
Part of the advice was “keep your [bleep]ing mouth shut and just do you [profanity] job!” Very good advice, which I should keep in mind more often!
RSM, if you are “paleosympathetic” then why do you have a problem with crunchy conservatism which is essentially paleo light?
RSM, if no one else tells you … Thanks for the insight!
“What the [expletive] is wrong with those Republicans in Washington?” indeed.
“the most insightful examination of this subject was produced by David Brooks in his book, “Bobos in Paradise,” where he devoted a chapter to the “ideological entrepreneurs,” whose chief political orientation is their own career ambition to ascend to the status of “public intellectual.”
Was the chapter about Arianna Huffington, or David Brock or perhaps an autobiography of Brooks himself? In the case of Brooks, this book would be called “projection”. If you are using Brooks to support an argument you should probably rethink your position.
I can’t ever remember reading a post at the Corner where someone said “I want to be an intellectual”. Isn’t this a damned if you do, damned if you don’t, accusation? Agree with Brooks, and McCain, apparently, and you can qualify as a deep thinker? Otherwise you are simply a lightweight wanna-be WFB? Aren’t people who get paid to write their opinions, by definition, public intellectuals? Do you have to be a token “conservative” at the NYTimes before you can be a public intellectual?
It is funny because one of my gauges of being an “intellectual” is that you don’t agree with Brooks. He exemplifies the non-thinking that passes for much of the MSM’s “intellectuals”. He is neither intellectual nor conservative.
“When I left Georgia in 1997, I consider it my mission to discover the answer to a question often expressed by grassroots conservatives down home: “What the [expletive] is wrong with those Republicans in Washington?”
The answer is complex, and directly related to the incentives produced by the hierarchical structure of the Official Movement in Washington. Oddly enough, the most insightful examination of this subject was produced by David Brooks in his book, “Bobos in Paradise,” where he devoted a chapter to the “ideological entrepreneurs,” whose chief political orientation is their own career ambition to ascend to the status of “public intellectual.”</I/
Why do I get the feeling these paragraphs describe you in a nutshell Mr. McCain?
The waning of National Review’s intellectual prominence in the conservative movement or its influence on Washington affairs I think can be directly traced to the very poor decision to give pseudo-conservatives like Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru the leadership over the magazine. I think excellent writers like Mark Steyn are the exception to the rule over there. I am confused as to why they feature articles by Cato Institute scholars and simultaneously propose various “super-regulators” for Wall Street, all for efficiency’s sake naturally. I’m still a subscriber, I guess more to honor WFB than to lend credence to sycophantic weekly briefs about why Sarah Palin is, well, just the cat’s meow!
RSM can be both paleo-sympathetic and against Crunchy Conservatism.
The prefix “Paleo” has grown to include all sorts of people, just as the label “conservative” has. There’s no stopping the inflation.
Crunchy Conservatism respects agrarianism, tradition, home, and hearth - but in its formulation, and style it’s about as far away from the 90s vision of Pitchfork revolts as you can get.
The “Paleos” talked about formenting the resentments and aspirations of a displaced, mostly ethnic-white-working class into a political movement. I don’t remember anything like that in Crunchy Cons.
To my knowlege, RSM generally dislikes neoconservatives, he is an American nationalist, an immigration restrictionist, a Southerner, and he is motivated (like many of us) by cultural issues: abortion, multiculturalism, political correctness. 10 years ago, that is pretty much the definition of a “paleo”
But the paleo label has been expanding because the number of people who are disatisfied with “the movement” was growing during the Bush years.
Whereas 90s Paleos opposed Jack Kemp, Bill Bennet, and neocons as out of touch elitists, who should be unseated by a populist movement. Today’s dissident conservatives are just as likely to oppose Palin, Limbaugh, and Mark Levin as shallow sloganeering faux-populists. People who are still in tune with the 90s Paleos, often feel as if the neocons, have stolen “their base.”
