The shut down is over, and despite the bluster, it’s not going to start up again. It’s a political loser for President Trump, and he knows it. Senate Republicans would turn on him. Moreover, the idea of declaring a national emergency is dangerous for the White House. The President says the odds of a deal being reached are “less than 50-50.” What next?
The victory glow on Nancy Pelosi for staying firm and keeping her caucus united hasn’t yet faded. Pundits colorfully claim Pelosi “got Trump’s balls,” with Ann Coulter calling him “the biggest wimp” as President. Does this mean Pelosi can write the script?
In a word, no. Her challenge, though, is less with Trump than within her own party. She prevailed in a bruising battle to remain speaker, and even critical Democrats acknowledge that her political savvy won this battle. One wonders what she had to promise centrist Democrats friendly to the idea of some kind of wall to keep them in line. I suspect that she promised “real” negotiations and to make a deal that the President can accept. She had to win this one or else it would have become clear that Trump could run roughshod over the Democrats, threatening things like a shutdown and watching Democratic cohesion splinter.
Now she has to show the centrists that she listens to them and awards their loyalty due to the shutdown. If she just defies Trump it’s possible she could win big and have him back down completely. But it may be better in the long run to give Trump a face saving way out, make gains on policies that can be traded for enhanced border security.
To be sure, she also has the progressive wing of the party that want total war on Trump, and think the talk should be impeachment. She has to mollify that wing of the party too, who may grumble that she isn’t “going for the jugular” in negotiations.
Progressives in the party sense that the American public is on their side more than ever, and now is the time for the Democratic party to veer left. In many parts of the country, that is true – but in vast chunks of the US the Democratic party relies on moderate and centrist voters disturbed by Trump’s incompetence, but not wanting to embrace the left.
Pelosi’s challenge is to keep both wings of her party satisfied enough that the party can stay united. She has to convince the progressives that with the Senate and Presidency in GOP hands, the only way to get things done is to compromise. She has to convince centrists that she really is willing to compromise.
There is probably no one better suited to face this challenge than Pelosi. At 78, she’s already stated that she plans not to stay on as speaker after 2020 – and the country may indeed be in a very different place at that time. For now, she’s capping her career with a stellar performance during the shutdown, but to be truly successful she has to have an effective two years both keeping the party together and making compromises when possible.
Yesterday I posted something political, so today I’ll head into religious territory to grapple with that age old question: is there a God? To be sure, it’s really more of a recent question. Go back far enough and you find certainty that there are many Gods. Even the Hebrew God that now dominates three major world religions started as a local God – the Hebrews were not originally monotheists. Still, the question has merit, it can’t be dismissed.
Consider: Why is there something and not nothing? By all our logic and laws of physics, we shouldn’t be able to get something from nothing. Some might claim that reality is infinite – infinite in the past, and in the future (which would be two infinities, but OK). We can get out of that problem with an obvious observation: our space-time universe emerged from the big bang, and thus had a beginning. One could even claim it was “created” (either by volition or chance).
That actually gets us somewhere. If the origin of our space-time universe comes from outside space-time, then it is utterly incomprehensible to us. I don’t mean just hard to understand or figure out, but beyond human understanding. Our minds are programmed for a space-time universe. Try to think of something without it having a space or time – maybe you can imagine something really abstract, but one can’t truly imagine a reality – a world – outside of space-time. All our concepts of processes, change, evolution, mutation, etc., assume space-time. We don’t even get space-time right. We think of them as separate – time is the progression of events, space is where these events take place. But physicists know that space-time is a single entity, even if that is hard to comprehend (and don’t get me started on quantum physics).
So to the God question. If you posit “God” as some old man with a grey beard, well, that’s a space-time kind of being. Any “God” that exists would be outside of space-time, and thus incomprehensible to us. In fact, one could posit “God” as simply the source of this space-time universe, emerging from “outside” space-time. I have to put “outside” in quotes, and emerging should be in quotes too, since those are space-time concepts that really can’t apply to something not in space-time. But I have no choice, we can’t think in terms truly outside space-time.
I’m ready to accept that there is a God according to that definition, but it doesn’t tell us much about what this God is like or even if it is volitional (rather than some kind of accidental process…and terms like “process” are space-time terms…you get the picture).
