secrecy 1, transparency 0

Well, the news is in. Pfc. Bradley Manning has been sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking classified information, including a video of a 2007 US helicopter attack in Baghdad in which civilians, including two journalists, were killed.

It seems like only a few decades ago, people who exposed the state secrets and abuses were considered whistleblowers and given relatively fair trials, even under a Republican administration (e.g., Daniel Ellsberg). Today, they're tortured and given 35 year sentences (which is actually on the 'lenient' end), and under a Democratic administration no less. The news of Manning's sentence and the ongoing hunt for Edward Snowden brings to mind a paragraph from Hal Draper's prescient 1967 article "Who's going to be the lesser-evil in 1968?":

So besides Tweedledee-Tweedledums and besides the Lesser Evils who really are different in policy from the Greater Evils, we increasingly are getting this third type of case: the Lesser Evils who, as executors of the system, find themselves acting at every important juncture exactly like the Greater Evils, and sometimes worse. They are the product of the increasing convergence of liberalism and conservatism under conditions of bureaucratic capitalism. There never was an era when the policy of the Lesser Evil made less sense than now.

In my opinion, once people start to realize that simply voting for one party or the other (an electoral version of the 'lesser of two evils' principle) doesn't really make that much of a difference, that there's something inherently wrong with the system itself, the better off we'll be. And that goes double for those of us on 'the left' since one of the biggest problems with the lesser of two evils strategy is that it consistently pulls the Democrats farther to the right (e.g., in many ways, Nixon was arguably more liberal than either Clinton or Obama).

I think it's high time we started thinking outside the box of two-party electoral politics, stopped blindly supporting the lesser evil as our sole act of political activism, and started doing more to hold those in office accountable for their actions, which includes rallying around government whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden.

pointing in the right direction

In David Graeber's latest piece, "On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs," I think he makes an important point/argument in the way he reframes the conversation away from the problem facing capitalism being the underutilization of labour (i.e., we need more jobs/to work more hours) — which is how it appears from the standpoint of capital and its need to increase the production of surplus value — and towards the existence of unproductive, 'bullshit' jobs, reasserting the need for "allowing a massive reduction of working hours to free the world's population to pursue their own projects, pleasures, visions, and ideas" rather than creating even more superfluous jobs and/or increasing work hours. Where I'm not sure I entirely agree with Graeber, however, is when it comes to the absence of an "objective measure of social value," particularly from the wage-labourer's point of view; and I think Jehu via his blog The Real Movement makes a valid counterpoint that:

Even if we ignore the question of economic value, the social (moral) value of labor can only be the value it has for the very physical existence of the worker. If labor were not tied in any way to the physical existence of the worker who performed it, then and only then can the individual properly assess the value she puts on her activity. In other words, the determination of the social value of labor to the individual is only possible with the complete abolition of wage labor. The 'profound psychological violence here' is not that one feels the labor one performs is superfluous, but that despite the obvious unproductiveness of almost all labor at present one must perform it to survive.

That said, I completely agree with Jehu that "Graeber opens up the most important argument that can be held by activists at this time and I hope his piece is just the beginning of the discussion that is long overdue."

forgetfulness

Watched Sylvia last night, which inspired me to write a poem instead of the usual things.

"forgetfulness"

I'd forgotten
 the love and the passion and the promises
  the selfishness
 the lies
and the beautiful way you have of telling them
It feels like I'd waited for you for eternity
 then one day
  you were just
 there
as if you'd fallen from heaven like a bolt of lightning
 rending my life
  asunder
And I was willingly deceived
Because I understood you
I saw into your soul
 your pain
  your lust
  your despair
 your childlike innocence
your insatiable desire to be acknowledged
It was as if we were one
In you I saw my reflection
 and I was
  seduced
We were cut from the same cloth
Almost as if we were meant to be
 the other's
  undoing
Our passion was like the fires of hell
 unquenchable
  merciless
And their all-consuming flames made our betrayals
 that much sweeter
I'd forgotten
Because it was the only way to survive
 without
  you
Remembering was like a tidal wave of emotions
 smashing down upon my fragile countenance
  again and again
 with such savage and unrelenting fury
I was completely
 shattered
And my sole yearning was to forget
 once more
  the love and the passion and the promises
  the selfishness
 the lies
and the beautiful way you have of telling them
To sail down the river of forgetfulness
 and crash
  into the waiting arms
   of oblivion

japan says fukushima leak worse than thought, government joins clean-up

Deja vu. A frightening article from Reuters about the ongoing effects of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster:

