We Could Just Go Ahead and Set Our Hair on Fire

OK, let's see: crude oil set another price record today:

Crude oil rose to a record above $143 a barrel on Monday on speculation the dispute over Iran's nuclear program may disrupt supply from the second-largest OPEC producer.

Pressure on Iran to end its uranium enrichment program and the falling value of the U.S. dollar may drive prices to $170 a barrel, the president of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Chakib Khelil, said Saturday. Oil is headed for its biggest six-month gain since 1999 as investors shun equities for commodities, looking for a hedge against a weaker dollar and quickening inflation.

"It is a risk Iran will take any measures to cut flows through that important region and the market is reacting to that," said Andy Sommer an analyst with HSH Nordbank in Hamburg. "There are some funds flowing from the equities side to commodities."

And AIPAC has just about got its our war with Iran arranged (as in, "let's you and him fight"):

Introduced less than a month ago, Resolution 362, also known as the Iran War Resolution, could be passed by the House as early as next week.

The bill is the chief legislative priority of AIPAC. On its Web site, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to ”Stop Iran’s Nuclear Program” and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill. In the Senate, a sister resolution, Resolution 580, has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. It has since gained 19 co-sponsors.

The bill’s key section “demands that the president initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.”

“Imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran” can be read to mean that the president should initiate a naval blockade of Iran. A unilateral naval blockade without UN sanction is an act of war.

Resolution 362 has already gained 170 co-sponsors, or nearly 40 percent of the House. It has been referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has 49 members, 24 of whom, including the ranking Republican, are co-sponsors. The Iran Nuclear Watch Web site writes, “According to the House leadership, this resolution is going to ‘pass like a hot knife through butter’ before the end of June on what is called suspension – meaning no amendments can be introduced during the 20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will pass by a 2/3 majority and is non-controversial.”

Yep, another war -- that's just what the doctor ordered! I'm sure we can finance it through our friendly bankers (the Chinese, that is.) That should really help with the weak-dollar problem, no?

"Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."

Weekend Fun

I am not the original owner of my house. It was built in the mid-1970s. A while back, one of the drawers in one of the kitchen cabinets became jammed, in part because a portion of the crapola with which it was overloaded spilled out over the top of the drawer, preventing it from being opened peacefully. In such a dilemma of mechanical logic, eventually the drawer must be opened; and since it couldn't be opened peacefully, it was perforce opened in a warlike manner, resulting in the destruction of a complex of rollers and tracks and hanger brackets known collectively as drawer slides. Once the mangled remains of these slides were extracted from the cabinet structure, I had to admit that their useful life appeared to have been exceeded anyway. They were downright pitiful with wear. Maybe a competent homeowner does some preventative maintenance on such items, on the order of periodic inspection, lubrication, and cleaning. But I wouldn't know what competent homeowners do; I tend to assume that things requiring maintenance will let me know by failing, and that's when I deal with them. In short, I'm a slug.

Anyway, I just want the vast readership of this blog (yes, all three of you) to be aware of a few things. This might save you a few of the repeated trips to Lowe's or the Home Despot or one of the other Homeowner Hells (thanks, Dave Barry) that I made yesterday.

First of all, when you take your "old" slides with you to the homeowner hell for comparison purposes, understand that you may see slides denominated in Satan's units (for example, "24-inch"), as well as some in cgs units (for example, "600 mm"). Don't be stupid, as I was, and think, after holding your old slide alongside one -- in its factory-sealed plastic sleeve, of course -- and seeing that it appears to be the same length as either a 24-inch slide or a 600 mm slide, that these are the same. You might convert in your head, using only two significant figures: let's see, an inch is about 25 mm, so 4 inches would be 100 mm, and six times that, 24 inches, would be 600 mm, so they're the same thing. This would be a grievous error, so don't do it: 600 mm is, more precisely, about 23.62 inches ... and the difference is significant. If your cabinets are sized for a 600 mm slide, a 24-inch slide won't work -- it sticks out beyond the front of the cabinet by, well, let's see, about 9.6 mm, or about 3/8 of an inch. Now, if you're banging together a fence out in your yard, 3/8 inch is no big deal. But a cabinet drawer that's 3/8 inch from being closed: well, that's noticeable, even by me, making it fully unacceptable to management (She Who Must Be Obeyed).