Do we have any way to transcend space-time and sense what might be outside it? Maybe. Intuition, emotion, meditation, out of body experiences, and forms of spirituality do claim a non-corporeal and perhaps non-temporal nature. The problem is that once we try to translate these into something communicable, we run into the same problem – our language and our rational minds are bounded by space-time.
Yet if our universe had to come from outside space-time, and if we can’t comprehend anything outside space-time, then a belief in a God-concept (even if not a particularly well defined or traditional God) makes sense. And I think that’s as far as I can take this. There is likely a God, but that’s only if we define “God” in a way that is so broad that we cannot know its attributes, or even if it has volition.
There is one more tool we have that might help – imagination. One reason art speaks to us is that our imaginations seems to hold knowledge and understandings that are beyond communicable thoughts and words. Music, the visual arts and even poetry all try to communicate something beyond our usual rational mode of operation.
So I’ll choose to imagine “God” as something that we are all a part of, connected to, and we have chosen to live in the space-time world to learn lessons and have fun. Note I left out suffering – we can choose that, if we need it to learn, but that’s not why we’re here (and if that sounds callous, well, if we’re all part of the same entity, then we all suffer when one person suffers, even if we don’t experience directly at that moment in space-time).
This God is thus personal, and its laws reflect a kind of golden rule – if we’re all connected and part of the same whole, then we should treat anyone else as we would like to be treated. But since we are separate entities, we have differences, and in dealing with others we have to recognize those differences – I like to be left alone if something bad happens, others like to be consoled. So the golden rule has to be taken a step deeper, not just how we would like to be treated, but what would be kind and considerate treatment for other individuals based on their identity.
Can I prove this? Of course not. Do I believe it absolutely true? Nope, it’s an imagined notion of God I choose to hold playfully without dogmatism. Is that good enough for me? Yes. But it’s up to you all to use your imagination and then decide if you find a God concept good enough for you. This does mean that forcing beliefs on others makes no sense. So I believe there is a God, but I reject religious dogma.
Make no mistake: Donald Trump’s decision to end the shutdown was an ignominious defeat for the man who likes to “win.” But while conservatives fret that Trump “caved,” he really had no choice. He had chosen a flawed strategy based on an underestimation of his opposition, and without appreciation for how much Americans would not like a shutdown.
In December it appeared the President agreed to a short term bill to keep government open in order to allow time to negotiate on border security. An avalanche of protest from right wing pundits convinced Trump to shift strategy and embrace the shutdown. In an infamous meeting with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer he boasted that he would “own the shutdown” and “would not blame” the Democrats. That clip got played many times on the media as the shutdown went on.
By all accounts, those supporting the move in the Administration felt this could be an “easy, quick win,” which would show the Democrats that they can’t just obstruct. Nancy Pelosi had to fight off an internal revolt to become Speaker, and many centrist and conservative Democrats had expressed support for at least part of the wall. Moreover the price of $5 billion wouldn’t be a budget buster – and the shutdown would cost more. Surely the Democrats wouldn’t go to the mattresses over this! Indeed, many moderate Democrats questioned Pelosi’s hard line approach – but she held her caucus together.
When the shutdown started, President Trump’s job approval in the “Realclearpolitics” poll of polls was at negative 8.5%. Last week it hit negative 15%. All polls showed the public blaming the President, and it didn’t help that his cabinet and staff became adept at making statements that made them seem out of touch with how federal workers were suffering without pay.
With Trump’s poll numbers dropping, fears that the shutdown might harm economic growth, and the public growing impatient, Pelosi had no incentive to make a deal. Anything the President did to try to turn around the negativity associated with him and the shutdown failed. His compromise proposal was too meager to be taken seriously, and failed to turn public opinion around.
The first law of holes is that if you are in one, stop digging. Unfortunately for the President, the belief that the Democrats would somehow fold kept him digging longer than he should have. One of the biggest mistakes people make in politics, warfare and sports is to think an opponent to be weak or lacking resolve. Conservatives in the White House convinced themselves that the Democrats could not weather a long shut down. They were wrong.
What Pelosi has done is put the President on notice: he’s dealing with divided government and nothing gets through that doesn’t get the approval of the Democratic majority in the House. If he wants something, he has to bargain as an equal partner, he can’t just demand. Trump is used to have GOP majorities in each chamber, he is getting a quick lesson in how divided government works.