Japan says Fukushima leak worse than thought, government joins clean-up

Further evidence, in my opinion, that we need to collectively change our behaviour, particularly the ways we produce our means of subsistence. Being the pessimist that I am, however, I doubt that we're going to in time to prevent our actions from doing even more irreparable harm to the planet. Capitalism has become the dominate economic system worldwide, and with it, rampant consumerism, depletion of natural resources, and industrial pollution on a global scale. The market itself is designed to give people what they want, regardless of the consequences, and it's frankly unsustainable.

For one, capitalism's need for continual economic growth requires a continual increase in consumption, and in turn, continually expanding markets and/or an increase in population to create and sustain such growth. This, naturally, tends to lead to consumerism, which has its own downsides, such as environmental degradation, the depletion of natural resources, and the promotion of unnecessary and even harmful jobs as long as they contribute to growth. In addition, the planet's resources are limited, and its ecosystems relatively fragile.

The cumulative cost of negative externalities produced by companies like BP are hard to calculate in dollars; but their cost in terms of quality of life for us and future generations is simply too high, in my opinion. Moreover, I don't think that production, distribution, and exchange should be left to the whim of some supposedly self-regulating 'invisible hand' that guides production in global capitalism and directs "industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value." While value can include things like quality of life and so on, it's often limited to profit by the system itself since profit is not only the driving force behind capitalism (and hence economic behaviour), but the metric by which success is most often measured. And governments don't necessarily perform the role of regulator any better, more often than not colluding with capital to the detriment of workers, consumers, and the environment alike.

Unfortunately, as far as I can see, there's no panacea for the myriad of problems we face as an ever-evolving, technologically advanced, and increasingly globalized species with an unprecedented ability to change and shape the environment. But I'm strongly convinced that any long-term solutions lie not with governmental agencies or the ephemeral and God-like invisible hand, but with a politico-economic system that's not centred around the idealization of profit, and which promotes the existence of an informed and engaged working class possessing a direct say in how production, distribution, and exchange is carried out. /rant

blah blah capitalism blah blah

Watching ABC's This Week yesterday, I started thinking about whether our fucked up political system is fixable. It seems to me, for example, that most people tend to think of the bourgeois state in general, whatever its size or character, as simply a collection of elected and/or appointed individuals; and that if we want to change the way things are, we can simply change the individuals who compose it. The reality, however, is a bit more complicated than that, in my opinion. The state isn't just a collection of people, it's also the political representation of capital, the social relation, that subsumes the capitalist class and working class alike, and which seeks to help resolve the reoccurring crises of overaccumulation that result from the intrinsic contradictions within the capitalist mode of production itself.

In this capacity, then, the state, even with an overwhelmingly working-class majority, is still the representative of capital, the social relation, and depends on the continued existence of capitalism. As capitalism develops, and both the mass of superfluous (i.e., unproductive) capital and labour increase in conjunction with efficiencies in production, causing the rate of profit to fall and a shrinkage in the absolute mass of profit created, the state, in conjunction with capital, must find ways to overcome this, whether through encouraging debt spending (which itself is somewhat paradoxical in that it essentially provides this 'life-support' by consuming superfluous capital to facilitate expansion in the private sector instead of employing it productively), the opening of new markets, the 'creative destruction' of superfluous capital (mostly through state consumption), or creating ways to increase the mass of profit that via evolutions (i.e., innovations) in the means of production and finance that, in turn, set up the conditions for further overaccumulation and crises.

