Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor issued a rare joint public statement Wednesday to disclaim the bombshell NPR report by Legal Affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg on the unpopularity of Gorsuch among his colleagues and his alleged refusal to wear a mask despite a threat to the health of Sotomayor. The justices stated that Totenberg’s account on the mask controversy was false. It is unclear what sources Totenberg relied upon for the report, which went viral on liberal media sites. (For full disclosure, I testified before the Senate in support of Gorsuch’s confirmation).
Totenberg has been previously accused of bias by Republicans and conservatives for her takes on the Supreme Court. In one incident, NPR itself expressed regret that Totenberg did not reveal a close personal relationship with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg despite years of coverage. We previously discussed another controversial story where she attacked Gorsuch while extolling the brilliance of Justice Elena Kagan.
In this latest segment, Totenberg again heralded Kagan as “one of the court’s best questioners” and compared her to Gorsuch who she presented as unpopular, unliked, and unpredictable. Despite her long journalistic career, the segment reads like an unvarnished hit piece portraying Gorsuch (who has previously received glowing reviews from appellate colleagues on both ends of the political spectrum) of being “a prickly justice, not exactly beloved even by his conservative soulmates on the court.”
One of the most reported elements is the claim by Totenberg that Sotomayor (who suffers from diabetes and is considered high risk for Covid) was cited by the Chief Justice as the basis for everyone wearing masks to protect her health. Totenberg suggests that Gorsuch refused. She claimed that, since Gorsuch is seated next to Sotomayor, “his continued refusal … meant that Sotomayor has not attended the justices’ weekly conference in person, joining instead by telephone.”
Chief Justice John Roberts also issued a statement that it was false, as claimed, that he asked any of colleagues to wear masks on the bench.
The joint statement of the two justices insists that Totenberg’s account is entirely false:
“Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us. It is false. While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends.”
The NPR story struck many of us as diametrically at odds with everything we have heard about Gorsuch on the Court. However, it was another “fact clearly too good to check.” Sites exploded on the left about this conservative justice literally threatening the life of a liberal colleague. Rolling Stone ran with the story “Neil Gorsuch Stands Up for His Right to Endanger Sonia Sotomayor’s Health,” and added “the liberal Supreme Court justice is diabetic and didn’t want to sit next to justices who weren’t wearing masks. Her conservative colleague didn’t care.”
Former senator Claire McCaskill tweeted:
So glad I voted no on this jerk. What kind of guy does this? I could tell in my meeting with him that he thought he was better than everyone else, more important, smarter. Ugh. #Gorsuch
The Daily Kos declared
“it is hard to imagine a bigger shit. But we should not be surprised…Most Americans will find his selfishness incredible, but it is typical of his kind. One trait common to every conservative is a sociopathic lack of empathy.”
Elie Mystal, who has written for Above the Law and the Nation, tweeted
Confirmation of what we all already knew. Whatever you think about masks, Gorsuch, who sits next to Sotomayor at work, just decided to be a dick to a colleague.
At Above the Law, even the joint statement made little difference. Indeed, Kathryn Rubino (who is the subject of another dubious column today) discarded the statement of even Sotomayor herself in a column titled “Neil Gorsuch’s Call For Civility Was Always Just For Show.” Rubino still maintains that the false story still proves her point: “This information probably does not surprise Supreme Court watchers — like even a little bit — but, Neil Gorsuch is a real jerk of a coworker.”
Previously, after Gorsuch was misquoted by reporters (who largely apologized or corrected their articles), ATL editor Joe Patrice dismissed the official transcript (and the recording) to accuse Gorsuch of tampering with the record in a column titled “Neil Gorsuch Cited Fake Flu Stats And Then Scrubbed The Transcript Like A Coward.”
Ruth Marcus who also features prominently in the earlier column controversy discussed today ran with the mask claim. That column stated that a conservative law clerk on the Eleventh Circuit had sent out a racist text — a story again picked up by a wide array of media sites. The Second Circuit just released a report refuting the underlying allegation in ATL, the Washington Post, and other outlets.
It really does not matter if it is false or not. The narrative remains. The story is another manifestation of our age of rage. It is not enough that you disagree with Gorsuch. You have to portray him as a sadistic, borderline homicidal fanatic. In the end, the media just moves on with the next collective primal scream session masked as journalism.
NPR has not explained why Totenberg did not confirm with either justice. It did issue a statement that “stands by” Totenberg that is enough to make a Philadelphia lawyer blush:
“Totenberg never reported that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask, nor did she report that anyone admonished him. She did report that Chief Justice Roberts; ‘in some form asked the other justices to mask up’ – and Gorsuch was the only one who did not.”
Roberts has denied making such a request but “in some form” could mean anything. Under NPR logic, he could have asked through telepathic means or used allegorical accounts to encourage colleagues to mask up. Moreover, the tweet sent out the NPR left little doubt of the import of the reporting that Gorsuch had refused such requests despite Sotomayor’s health concerns. Totenberg tweeted the following description of her story: “Gorsuch refuses to mask up to protect Sotomayor.”
Such sensational accounts are not supposed to be journalism “in some form.” Just journalism. The three mentioned justices (Roberts, Sotomayor, and Gorsuch) are denying the underlying claims. But NPR “stands with” the story.