Ironically, it was David Brooks who understood that even the 96 Buchanan campaign was the most “intellectual” campaign in decades, even as it championed the interests of what we now call the Red Staters.
What unites the Paleos, Crunchies, Realists, isolationists, Austrians, etc is a disatisfaction or hatred of the “movement” as it is today. Some say the movement doesn’t represent Middle American interests, others say it is insufficiently intellectual. To a degree, I think both charges are true.
Thank God for George Will!
Mr McCain,
Way to show spine and directly address your critics. You won some respect from this reader.
Just out of curiosity, are you a regular reader of this site, or did you just come across this post in your morning self-Google? I would hope the answer is the former, because the implications of the latter would dissolve this reader’s new found respect for you.
So, ah, which nation does the “National” in “National Review” refer to? Iraq? Israel? Afghanistan? Iran?
They spend more time *not* talking about America than anything. You wonder why people call America imperialist; that’s one problem with their non-America agenda. Another problem is that they ignore very serious domestic issues, perhaps by design.
Think of all the illegal aliens who arrived and lousy legislation and awful court judgments that have occurred over the past 8 years - silence is acquiescence.
It’s the opportunity cost of the “neo-con” agenda that does the most damage. Every minute talking about Iran and Iraq and Israel and Afghanistan is a minute not spent addressing the many problems that exist in America, such as affirmative action, illegal immigration, the militant gay agenda, and rabid feminism, and an outright Marxist who now occupies the White House. Actually if they started attacking Obama now it wouldn’t resonate, given how they gave the guy a free pass during the election.
You want to know what a Faux-Con publication is? Take a look at National Review.
I for one have never heard of Clark Stooksbury. I would venture to say that Mr. Stooksbury doesn’t like the fact that his writing lacks the humor and quick wit of his obviously more talented “rivals.” Mark Steyn and Victor D Hanson are just two of the latest in a long line of brilliant writers. The American Conservative does not have one author that compares to Steyn. This attack piece sounds like something out of New York Times, not an article on fellow Conservatives.
NR self-styling as snot-nosed boulevardier? Sacrebleu! I have a hard time seeing, even in their presumed aspirations, hightoned heirs to the Dial or the Edinburgh Review in the editors of a magazine that devotes cover stories to such threats to the republic, of free men or of letters, as George Clooney (cover banner: “Get Over Yourself, George”), or runs such horrid self-pitying dreck as Jay Nordlinger’s 2004 attempt to convict my veteran colleagues throughout a leading bookstore chain of a liberal plot against conservative customers, without a single visible attempt to engage the case for the defense, ‘cos that might, you know, interfere with the mission of editors who - I swear I’m not making this up - sub for Sean Hannity on the FNC…
I suppose my own disclaimer, as a decidedly non-careerist, non-political NR book essayist in a former life 1985-1986, is neither here nor there regarding matters of apparently great pith and moment almost a quarter century on. Though Mr. McCain’s bidding us look beyond our pure theories of ideology to the arena of careerist ambition is a decent analogue on the individual level to the sort of anti-ideological realpolitik urged on us in foreign affairs by John Lukacs, the late George Kennan, Robert Nisbet, Theodore Draper, William Pfaff, &c. (though not the colossally overrated Mr. Kissinger, whose roasting at the hands of Lukacs, e.g., at Skidmore College in 1985 made for bloodsport cerebration of the jolliest).
I don’t attend D.C. rightwing gatherings
Well there’s your problem right there, Clark.
Gentlemen, Ladies, lend me thine ears.
Yes, interesting, all of it. Pour a beer and smile at the charming President.
If we can’t get past these petty nuisances and the largely faux differences and perceptions of Things Right, be they Crunchy Hearth and Home, or cigar chomping bluebloods asking Worthington how his golf game is….
…we’re cooked…
The Left means business, they have the power, and they plan to use it.
RSM responded to the left handed compliment with grace. I follow his blog regularly. It seems to me that McCain is slighted for his approach which is that of a working writer with a political point of view. It is precisely the would-be public intellectuals among us who object to him most.