Changing the players in this game doesn't change the game so much as the moves that are made within it—the object being the continual expansion of capital. So while one individual may favour austerity while another may favour increased state spending, and one may be for gay marriage while another against, they're all still ultimately aiming for the same goal as each is constrained and compelled by certain 'blind' material forces at work, i.e., the underlying contradictions that constantly push capitalism to the point of collapse and thus requiring ever-increasing intervention on the part of the state to prop it up and stimulate the production of surplus value, basically treating the symptoms and not the disease since none of these solutions can permanently prevent things like overaccumulation, the rate of profit to fall, or reductions in the mass of profit. And the longer it takes for us to realize this, the longer it'll take for us to find a better alternative. As @Damn_Jehu argues via Twitter against redistributionism:

The mode of production concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, while redistribution seeks to unconcentrate it. The effort to redistribute wealth only gives rise to forces within the mode of production itself that leads to greater concentration. [...] An increasing mass of workers is rendered superfluous to production, but this is no less true for an increasing mass of capitalists. This really has to be emphasized: BOTH the working class and the capitalist class is rendered superfluous to production due to the development of the productive forces of society. This most emphatically is not a problem simply for the working class alone. Both, therefore, are responding to a real present danger to their existence as classes, when they turn to the state to resolve the crisis. The crisis does not simply threaten the existence of one class or the other, but both, i.e., it threatens the existence of capital itself.

It will not do to conflate capital, the social relation, with the capitalist class. Capital is a social relation subsuming both classes together. The ideal expression of capital, the social relation, is not the capitalist, but the state. Even in a democracy, with a huge overwhelming proletarian majority, the state is still the representative of capital, the social relation. It is not the representative of the workers, even if they consciously treat it as such, as in Social-Democracy. This argument, like the one on redistribution, is counter-intuitive, because it seems as if a working class majority must have an impact. But it does not. The state form cannot express the rule of the working class; it can only become a state capitalist. (31 Jul)

As I've argued before, our productive capacities are such that we no longer have a material necessity for capitalist wage labour or social relations, but the demand for profit creates an political-economic system that consistently depresses our productive capabilities and produces artificial scarcity, limiting the production and consumption of commodities to only that which can realize profit, among other things. We have reached an epoch of material abundance via the technological advancements and innovations of the past, but the old masters, who must increasingly rely on the state (so much so that the two are almost indistinguishable, with the state essentially acting as the national capitalist), are refusing to let go of their death grip on wealth and power, their ownership of the means of production, finance, etc., stalling our transition to a post-capitalist society.

What's worse is that most of us follow suit, fearing that society would drift into chaos and crisis and economic barbarism without them, without capital, wage labour, and profit, when the reality is that we're actually descending into chaos and crisis and economic barbarism because of them, because we refuse to let these relics of a past epoch go, because these things are holding us back and we lack both the imagination and the motivation to conceive of a future without them. We've reached a point where the working class, even with vast reductions in hours of labour and/or employment, consistently produces more than can be productively consumed in the capitalist production process (i.e., in a way that produces surplus value for the capitalist) despite no shortage of need.

And I think this is precisely what Marx meant when he wrote, "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win." The world he foresaw is a world of material abundance and social equality, characterized by what he called "a community of freely associated individuals" rather than capitalists and wage-labourers, that no longer revolves around the realization of profit — with production primarily benefiting one class of owners and the state's primary purpose being the continued existence of an antiquated mode of production — but the needs of all. But that world, as @Damn_Jehu so tactfully puts it via Twitter, is only going to be realized once we, as a community of freely associated individuals, regain the capacity to imagine we can organize our own lives:

For 80 years liberals have been saying poverty and unemployment could be fixed by the state. The state has yet to fix either. At what point do we figure this shit out? How long will we continue to believe the myth. The belief that social ills can be fixed by political action is the single most debilitating illusion today -- democracy is the real opiate. The illusion that the state is a neutral instrument that can be wielded by society to address its defects is shockingly naive. It goes against every experience we have with it. We approach the state like black people approach the Constitution, always expecting the words of slaveholders to be made real for slaves.

"How can we eat without a job" = "Who will build the roads" = "If property is abolished who will own everything"[?] We have lost our capacity to imagine we can organize our own lives -- fully grown adults acting like coddled children. There should be no tolerance for this childishness among the working [class]. Grow the fuck up and take [responsibility]. When did your momma die and leave the state to take care of you? Everything the state provides for you it got from you, minus its cut. This infantilism has to end. The nanny state is an abuser and exploiter. The state provides nothing for you. Not a single thing. It takes from you [every day], all the time, without remorse. And then it has the nerve to ask YOU to sacrifice! The sheer gall of the state, of politicians, can only be explained by your own ignorance. (2 Aug)

captain obvious strikes again

I really love how Paul Krugman, a self-described Keynesian, continuously introduces what are essentially Marxist terms and concepts in his op-eds as if they're some novel ideas he's just now come up with or stumbled upon.