Moving along: if your cabinets have interior sides that are recessed (the opening occupied by the drawer is wider than the opening in the cabinet face), then the fronts of the slides will typically be attached to the sides of the face opening, while the back ends of the slides are supported by offset hanger brackets which attach to the rear panel of the cabinet. One thing must be kept in mind. If you purchase the 600 mm "Liberty" brand slides from Lowe's, they sell these hanger brackets right alongside the slides, and they label the brackets according to the model numbers of the slides with which they're supposed to work. Sounds reasonable, right? Well, let me tell you. The "old" slides were supported by equivalent brackets, made of thin sheet steel. The new brackets that I purchased with the new 600 mm slides are injection-molded plastic, and the rear walls of these brackets are several mm thick, as opposed to the equivalent dimension in the old brackets, which was maybe half a millimeter. No big deal, you say? Think again: with the brackets installed, my new slides again protrude beyond the cabinet face -- only by a couple of mm, mind you, but see above for the non-acceptability of this.

At this point, I should have returned the slides and brackets to Lowe's. But, you know, Lowe's is a ways down the road from me, and gas is four bucks a gallon, and I think I see a way around this: I can just saw a little bit off the end of the "cabinet members" of the slides. I do this, without much difficulty, and return to my installation. Now, I discover that the drawer cannot be completely closed, because the plastic hanger brackets interfere with the "drawer members" of the slides. (This has nothing to do with the shortening of the cabinet member length; this system simply doesn't work together.) And, having hacksawed the cabinet members, I now can't return the slides any more; they're trash. Shucks, and other bitter and heated comments.

So, I visit the Home Despot this time, acquiring another set of 600 mm slides; these are wide enough to fit reasonably well in my "old" hanger brackets (which, Gottseidank, I have saved). And finally, after another round of measuring, leveling, drilling, screwing (no, not the fun kind, either), fitting, testing, adjusting, and so forth, at 10:30 local time last night, I repopulated the drawer, declared victory, and crawled off toward bed. And, truth to tell, it works pretty well. All of this must have a "point" or a lesson somehow, I suppose, but I'm not sure what it is here. Unless it's: hmmmmm, maybe we really needed all-new cabinets anyway ...

Friday Fun

It's the weekend, and not a second too soon, either. Just barely in time, I'd say. So check this out. I know, I know ... I'm usually hesitant to click on these things, too, fearing the unwise investment of my precious online time. On the other hand, if you're looking at my blog, you've obviously got plenty of time. So ... sit back, and see Joe Cocker made plain and clear. Enjoy!

Bad Decision, Massive Confusion

The philosopher-kings (five of them, anyway) have labored and brought forth yet another mutant and deformed decision. Those who should know better are cheering lustily, and those who have cheered lustily in the past -- when they should have known better -- are weeping and gnashing their teeth.

For the record, I absolutely detest gun laws. I love liberty and individual responsibility, enforced by social sanction (and by the law, when a "real" crime, such as an assault, or a manslaughter, or a murder, is committed). The prohibitions against firearms in Washington, DC are simply wrong. So why do I think it's bad that the Supremes "struck them down," as they like to say?

Simple: because of the grounds on which they did it. The poor, dead U.S. Constitution is the defining, enabling, and limiting document of the central government; and when it prohibits the infringement of people's right to be armed, it prohibits the FedGov from doing so -- not the states, and certainly not cities and towns. When it prohibits the establishment of an official religion, that is likewise a prohibition against such establishment by the feds only. The few restrictions that the Constitution imposes on state and local governments (no coining money, no foreign treaties and alliances), it imposes explicitly. Whether local gun laws may be made or not is properly determined by state constitutions.