NR is simply too juvenile to read. I do appreciate John Derbyshire and read his work. The rest consists of policy positions written by people who desperately want to believe someone cares.
Mark Steyn is a very facile stylist but he is out of his depth since leaving his post as movie reviewer with the London Spectator. He is also a neo-conservative punk of the first water. His reaction to criticism is to publish one’s words on his blog, inviting legions of his gnat like fans to swarm one’s site with their vitriol. I confess to enjoying the spike in blog hits, but was stupefied by the ignorant sordidness of his admirers. Steyn’s world opened up after 9/11. He has surfed the tide of anti-Muslim writing ever since. Now there’s nothing wrong with putting the Mohammedans in their place, but I for one would prefer someone other than a borscht belt comic to do it.
Hello Thomas. I’m one of the ignorant, sordid gnats.
I think I remember you from a few months back. The pompous, self-righteousness and the middle initial thing seem to ring a bell.
If I’m not mistaken, you objected to an NRO Corner piece by Steyn, and specifically questioned the validity of a news item he discussed, even though he provided a direct link to it for all to see.
You struck me as an exceptional prude also. You were absolutely disgusted the piece, as I recall.
I’d actually sent that same Steyn piece to as many friends and relatives I could think of (some belonging to other people), because it actually made me WET MY PANTS it was so funny.
For the benefit of anyone who missed it (and I hope you appreciate the fact that I’ve spent close to 10 minutes going back through my “sent messages” to find this gem), here it is again:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmU1ZTFjZjYwYzM1MGY2ODk2ODY3YzNmN2Q0YzVmYTY
When your international bestseller comes out, Thomas, please let us know.
I expect there are enough luminaries in this room, you wouldn’t even have to turn on the lights (or dig out your little green LDE flashlight), to read the handwriting on the wall.
It is amusing to picture oneself being a caterer on the deck of the Titanic, wondering if any of these people know the ship is sinking.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/08/tax_receipts_fall_off_a_cliff.html
but I for one would prefer someone other than a borscht belt comic to do it.
O. Meehan, oh me, oh MY!
The borscht belt indeed. Though I must point out this Eurasian dish is good for you, whereas the country club lifestyle and drinks on the links is not, and leads to potbellies and bad tickers.
Now then. Since you think a better promoter of a your fantasy creature of a blue-blooded, high brow, poison-pen scribbler can be found among some other brand of conservative, presumably those chomping cigars and coddling drinks in a paneled library all day long, wondering why the non-redneck flavor of Conservatism is seen as an aloof monstrosity in a planet of want and beggary and thus just as bad as that of the ignorant clod-kickers, tell us dear readers and rubes who might that be…
You got your flyswatter out to thusly dispatch the Steynmart gnats, and in true Paleo-con style, have come close to the old saw that the neo-cons are sandbox warriors of Jew blood and liberals who attack defenseless dictators, and we just need to get back to shipping the Mexicans across the Rio–and making a wall around Buchanian Fortress America–and that THAT will do the trick quite nicely regarding Islamist terror lords. That’s about all that’s left of Paleo brand of Conservatism these days, with all the relevance of a planet in full bloom when T-Rex roamed Montana eating smaller reptiles for breakfast.
But fine. Go for it.
But do tell us of Steyn’s replacement and chief competitor to the Lefty blogs’ take on things.
It has come to more than one person’s attention that the paleo cons and the crunchies–God bless them–don’t fare well over on Pandagon and Balloon Juice. One hit from John Cole’s handy stats on immigration and the need for socialized meds and NHS stats and the paleos come holding their balls and bawling.
An encounter with Steyn–however and wherever you think his writing prowess falls–by contrast leaves them reaching for their own entrails–at least on matters of political philosophy and the everyday observations the Left is famous for missing in the “devil in the details” deparment.