For example, in an op-ed from last December, Krugman writes:

So the story has totally shifted; if you want to understand what's happening to income distribution in the 21st century economy, you need to stop talking so much about skills, and start talking much more about profits and who owns the capital. Mea culpa: I myself didn't grasp this until recently. But it's really crucial.

And a couple days ago, in an op-ed about China, he writes:

The story that makes the most sense to me ... rests on an old insight by the economist W. Arthur Lewis, who argued that countries in the early stages of economic development typically have a small modern sector alongside a large traditional sector containing huge amounts of "surplus labor" — underemployed peasants making at best a marginal contribution to overall economic output. The existence of this surplus labor, in turn, has two effects. First, for a while such countries can invest heavily in new factories, construction, and so on without running into diminishing returns, because they can keep drawing in new labor from the countryside. Second, competition from this reserve army of surplus labor keeps wages low even as the economy grows richer.

Seriously, how the hell did this guy get a Nobel Prize in economics? This shit's like Marxism 101. And yet, Marx and Engels rarely get any of the credit for their sizable contributions to both heterodox and mainstream economics alike. Instead, people like Lewis, who relied heavily on Marx for his own ideas about what Marx and Engels called the 'reserve army of labour,' are more prone to getting honourable mentions in Krugman's mainstream regurgitations of ideas put forth over 150 years ago by Marx and Engels than Marx or Engels themselves.

From what I can tell, Keynesianism is essentially Marxism for liberal statists and capitalist apologists who are groping for ways to keep a failing system going.

2013 next wave conference

Attending ‪the third annual Next Wave Conference‬ was a really great experience. I not only had the opportunity to meet and connect with some great people from all over the country, including some fellow socialists within AFSCME (a relatively conservative union historically), I also learned a bit about Detroit labour history that I didn't know, met two of the 1968 striking black Memphis sanitation workers, and hopefully gained some useful ideas about how to get local members more active and engaged in their union and workplace.

I arrived late Thursday night with others from the Portland area, caught a ride from a good friend of mine to the Renaissance Marriott, and met up with some other Next Wavers from Oregon. We all went out, grabbed a bite to eat at PizzaPapolis (I forgot how awesome Chicago-style deep dish pizza is), and then I retired for the night, making sure to get plenty of rest before the start of the conference.

For those of us who got in early enough, Friday began with a labour history tour of Detroit, which focused on several key locations around the city. Our first stop was the Walter P. Reuther Library of Labor & Urban Affairs. Our guide, who works there, gave a brief bio of Reuther, a prominent socialist, labour leader, and the library's namesake, and explained how many labour-related documents and artifacts were stored there, including a complete history of the UAW, a huge collection of Chavez/UFW material, and AFSCME-related documents spanning the union's history. A sample of things were provided for the group to view, much of it AFSCME related, such as early documents, photos, and two signs used by the 1968 striking Memphis sanitation workers.

We also learned more about things like the Ford Hunger March, a demonstration of unemployed workers that ultimately ended in over 60 injuries and 5 dead—an event that, in conjunction with others over the next few years, helped lead to the unionization of Ford and the auto industry in general. At the time, auto unions were weak, with no recognition or contracts; and the Depression only made things tougher for desperate workers. One of the responses to this was the Ford Hunger Strike since Ford was one of the primary employers in Detroit, and Henry Ford's anti-union and racially-discriminatory policies made him an especially prominent target for pro-labour groups and movements.

The march, mainly organized by members of the Communist Party, was peaceful until police attempted to stop it, firing teargas into the crowd and clubbing protesters. The crowd responded by throwing rocks at the police and continued marching towards the Ford River Rouge Complex, who were then confronted by a shower of cold water from fire engines and bullets from the guns of the police and Ford security guards. Four marchers were killed immediately, and one, a black worker named Curtis Williams, later died of his wounds. The four white workers who were killed were buried in the Woodmere Cemetery near the River Rouge plant. The fifth, however, was cremated and his ashes scattered over the River Rouge plant from an airplane because the cemetery wouldn't allow blacks to be buried there.