But ... but ... won't that lead to nonuniformity in gun laws? Yes, yes, and so much the better. I think a country as big as this one should have a Morton Grove, Illinois, where you can't legally have a gun, and a Kennesaw, Georgia, where you have to have one -- as well as a lot of places that are variously in-between. That way, you and I and Larry Pratt and Paul Helmke can each find somewhere congenial to live. But, as the U.S. continues to develop into rigidly- and centrally-enforced uniformity, such arrangements are more and more unthinkable. Why should that be?

This week's Supreme Court decision is, maybe, a little bit of a special case, in that Washington, DC is a sort of mutant creation of the FedGov, making the home-rule question somewhat obscure there. But, as the LA Times story tells us, other places are next:

Gun rights advocates Thursday made it clear that they would pursue more legal challenges, providing ample opportunity for the high court to revisit the issue.

"It looks to be a phenomenal day for gun owners and District of Columbia residents," said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Assn. "The next step is to ensure that every American has access to this right."

Where's Wayne talking about? Maybe Chicago? Or San Francisco?

In fact, even as Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, was saying his organization may give Chicago and other Illinois municipalities time to change their laws, his group and others were filing a lawsuit against the city and Daley.

"By banning handguns, Defendants currently maintain and actively enforce a set of laws, customs, practices, and policies under color of state law which deprives individuals ... of their right to keep and bear arms," reads the lawsuit filed by the ISRA, the Second Amendment Foundation and four individuals.

The National Rifle Association planned to file a similar complaint against San Francisco, which bars people from carrying handguns on county property, including in parks, schools and community centers.

To an extent, this reminds me of Roe v. Wade. Pre-1973, some states had liberal abortion laws, while other states outlawed or at least extensively restricted the practice. The Supremes of the time found this intolerable, and "struck down" the state and local restrictions. The parallel is imperfect, of course, since the Second Amendment plainly exists, while the 1973 Supremes had to invent an imaginary "right" to abortion out of whole -- and bloody -- cloth. It's amusing that, if we accept the conventional "right/left" stereotypes, the same folks who rejoiced over "judicial activism" ('73 edition) decry the '08 version, and vice versa. Then there's me: never happy. At least I'm somewhat consistent, though. I'd like to be happy every now and then, but I suppose I can settle for consistency.

Down With the Counterrevolutionary Running-Dog Standards Skirters!

I see where Senator John "Crazypants" McCain has it all figured out:

John McCain hopes to solve the country's energy crisis with cold hard cash.

The presumed Republican nominee is proposing a $300 million government prize to whoever can develop an automobile battery that far surpasses existing technology. The bounty would equate to $1 for every man, woman and child in the country, "a small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency," McCain said in remarks prepared for delivery Monday at Fresno State University in California.

McCain said such a device should deliver power at 30 percent of current costs and have "the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."

The Arizona senator is also proposing stiffer fines for automakers who skirt existing fuel-efficiency standards, as well as incentives to increase use of domestic and foreign alcohol-based fuels such as ethanol.

In addition, a so-called Clean Car Challenge would provide U.S. automakers with a $5,000 tax credit for every zero-carbon emissions car they develop and sell.

"In the quest for alternatives to oil, our government has thrown around enough money subsidizing special interests and excusing failure," said excerpts from McCain's prepared text. "From now on, we will encourage heroic efforts in engineering, and we will reward the greatest success."

I really have to hand it to Old Crazypants. Not only has he shaken off any little bit of Old Republican reticence about distorting the marketplace; not only has he figured out the corporate welfare is really a very, very good thing (especially when the welfare-mama executives can help out with the campaign cash); not only is he a master of engineering (both mechanical and electrical); but he's also become highly astute in public relations. Notice that not once did he refer to a "Five-Year Plan" to modernize the automotive industry. Not once did he refer to any heroic great leap forward by the People's Battery Engineering Collective. Not once did he threaten to purge the saboteurs and enemy agents who have undermined the work of the Ministry of Transport. He didn't even call them f-----g c---s. Guy's getting downright smooth in his old age.