Steyn DOES get much mileage on the very real decapitation boffo snuff films and the lack of balls and vinegar in the West’s tepid and torporous responses as hooked on the ambrosia of the Welfare State. Yes, and that’s because it’s ripe for the picking about what’s wrong with America and her alleged Allies across the Pond.
Dig?
Steyn is far from perfect as either a writer or a comic relief, but then, the foot soliders in the culture war are not hired for perfection, now are they? They are hired to fight, and at that, Steyn is willing to take the Left head on rather than hide in enclaves and fabulous estates. His methodology, though crude in some opines, leaves even the most determined Lefty deep thinkers utterly and gorily disemboweled. An encounter with the Old Right merely makes them snort.
So show Steyn to the door, of course, but let’s see the new whipper-shapper waiting in the office, eh?
Mr Stooksbury’s article is a little too much of a personal attack for my personal taste, but I am impressed by the response he elicited.
It seems like the neocons have broken themselves and the Republican party against the Law, and now they are seeking a challenger to fight off, so they don’t have to compare their paradigms with reality. Of course, the real challenger is not a rival faction or dogma but the Law itself. For this reason I think personal attacks, which give neocons a human enemy to face, ultimately postpone the personal revelations of which they are in need.
MBD, by paleo I don’t mean just mid 90’s Buchananism which was typified largely by three policy positions that differed from “regular conservatism” – noninterventionist foreign policy, fair trade, and opposition to immigration before it was cool. I mean the whole shebang as represented by Chronicles and such, which has many distinctive but in general is distinguished by being thoroughly anti-liberal and anti-modern in a way that mainstream conservatism is not. Crunchy conservatism is Chronicles light and seems to get more so as time goes on. This is why mainstream conservatives don’t get Dreher. They don’t realize how much their version of conservatism is influenced by liberal and modern ideas. RSM doesn’t like Dreher because he is not a movement or GOP team player so he lumps him in with Frum, Brooks, et al.
Kate, I remember you as well. You made all the same points while writing under the name of Jennifer. As in….
“Jennifer said…
Oh come on- don’t be such a prude. The halal thong was the funniest thing I’ve read in ages- Steyn outdid even himself. I emailed his link to about 20 people- unfortunately for one recipient, it happened to be the second post-operative day (after a Caesarian section) and the surgical wound literally split because she laughed so uncontrollably.”
Since you bring up my blog, I’ll let readers decide for themselves what to think. http://odysseusontherocks.blogspot.com
I did think it a shame to find Steyn’s edible underwear jokes in a journal of conservative opinion, once the home of real intellectuals.
My point was and is simply that conservative commentary can be amusing but it should never descend into cheap entertainment. And that is what the American conservative scene has become since the Neocon’s and Murdock subverted it.
If the only ideas you can tolerate flow from the pen of “International best sellers,” you might considered getting yours from Barbara Cartland.
Wakefield Tolbert, I won’t interfere with your richly imagined image of me smoking cheroots and drinking brandy at the Nassau Club, except to say that I wish you success in overcoming your feelings of social inferiority. Like Karen/Jennifer, you are looking for entertainment. But it is not my job to provide it.
Thanks so much for answer so little other than the slip in about social inferiority to beer guts hanging over the belt at the golf course where grown men ponder their latest stock holdings and ask such rich and diverse cultural savoir faire as “how’s yer game today, Worthington?”
“Well, like my broker says–we operating at par level!”
Nyuck nyuck. *burp*
But other than the obvious (once again, from AC commentators…*sigh*) Jew bashing regarding beet stews and funny accents from the Northeast and controlling cabals setting up Israeli puppets states to diss the peace loving Palestinian gut-splat brigades that the Paleos have no problem with, PLEASE show Steyn the door BUT show us his replacement.
That too much to ask?
Yes, Steyn’s pondering of shemales and edible panties is more earthly than some con commentators, but then it shows he’s a real man with red blood in the veins and not some English fairy who piddles with grammarian high jinks and Jew bashing as policy insight.