From there, the tour left the Wayne State campus and wove through downtown on its way to the River Rouge plant while our guide pointed out points of interest and relayed bits and pieces of Detroit's history. The tour ended at the plant, where we learned about its history, including the incident known as the Battle of the Overpass involving Walter Reuther. It's sad how much of Detroit's labour history has been forgotten, and its radicalism downplayed.

After the tour, the opening ceremony of the conference kicked off at noon in the Renaissance ballroom with a speech by AFSCME's international president, Lee Saunders, who stressed the necessity of labour unity, connecting public sector and private sector struggles, and coming up with new approaches to the challenges currently facing labour, as well as calling for a "new spirit of militancy." He noted that today only 11% of the workforce is unionized. More people were in unions 100 years when there "more cows in Detroit than cars," he said, reinforcing the need for unity among workers in all sectors.

Saunder's opening speech was followed by a panel discussion with a number of speakers that included two of the 1,300 striking black Memphis sanitation workers, Alvin Turner and Baxter Leach. Out of all the speakers, their words and example inspired me the most, and they deserved the standing ovation they received. In the heart of the south, when racial discrimination was still overt, and with families to support, these two men, along with many others, risked their livelihoods and more to protest unfair treatment and unsafe working conditions, and fight for union recognition for their local, eventually winning "union recognition, dues deduction, wage increases, a four-step grievance procedure ending in arbitration, and end to racial discrimination in promotions and job assignments" after a 65-day strike (with a little help from Martin Luther King, Jr., of course).

After the plenary, the organizers of the conference put together a bit of an ad hoc direct action to show support for local AFSCME members and protest the recent passage of emergency manager and right-to-work legislation (even after voters voted down a similar emergency management law no less). The theme of the action was "Revenge of the Nerds" and "Nerds for Democracy," a play on Gov. Rick Snyder's 2010 Super Bowl ad in which he called himself "one tough nerd."

About 600+ Next Wavers, many wearing 'nerd gear' like suspenders, glasses, and pocket protectors, marched from the Renaissance Center to Hart Plaza, gathering in front of the Labor Legacy Landmark to listen to a few speakers explain what's been taking place since these measures were pasted, and then continued on to City Hall, where both the emergency manager, Kevyn Orr, and Mayor Dave Bing work.

Next Wavers swarmed the lobby, chanting slogans, bewildering pedestrians, and alarming/annoying building security, then filed outside to congregate in front of the Spirit of Detroit to hear a few more speakers, who noted things like the fact Orr can't find the money to pay for city pension and health programs yet can afford to pay his pals at his former law firm, Jones Day, $1,000 an hour. Passersby, including city workers, honked their support, and we continued our march, circling City Hall before heading back to the Renaissance Center.

While the theme of Friday's direct action was a bit cheesy and somewhat obscured the deeper aspects of what's going on in Detroit in my opinion, it was still cool to be a part of and worth doing. Not only because I think attention should be drawn to these kinds of issues, but because it sends a message (as vague as it may be) that working people are willing to organize and fight back against anti-democratic, anti-union, and ultimately anti-worker solutions to problems that have essentially been created by things like broader economic instability and years of capital disinvestment, a message that will hopefully inspire other working people to join the fight.

At this point, I went off on my own to see if I could find Tony downtown, but to no avail. I ended up talking to another homeless guy named Greg and taking him out to lunch instead. I also ordered a few coneys and handed them out to a few hungry people on my way back to the reception. The reception itself was nice enough, with plenty of food and karaoke, but a few of us took the opportunity to split early and head off to the Detroit Institute of Art, which is open until 10pm on Fridays, to admire Detroit's amazing collection of art—a priceless treasure that's in danger of being auctioned off to the highest bidder in order to appease the city's creditors.

Saturday started with a panel discussion with Sommer Foster from Equality Michigan, Rashad Robinson from Color of Change, and Sofia Campos from United We Dream. One of the themes was the importance of developing local connections that can have the potential to lead to national partnerships. During the Q & A portion, Rashad Robinson gave some general advice on how to get people more actively and successfully involved, such as illustrating concrete harm (i.e., how people will be negatively affected by something), finding common ground (i.e., places where you can agree and start working together), avoiding your opponent's rhetoric (i.e., reframing things in ways to support your position), and providing people with information and resources to help them address and overcome challenges.