And as for those standards-skirting automakers: to the labor camps with 'em!

It's All Very Simple, Really

My vastly-more-productive fellow local blogger Jeff Pruitt was very, very angry this past Friday:

It isn’t everyday you can vote to expand the President’s warrantless wiretapping program AND give immunity to companies that have admittedly violated the US Constitution.

I can’t say much about this right now because I’m simply too pissed off. I just want to say thanks to all the House Democrats who sold out their party and their country today by caving to the criminal Bush cabal and passing the draconian FISA amendment bill. Thanks for weakening the 4th amendment, expanding presidential power and granting amnesty to all the telecom companies that knowingly and willingly violated our constitutional rights by illegally spying on American citizens.

Congratulations for passing a bill the Republican controlled congress couldn’t get through. And you should all be very proud that Republicans actually have a higher favorable rating of you than Democrats. Awful jackasses.

Jeff, allow me to suggest a few things.

(1) There's no important difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

(2) The House Democrats didn't "sell out their party." They served their party's interests (more on that below). As for "selling out their country," well, guilty as charged. How does that differentiate them from their Republican counterparts? See item (1), above.

(3) The Bushies presumably promised the telecoms that, if they played ball, no harm could come to them. This promise was no doubt presented as binding on successor Administrations. Suppose the Democrats (who will occupy the Oval Office soon enough) had canceled the deal. Don't you suppose the Democrats will also have uses for everyone's emails and phone calls? See item (1), above. They, too, will need the telecoms, which aren't likely to be so cooperative next time unless the gentlemen's agreement is honored.

The constitutional republic -- to whatever extent it ever actually existed -- is dead. It can't be revived by voting within the context of a completely-rigged system. Perhaps it can't be revived at all.

Libertarians: Non-Alternative

The Libertarian Party is the great small-government alternative, right? Isn't the LP the natural home of all the "true conservatives" who've been used by the GOP as a combination urinal and spittoon since the end of the Golden Age? (Notice that I don't say just when that "Golden Age" might have taken place, since I don't have that first clue about its dates, nor even any evidence that there ever really was such a time.) In truth, I don't think that anyone who's smart enough to use the internets for anything beyond surfing porn has any illusions on this score, so this isn't intended as a "wake up libertarians!" post. Rather, it's just that I derive some sort of perverted amusement from LP wrongheadedness ... particularly the LP as personified by those who write for Reason. Check out Mr. Chapman's explanation of why Terror Warriors shouldn't be wetting their pants over the Supreme Court's alleged "stinging rebuke" to the Emperor. (Of course, that's "stinging rebuke," as in: How many divisions does your stinging rebuke have?)

All this outrage builds on the dissent registered by Justice Antonin Scalia. The court's decision "will make the war harder on us," he thundered. "It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Well, it won't have that effect unless it leads to inmates being released—which it has not, will not anytime soon, and may not ever. If and when it does, he may have a point, though not necessarily a powerful one.

Anytime you let someone out of prison, even if he's innocent, you create the possibility that he will someday kill someone. Scalia makes much of the supposed fact that 30 of the detainees freed from Guantanamo "have returned to the battlefield." Just because they were later captured or killed, however, doesn't mean they "returned" to the war.

Some of them may have been victims of mistaken identity, which could explain why those softhearted folks at the Pentagon let them go. But stick a blameless unfortunate in a cage for six years, abusing him in the process, and when he comes out, he may seek revenge. The only way to eliminate the risk is to keep all the detainees locked up forever.

Even the Bush administration has not gone that far. It was happy to free more than 500 inmates over the years. When it did, by the way, nobody accused the president of causing more Americans to be killed.