Where does this go next? My bet will be that the Democrats will offer the President a face saving compromise that he can claim as “the best possible” given Democratic control of the House. He will say he chose not to call a national emergency in order to give the Democrats a chance to prove they are concerned about border security. Pelosi will recognize that the politics have changed, and she needs to deal.
Of course, it’s possible the far right will convince the President to undertake another sure fire losing strategy: declare a national emergency. Not only would that create a constitutional crisis sure to be tied up in the courts, but it faces bipartisan opposition. The public would recognize it as a gambit to try to circumvent normal rule of law. I suspect, however, that the President realizes that these kinds of fights aren’t in his interest. He needs to do what he says he’s good at: make a deal.
(Note: this is part 14 of a series called “Quantum Life,” in which I post the contents of a strange ‘guide book’ I found for a game called “Quantum Life.” See the bottom of the post for links to earlier entries. I’m not sure where this book came from – this section is on joy and happiness).
Joy and Happiness in Quantum Life
For many players, the game seems one of constant suffering and distress. This was not what Sunitolp and developers of the game intended. Indeed, the amount of distress once players moved away from instinctive reaction to the ‘material world’ (e.g., as plants or animals) was surprising. Yet in many ways it turned out to be what made the game so popular in that the suffering showed that when disconnected from the whole, players find it extremely difficult and stressful to navigate. Being an individual alongside other individuals created challenges so intense and intriguing that most players thought it worth the suffering.
The irony is that true joy and happiness in the game are possible. There are many potential ways to experience and express it. The most common form is to try to re-create as much as possible conditions in the real world – the world outside of space-time where all is united and connected. This is often achieved in the game by meditation practices defined as spiritual – there is a sense within the game that a higher or truer reality exists.
Conditions that lead to stress and despair center around two aspects of the game: time and uncertainty. As noted earlier, the creation of space-time as the realm within the game is played made it possible to create individual identities progressing through the game action by action. Due to how players are conditioned for the game, it is virtually impossible to imagine existence outside that space-time framework – hence the concepts are difficult to explain using a quantum life language like this one.
The power of NOW
The key towards approaching the “timeless” nature of true reality in the quantum life environment is to focus on what can be called the “now,” or the “present moment.” Even in quantum life space-time is an illusion. It seems like people are moving through time, going from ‘past to future,’ but the reality is that for each player, all that truly exists is now, and that now is eternal. Now lasts forever.
Space-time is more a psychological framework to dissect experience than a true environment. Hence when players find themselves capable of experiencing each moment as whole and complete – to be in the “now” rather than worrying about the future or reminiscing about the past – a natural sense of joy emerges. Players who learn to do that can get a taste of greater reality, even while in space-time.
That doesn’t mean not thinking about the past or future (as defined in the game), but accepting that those thoughts are part of the experience of now. This creates a perspective on experience that allows players to understand that being – existing as a player in the game – transcends the suffering and problems that the game can yield.
The power of ACCEPTANCE
Because most players do not realize they are involved in the quantum life game, they take what they experience as reality as extremely serious. When unexpected challenges emerge players can be stressed, angry, depressed and belligerent. They will place blame on others, feel self-pity, and have anger towards others and the game itself (even if they don’t realize it’s a game).
Accepting reality as it unfolds, as painful or difficult as it may be, allows clearer thinking and draws positive experiences to the player. Pain and suffering are for the most part a result of players trying to deny, evade or reject their experience. That intensifies the problems, and the negative reaction. Once players learn to accept whatever unfolds, and then go with it, making choices without feeling impotent and fearful, they experience more joy.
Due to the way players are disconnected from experiencing true reality while playing, these techniques towards happiness tend to seem like mysteries. Players recognize they are connecting with something real, but since in the game reality is only the physical, material world, they have no real way of identifying what this reality might be. Thus they create a belief in a “spiritual” realm, outside of the material (and perhaps outside of space-time) from which they can find ways of counter acting the fear, suffering and pain that so often accompanies the game.
Ever creative, some players concoct stories to try to explain how it is that another realm could exist alongside but disconnected from the material/physical world. These stories, if persuasive, become belief systems that many hold, known within the game as religions. Players gravitate to religions because they create shared perspectives and communities, leading to a sense of being part of something greater than the individual. In that sense, religious experience is also re-creating an aspect of true reality – that individuals are all connected as one.