Secretary-Treasurer Laura Reyes spoke next, whose speech touched on the importance of having mentors, organizing, and organized labour in general, at one point quoting David Macaray's response to union-haters from an article in CounterPunch: "After listening to their tiresome litany of complaints (i.e., unions are corrupt, they go on strike too much, their economic gains are eaten up by monthly dues, they're undemocratic, etc.), I would respond with this: 'Say what you will about unions, but name another institution that's solely dedicated to the welfare of working people. Name me one. Just one.' Of course, no one could name any because there aren't any."

Around 11am, we broke up into groups and went to the various workshops we'd registered for earlier. I attended the "Actions Speak Louder Than Words" workshop, which explored options to solving workplace issues outside of the grievance procedure via forms of direct action. During the workshop, we were encouraged to brainstorm things from ways to get members motivated and united in preparation for a direct action to various forms of direct action themselves. One of the things that came up again and again was the importance of getting your message out there since visibility helps put pressure on employers/public officials. Another was the importance of developing relationships with groups and people that can help aid you in the future well before you need them. The usefulness of Member Action Teams in responding to workplace issues was also stressed repeatedly.

The workshops were followed by lunch and the Open Space Technology portion of the conference, which is an interesting way for participants to be more actively involved by allowing them to propose topics and then facilitating discussion groups with other members interested in exploring the same topics. A number of people proposed topic ideas via Twitter or by coming up to a microphone that were then broken up into two rounds of discussions hosted in the various meeting rooms. The first one I attended was about internal organizing and ways of getting members more involved in their locals. I found this one to be the more helpful of the two I participated in, and it gave me some ideas to take back to my local E-Board (which I hope to write up soon).

The second was about alternatives to simply supporting the Democratic Party based on the premise that decades of doing so hasn't stopped the decline of organized labour or the Democrat's political slide to the right, and that more time and money should be spent on organizing and direct actions. And while interesting (and something I personally agree with), it wasn't as practically useful. The night ended with a cook-out hosted by Council 25, with plenty of food, music, and dancing.

The final day of the conference began with workshops. I went to the "Ultimate Action" workshop, which I went to because I mistakenly thought it was about running for union and public offices, but was just about running for public office. It was still interesting, though, to see all the things that go into organizing a successful campaign. Next up was the closing plenary, which started with a moment of silence for Trayvon Martin and a speech by Saunders venting his frustration over the verdict, vowing AFSCME would join NAACP in pursuing civil rights charges. Then everyone had time to share some of the things they'd learned or ideas they came up with during the Open Space discussions the previous day. The closing plenary finished with a speech from Van Jones, a former White House adviser and current president of Rebuild the Dream.

The day was overshadowed by the not-guilty verdict, and Jones opened by apologizing to our generation for having to deal with these kinds of issues in this day and age. He quipped that black children have to wear tuxedos just to go the store so they're not stalked by strangers with guns, and noted wryly that the Martin family has been forced to repeatedly call for restraint and non-violence from supporters while the Zimmerman family hasn't had to do the same to vigilantes like Zimmerman. But he also said that the youth of today have the power to make a difference with our numbers, our access to modern technology, and through our progressive values, courage, and militancy. "The US government," he said, "put a man on the moon with less computing power than you have in our pockets. When you realize the phone in your pocket is a tool, not a toy, that is when your power will be realized."

With that, the conference was officially over, and those that had to catch early flights began their migration to the airport. Those of us sticking around for a bit longer, however, had the opportunity to take a second tour, this time to the Detroit Institute of Art to view Diego Rivera's famous Detroit Industry murals and learn about their history and meaning. The thing I most appreciated about them is the way they romanticize the workers and the production process rather than the commodities being produced. In all the murals commissioned by Edsel Ford and depicting industry at the Ford Motor Company, only one, small finished car be seen off in the distance—it's the workers who clearly take centre stage.

After learning about the history of the murals, both from a political as well as an artistic perspective, we had a couple of hours to explore the DIA on our own. I spent some of the time with comrades from Minnesota, and the rest on my own, spending the majority of it wandering through the Modern, Contemporary, Medieval and Renaissance, and Dutch Golden Age sections, admiring the artwork and letting everything I learned the last few days sink in. Like I said, it was a really great experience.