Besides, any releases are only speculative right now. To have a chance at freedom, a prisoner will have to make a plausible case that he's innocent. The administration had already planned to try 80 of the detainees before military commissions, which suggests it has abundant evidence of guilt.

[ ... ]

Let's suppose there's an inmate whom the Pentagon thinks was fighting for al-Qaida but lacks any supporting evidence it can use in court. Does he now have a get-out-of-Gitmo-free card? Not necessarily.

In that case, says Northwestern University law professor Ronald Allen, the government could classify him as a prisoner of war— who, like POWs in previous wars, may be held until the hostilities cease. The trouble, from the administration's point of view, is that he would then be entitled to standard POW protections, such as being treated humanely and not being punished for refusing to answer questions. But at this point, that's a small price to pay.

"Abundant evidence of guilt," eh? What are these prisoners of the Empire supposed to be guilty of? Doesn't criminal "guilt" require a law to have been violated? Whose law are we talking about? Surely we don't think foreigners are obliged to obey U.S. law; and if we're talking about some Iraqi or Afghan law, where did Americans get the authority to administer other people's laws? The basic paradigm under which the Imperial States of America has been operating -- that we're definitive of good, and that any opposition to us is implicitly criminal -- isn't even questioned here.

Look at what seems to be Mr. Chapman's real objection to keeping all these prisoners locked up and abusing them. "(S)tick a blameless unfortunate in a cage for six years, abusing him in the process, and when he comes out, he may seek revenge." Not "it's morally unacceptable to imprison and torture a blameless unfortunate," which in itself would be far short of "it's morally unacceptable to imprison and torture a man who was seeking to defend his country against an unprovoked invader" (that is, us). So, what's the alternative? "The only way to eliminate the risk is to keep all the detainees locked up forever." Admittedly, he's not suggesting their perpetual imprisonment, as he's not claiming that the "risk" can or should be "eliminated;" but he doesn't mention the other way in which that particular risk could have been eliminated: don't invade the other peoples' countries in the first place. That's one of the possibilities that doesn't occur to us, once we've bought into the war paradigm.

Mr. Chapman offers one of those lesser-of-two-evils alternatives whereby the government could deal with its prisoners: declare them prisoners of war, which would afford them the protection of the Geneva Convention against torture and other abuse. (Of course, that's "protection of the Geneva Convention" as in: How many divisions does the Geneva Convention have?) The trouble is, that allows them to be imprisoned, as Mr. Chapman says, "until the hostilities cease." What hostilities is he talking about? If he means guerilla resistance to occupation: well, that will never end. If he means "the Iraq war:" that's something that never was (under the Constitution, a "war" is something declared by the Congress, which hasn't happened since 1941), or it ended in 2003, pretty much when Supreme Commander Mission Accomplished said it did -- when there certainly was no functioning Iraqi regime (except for our puppets), and there was no organized military resistance (and, really, there never was any of that, to speak of). If he means "the Global War on Terror" ... awwww, what the hell, words fail me. Maybe he's thinking of the War on Drugs. I hope so; that seems to be the only war that the LP types generally and consistently oppose. And rightly so -- it's just a shame that they can't see the parallels with all the other wars.

To paraphrase Paul Simon: Any way you look at it, we're screwed.

Your Tax Dollars (and Mine) at Work

Our Glorious Wartime President has already said it, more than once: "We do not torture." So what's up with these doctors? Didn't they get the memo?

The first extensive medical examinations of former detainees in U.S. military jails offer corroboration for prisoners' claims of physical and psychological abuse at the hands of their American captors, a Boston-based human rights group said in a report released yesterday.

The assessments of 11 men formerly held in U.S. detention camps overseas revealed scars and other injuries consistent with their accounts of beatings, electric shocks, shackling and, in at least one case, sodomy, according to the report by Physicians for Human Rights. Most also had symptoms of long-term psychological damage, including post-traumatic stress disorder, the group said.