(End of dictation. I’ll copy the next part of the manual – on religion – soon!)
Earlier posts in the quantum life series:
Quantum Life – August 3, 2010
How to Play Quantum Life – August 4, 2010
Why Play Quantum Life – August 5, 2010
The Soul in Quantum Life – August 20, 2010
Getting Started with Quantum Life – October 1, 2010
Quantum Life: Birth and Pre-Birth – November 22, 2010
Quantum Life: Childhood – July 20, 2012
Quantum Life: Obstacles – July 29, 2012
Quantum Life: Empaths and Extensions – August 8, 2012
Evil in Quantum Life – October 8, 2012
Mates in Quantum Life – May 9, 2013
Physical Suffering in Quantum Life, P I – May 14, 2013
Physical Suffering in Quantum Life, PII – August 16, 2015
Fascism is hard to explain as a political ideology. Since it disavows reason and rationalism in favor of emotion, power and will, it has clear ideological framework. It’s main traits are extreme nationalism, love of war, rejection of rationality, anti-intellectualism, and hero worship – of the leader, and of military heroes. So does Trump fit the description?
For Fascists, truth is a product of will and power. They operate with the belief there are only competing narratives – different interpretations of reality. Whoever has the power to get people to believe their narrative is thus able to shape truth.
This can be done with force – in class I stand by a student and demonstrating fascism say “the sky is green. What color is the sky?” The first inevitably says “blue,” and I make a pistol out of my finger and shoot her in the head. “It’s green.” The next student meekly says “green” when asked the same question.
But if they relied completely on force they’d be ineffective. By the end of the Soviet Union their totalitarian system relied on force and bureaucratic routine – it collapsed. Fascists succeed when people want to believe their narrative.
Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci was arrested by Mussolini’s fascists and died in prison. But before his health deteriorated he penned his Prison Notebooks which laid out his theory of why the working class had followed Il Duce – the leader, Benito Mussolini.
Marx was wrong, Gramsci said, when he put economics as the only causal factor in historical development. The Fascists, he noted, did not only take power, but created a narrative that told the workers that they were part of a great movement, and had an entire belief system which permeated the culture – what he called cultural hegemony. Once people became believers they were uncritical about the narrative – like religious converts who do not question their new faith, the workers embraced fascism. Moreover, Fascism overtly appeals to emotion – fear, anger, resentment – and that often gets a more visceral response than trying to make a logical argument.
Trump’s rhetoric mirrors this trait of fascism. When Kellyanne Conway talks about “alternative facts,” people laugh. But Gramsci described it as an “alternative narrative” – which is precisely what a fascist version of facts represents. President Trump persistent antipathy to the truth a trait he shares with Fascists.
Another commonality is that fascism puts spectacle over substance – the show and the feelings it generates are what motivate people. Again, emotion moves the masses, not reason. President Trump’s desire for a large military parade, his raucous and rowdy rallies with him at the center would look familiar to Italians and Germans in the 1930s.
Finally, fascism is by definition hyper-nationalist. It puts nation first, and has a clear set of criteria for whether someone is really a part of that nation. Even if you were ethnically Germany, if you were gay, communist, pacifist or Jewish you were not truly German, and hence an internal threat to society. Foreigners are always mistrusted by fascists. Trump’s rhetoric on nationalism and immigration take darkly fascistic tones.
Traits that are contrary to fascism
Fascism traditionally embraces war as an ultimate good – a way to test one’s manhood. So far, President Trump, despite some rash reactions, has not seemed to want to create a war. Moreover, for all his complaints about the press and Democrats, he hasn’t done anything really undermining the system. Taking Acosta’s press pass and wanting strict “decorum” in White House briefings seems to have an authoritarian tone to them, but aren’t fundamental attempts to disrupt the Republic.
President Trump also seems driven more by his own psychological demons – insecurity and narcissism – that a desire for domination. I think he lacks the kind of twisted vision Mussolini and Hitler had, and simply enjoys attention and wants to bolster his ego. This was certainly true about Mussolini too, but Trump lacks any clear political agenda other than promoting himself.
So is Trump a fascist? He certainly shows some disturbing traits and practices, especially in his rhetoric and efforts to create false narratives that his supporters will latch on to due to the emotion they arouse. Things like the “caravan” coming to “invade the US” is an example of how effective this can be.