They don’t realize how much their version of conservatism is influenced by liberal and modern ideas
Yes indeed. Like modern sanitation, hygiene, reforms of brutal and sadistic prisoner treatment, conservation, civil liberties, and the need to engage foreign policy once in a while, and actually have some answers. Just to shave the top of the cheese here.
All these notions–sorry, fellow cons–came from the Progressive Movement of yesteryear.
I don’t care for much of what most modern libs say, no, but they write trillions of words yearly and tend to be highly intelligent people, and if by nothing else than the old saw that a broken clock is correct twice a day, hit upon sound ideas sometimes.
Dreher is a nice guy. But as with his dumbfounded encounter with the painfully lunatic provocateur PZ Myers demonstrates, he never knows how or when to pour through context about what others say vs. what HE thinks.
I have to agree with Wakefield, of course. The underpinning of the political battles we face is a cultural battle that the right has largely been in the process of losing, so much so that the accepted default position in society is liberal, even though most people are actually conservative in their ideas and life choices. Steyn is an extremely capable writer, whose insights are irritatingly provocative to the left, all the more so by the jolly delivery which is so deflating to their “morally superior” aspirations.
For his part, Tommy is right as well in pointing out that RSM is another gem on the right whose hard work and old school reporting is coupled with tremendous production and a cutting sense of humor.
It is a Conor Feidersdorf type question to attempt to guide the right as to which writers properly advance conservatism and which do not. I like Conor as well, very much, but find the quest for the right’s Holy Grail of commentary unnecessary and self-defeating. The more the merrier I say, and welcome to our side. We need all the help we can get in putting the lie to the left’s domineering and disparaging characterization of the right.
I enjoyed reading your comments Kate. A lot of vinegar and spunk! I believe you may find a fellow soul mate in April Gavaza.
Cheers all!
Yes, NR can be a mixed bag, but they do have regular contributions by Thomas Sowell, Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson (who is undeniably brilliant), Jonah Goldberg, all of whom are excellent writers with Conservative cred as far as I’m concerned.
Yeah there are some mediocrities and nonentities like Lowry and Lopez, but they are editors and probably just publish their own articles for vanity. With that being said, I DO prefer The American Spectator in print form over NR.
Oh and they no longer have Ross Douthat, who is quite good as well. He writes for the NYT.
I may be not getting the joke, but all this self-referential “right-wing journalism” stuff strikes me as ridiculous. Is this some sort of media commentary section of TAC?
I guess my point is, if I gave a damn what McCain or Mark Steyn thought, I’d go read their stuff. I couldn’t care less, so I don’t. And writing about them just encourages some of the stupid comments from their troll fans that we’ve seen above.
I don’t see why TAC needs to pay the least attention to NRO, Steyn, McCain, etc, unless it wants to buy into their fantasy of a “conservative movement” that is actually accomplishing something positive in this country. (Other than simply propping up the careers of faux-intellectuals and “writers” who don’t want to get a real job.)
Nicholas, thanks for the reasoned input. Perhaps the answer is for a division of labor. The National Review was once the only national journal of conservative opinion. As such it held to a witty but serious style. The American Spectator came along and held to a similar format but with a kind of rakish humor. The Weekly Standard appeared as the Murdock financed house organ of the Neo-cons and AIPAC. Finally, The American Conservative was created to service the needs of all we who have no home in the older journals and are critical of “The movement.”
We need at least one journal that holds to a high standard of seriousness. After that, I see no reason why funny con’s and bought and paid for con’s shouldn’t have all the venues the market allows. But for this old con, the descent into juvenalia and irrelevance of the old flag ship is sickening.
What is the point of simply saying X is brilliant? VDH may be brilliant, but if he is he is a brilliant fool. He was one of the primary cheerleaders of our disastrous neocon foreign policy. I’ll take a mediocre non-interventionist any day, and I can think of no non-interventionist at NR except maybe Derbyshire and Freddoso (both supported Ron Paul in the primaries), and they aren’t free to speak on the subject there.