Well, you know, it's important to keep these things in perspective. Only one out of eleven had actually been sodomized -- we think. And, you know (wink, wink!), he probably really liked it, the swarthy little devil.

Welcome to the New America.

"As the Iraqis Stand Up, We'll ...

... 'splain to 'em how it is:

President Bush said Wednesday he is confident the United States would reach an agreement on the role of U.S. forces in Iraq, calling opposition to a U.S. proposal part of the "noise" of a freer Iraqi society.

"There's all kinds of noise in their system and our system," Bush said. ". . . I think we'll get the agreement done."

Top Iraqi officials are calling for a dramatic reduction of the U.S. role in Iraq after the United Nations mandate for the U.S. military presence in the country expires later this year. Iraqi critics complain that the agreement proposed by the United States would turn Iraq into a virtual colony and allow the United States to maintain nearly 60 bases in their country indefinitely.

Bush administration officials say a deal is necessary to preserve order in the battered country, and that a new agreement "will not involve permanent bases, nor will it bind any future president to troop levels."

I don't suppose there's anyone left, outside of the 40% 30% 20% BushBase, who still entertains the quaint notion that the Mesopotamian venture has the slightest connection with Iraqi Freedom™. Surely, anyone who's awake understood this news story. For those who were snoozing, here's a quick recap.

Iraqi Collaborators: We're standing up now, El Supremo, so you-all can stand down pretty much any time!

The Wee Emperor: We'll tell you when you're standing up. Until such time as you've been told ... button it!

Remember: Iraq is not an Imperial colony, and anyone who says otherwise hates Uh-mur'ka.

Kiss the Ring, Barry

Looking forward to some Change We Can Believe In™? If you're holding your breath, I hope you can go on doing so 'til 2012. As soon as he more or less officially became the Jackass candidate for World Executive Manager, Senator Obama delivered himself of a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. Wait a minute -- what did I write, "speech?" More like a hybrid of homage and prayer, really:

Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

"Preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state?" Wow. Try using that formulation with anything but The Precious. Any agreement with the black African people must preserve South Africa's identity as a white state. Any agreement with the Kosovar people must preserve Serbia's identity as a Christian state. Any agreement with the Kurdish people must preserve Turkey's identity as a Muslim state. Any agreement with the African-American people must preserve Mississippi's identity as a white state. Hard to imagine, no? Still, Senator Obama is entitled to a presumption of sincerity and truthfulness; so, for the foreseeable future, one form of apartheid will be accepted gladly in the imperial palace.

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a cleareyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead. ... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.

I think it is likely that Senator Obama will be elected in the fall. So, I guess the Israelis can hope he's telling the truth ... and I can hope he's not. My hope is a pretty forlorn one, though. Some things aren't going to Change, and that We Can Believe In.

Attitude is Everything

You know, it isn't so much what they say or think. It's the attitude:

Just a reminder to The Journal Gazette and its readers: Memorial Day “is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation’s service,” not a day to remember every Tom, Dick and Mary.

In his original General Orders Number 11, on May 5, 1868, Commander-in-Chief John A. Logan stated, “The 30th day of May is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country.”

The Journal Gazette’s Memorial Day Remembrance page was an insult to those for whom the day was established. I guess Memorial Day has become like the Constitution of the United States – it is open to everyone’s own interpretation.


GREGORY J. CUMMINGS Fort Wayne

Hey, I'll be "Tom" -- who do you want to be, "Dick" or "Mary?"

In any case, Mr. Cummings didn't need to get his knickers in such a twist -- I'm sure the day that the J-G desecrated with its insulting "Remembrance" page was either last Sunday, the 25th, or the "observed" "holiday:" Monday, the 26th. So, he and Commander-in-Chief John A. Logan had the 30th all to themselves.

So, just who was this Logan guy, anyway, talking about "comrades?" Sounds like some kind of Communus to me.