For some, that’s enough to label him Fascist. I disagree. Fascists create well organized movements to push for change that undermines the system. While spectacle is important to Trump, he doesn’t seem to have a clear agenda. He’s an insecure man, bolstering his self-esteem and using Fascistic methods. But while he loves the spectacle, he’s not doing the work to create a true movement.
Moreover, as the election of 2018 proves, the US has a system designed to prevent Fascism. At times something like it can raise it’s ugly head – McCarthyism in the 1950s was an example – but Americans usually respond and reject such ideas.
Nonetheless, the propensity for people see reality as being nothing but whatever narrative the people can be led to believe, leading to fundamentally different world views on the left and the right (and within each group) is a concern. Trump may not be a true Fascist threat, but the emotions and reactions he invokes suggest that the US cannot consider itself immune from such poison.
My election forecast was far too optimistic for the Democrats, but hey – I’ve been predicting a Vikings Super Bowl win every year for the last forty years. This year is the first time I’ll be right!
My rose colored glasses aside, and despite gut wrenching close defeats in Florida, Texas, South Dakota and (it appears) Georgia, Democrats overall can be happy with Tuesday’s results. In the House the Democrats got 12 million more votes than Republicans, and their failure to take the Senate is no cause for dismay.
Indeed, going into this election the GOP was looking for big gains in the Senate. The Democrats were defending 24 seats due to a big year in 2012 – the GOP was defending only ten. As late as last year analysts were saying that Brown (OH), Menendez (NJ), Baldwin (WI), Kaine (VA) and Casey (PE) were prime targets. Some even thought the GOP could achieve a “filibuster proof Senate” with sixty seats.
As it was, the Democrats only lost in the most vulnerable places – red states like North Dakota, Missouri, and Indiana. Florida might be a loss, and that is a Democratic disappointment, but they held Montana, gained Nevada, and still could gain Arizona. In Texas it was close – something that would have seemed impossible a few years ago – and many Republican holds were competitive. The Democrats flipped eight governorships and it appears a number of states (including Maine) flipped to Democratic dominated state legislatures.
But for Democrats, the news gets better. In 2020 the Republicans are on defense in the Senate, defending 20 seats, almost twice as many as Democrats. At this point only Doug Jones of Alabama appears to be in danger – so the Democrats should have happy hunting in their Senate quest of 2020.
All of this depends on the environment of 2020, of course. If President Trump recovers and is strong in his re-election bid, then Republicans will probably defend most of their seats. If there is a strong, vibrant Democratic candidate, 2020 could be as big for the Democrats as 2008 was. Then the Republicans will hope 2022 would be like 2010.
That future, of course, is still quite uncertain. But for Democrats, winning at least 32 seats (and possibly as many as 40 once the dust settles) and regaining control of the House is a really big deal. The diversity of the candidates winning those seats – lots of women, gays and minorities – is an even bigger deal, and bodes well for the future.
Flipping a lot of governorships and winning state legislatures are very consequential wins. Losing only a couple Senate seats in very “red” states but holding on to most when defending 24 is really a win too. It was less than many hoped for, it allowed the President to save face, but as a friend put it: The country is a better on November 7th than it was on November 6th.
On the day before the 2018 midterm elections, I believe we’re on the verge of an historic night for the Democrats, as they ride a blue wave larger than most analysts current expect. While one might say that’s wishful thinking on my part, I explain my reasoning below and am putting this prediction out there – if I’m wrong, I’ll be wrong for the world to see! I’ll own it either way.
What makes a “blue wave?” That will happen tomorrow if undecideds break heavily for the Democrats on election day, meaning that races that are close will overwhelmingly end up Democratic. That’s how waves work – the GOP did that in 2010 and 2014. The Democrats last did that in 2006 (the Democrats won in 2008 and 2012, but without a wave).
If that prediction is wrong, then I’m completely off base. It’s thus important to explain my thinking.
1. The Democrats have help – President Trump. In the last week President Trump has enjoyed himself, giving red meat speeches to fire up his base. He’s been in his element. Moreover, he’s purposefully focused on the Senate. Most people expect the GOP to maintain control of the Senate due to the map – the Democrats are defending 24 seats, the GOP only 10. Moreover, many more Democrats are in close, difficult battles than are Republicans. President Trump figures that when the Senate stays GOP, he can claim victory, washing his hands of defeat in the House.
And it might have worked. If the President had touted the economy and worked to re-assure moderates and undecideds, the Republicans would be in much better shape. But that’s not Donald Trump’s nature. He attacked immigrants, said he was sending troops to the border with orders to shoot in response to even stone throwing. He said to imagine him on the ballot, saying that the election was about his Presidency. The raucous crowds ate it up, and the President believes the energy suggests a possible red wave of support for him.
In reality, all of this after the shooting at a synagogue and the failed mail bomb attacks on Democrats deepens the message to moderates that Trump is a divider whose slash and burn tactics harm the country. Indeed, Trump says Republicans will protect America while Democrats will lead it into a dark dangerous socialism – yes, the base wants to see the “other side” as evil; most independents and moderates of both parties understand that despite different views, both parties represent American values.
This rhetoric not only pushes independents towards the Democrats, but helps generate enthusiasm among minorities. The fact a Trump ad was pulled from major networks (including Fox) because it was too racist adds to this. With turnout likely near the 2016 Presidential numbers in states with hotly contested races, electrifying the base is not enough. I believe this will backfire on the President and the Republican party. We’ll see tomorrow.
2. Polls are leaning increasingly towards the Democrats in major races. People say the polls can’t be trusted, but in most cases they can be – at least to say what they claim to say. 95% of the time the real state of the race is within the margin of error from their result. The margin of error can be four points, so that means even polls with conflicting results could each be “accurate” – their result could be within the margin of error. But one in twenty times the poll result is outside margin of error. So once one accepts the limit of polls, watching them for trends is best. After the Kavanaugh hearings there was a marked trend toward the GOP. Now that seems to have reversed itself.
And then there’s the poll that gives all Republicans hope – Rasmussen. While most have President Trump well over -10% on disapproval over approval, Rasmussen shows more people approving of the President’s job. The generic ballot in most polls is 7 to 15% in favor of the Democrats; Rasmussen has it as 1% in favor of the GOP. Why? Simple – they weight their raw data for political party. But in wave years many people who might have been Republican if asked during another election now will claim to be independent, maybe Democrat. That’s why most pollsters don’t use past elections to weight for political party. It stacks the deck in favor of Republicans at this point. Some years that wouldn’t be an issue, but if it is a wave year, then weighting for party will make the poll unreliable.
3. This is still the country which voted for Barack Obama. Twice. And if anything, the demographics are more favorable to the Democrats now. Face it, one reason Trump won was that he had a weak opponent. Not that Hillary Clinton is a weak person, but that as a candidate she wasn’t inspiring, and had too much baggage (too 20th Century, to harmed by false smears). So the idea that the country is as behind Trump as much as he claims seems false. I believe the violence and racism that’s been overt in the last two years is pushing people to vote against Trump by voting Democratic.
So based on that, predictions:
Senate: Democrats 51 Republicans 49
House: Democrats pick up 53 seats to have a clear majority
Surprises: Heidi Heitkamp shocks politicos by winning. She’s been declared essentially DOA, and one poll had her down 14%. But that was right after the Kavanaugh fiasco, and a small state like North Dakota can pull of surprises. In Texas, spurred on strong Latino turnout Beto O’Rourke will surprise Ted Cruz, ending Cruz’s political career. Finally, in South Dakota (where I grew up) Billie Sutton – a cowboy in a wheel chair (he was a top class rodeo performer before an injury paralyzed him from the waste down) – will surprise Kristi Noem and become the first Democratic governor in that state since Dick Kneip (1970-78).
Most important Governor’s Race: Andrew Gillum wins handily in Florida, helping Bill Nelson win re-election. This is big in part because Barack Obama and Donald Trump both campaigned heavily in Florida this week – Trump will see this as an embarrassing loss to Obama.
Maine: Janet Mills wins the governorship, while Jared Golden defeats Bruce Poliquin in Maine’s second district (where I live). My district gave Trump it’s electoral vote in 2016 (Maine splits up their electoral votes).
If my predictions are right, we are on the eve of an historic election, one that will buoy Democratic spirits and send the GOP a warning that Trump maybe doing them more harm than good. If I’m wrong, well, then I’m wrong. We’ll know soon!