NPR reporter David Gura went even further and (like ATL’s Patrice) suggested that the justices were simply lying. Gura tweeted “I [sic] surprised at how many Supreme Court correspondents I admire are passing along a statement from two justices that is at best false without any context whatsoever.”
The NPR story not only continues the unrelenting attacks on Gorsuch and his conservative colleagues in the media, but also continues to portray the Court as bitterly divided. The Court itself has repeatedly refuted such claims with a series of unanimous and near unanimous decisions. Individual justices like Stephen Breyer chaffed at the claim that this is a “conservative” court. Yet, if you are going to pack the Court, you need to convince the public that it is hopelessly divided and dysfunctional. For that reason, even the popularity of the Chief Justice in a recent poll was viewed as “dire” for democracy in the media.
The fact is that justices on either end of the ideological spectrum have maintained close friendship. The relationship between Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia was such an example.
We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools. This movement includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy. In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that the journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.”
The controversy at NPR occurs after the publicly funded company changed its policy to allow its reporters to take active parts in protests for social justice — erasing a long-standing bright-line rule in journalism. The impact of such advocacy journalism is evident in every poll where the faith in the media has plummeted. Indeed, the “Let’s Go Brandon” movement is as much a criticism of the media as it is President Biden. The United States ranked dead last in media trust among 49 countries with just 29% saying that they trusted the media.
We will not be able to restore the trust in the media until these companies abandon reporting “in some form” and return to simple journalism.
If you can’t trust NPR what can you trust?
LOL!
DNC, GRU, KGB, MSS, DGI, MPS, SEBIN, maybe?
Oh, no, FBI, CIA, NSA, DNI, DOD, NRO, DEA, you certainly can trust them…to function for the Global Communist Deep Deep State.
WHY are we taxpayers still funding NPR and PBS when they are biased??? We have enough biased propaganda with the alphabet networks.
You misunderstand the Government. The Government funds NPR and PBS precisely because they are biased, not in spite of it. In other words, if they were genuine journalists, they wouldn’t be funded. Only presstitutes can be funded in the modern media. Today’s presstitutes make the old Russian News Agency TASS (Russian: Информацио́нное аге́нтство Росси́и) look like the paragon of journalism.
Texas Attorney General Tests Positive To Covid After Trump Rally
Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican who has fought COVID-19 mask and vaccine mandates, has tested positive for the coronavirus, according to the Texas Tribune.
“He remains working diligently for the people of Texas from home,” an agency spokesperson told the Tribune on Wednesday.
It’s not clear when Paxton tested positive, whether he has symptoms or if he is fully vaccinated against the virus. His office did not immediately return a request for comment.
Over the weekend, Paxton attended former President Donald Trump’s outdoor rally in Arizona, according to photos and video posted to social media, which show him unmasked. It’s not clear whether Paxton has made any public appearances since then.
Throughout the pandemic, Paxton has sued to block schools from enforcing mask mandates and to stop federal vaccine requirements.
“If the federal government can tell you to get a vaccine or lose your job, then there’s nothing they can’t tell you to do,” Paxton said last week at a meeting of the Fulshear-Katy Chamber of Commerce. “Then you don’t have freedom.”
New cases of COVID-19 have been surging statewide, driven largely by the highly contagious omicron variant. On Tuesday, more than 12,300 people were hospitalized with COVID-19 across Texas.
Edited From:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2022/01/19/texas-ag-ken-paxton-tests-positive-for-covid-19/?utm_source=pushly
………………………………………………………………….
When public officials go on record as staunch opponents of mandates, they run the risk of looking silly if they wind up testing ‘positive’ to Covid.
Let’s hope A G Paxton had the presence of mind to get vaccinated. Because, if God forbid, he really gets sick, Paxton could become yet another example of what happens to staunch opponents of mandates.
Please, if you want to perform a public service, triple mask so we won’t have to hear your crap.
Dr. Fauci said so! Because science!
People look even sillier when they make such comments.l People wearing masks, vaccinated or associated with others who had a negative Covid test get Covid. Why don’t you get your facts straight?
Anonymous talking stupid again……as usual. Of course with half of the posts here being done by “Anonymous” how does one differentiate between the anonymous and the stupid anonymous when responding to an anonymous post?
So all ya’ll checking in as “Anonymous” figure it out if is you that is being called stupid….although we on the other end know a stupid post when we see one.
At least some are willing to use a unique user name so we can separate the sheep from the goats when reading their posts.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs AND the Commandant of the Marine Corps…..BOTH double vaccinated and bolstered…..tested positive for Covid and are quarantined in Quarters.
Now tell us again about the need to get vaccinated in order to save mankind?
If they were surrounded by fully vaccinated staff….and family members….and wore their masks at all times…..how did they collect that pesky ol’ Virus?
Jan 14th with the Texas peak, then the downward plunge. Nothing moved the trend line in spread of omicon. The vaccines that did not stop the contraction of the virus or the spread of the virus, did exactly nothing for omicron.
When public officials go on record as staunch opponents of mandates, they run the risk of looking silly if they wind up testing ‘positive’ to Covid.
Not as stupid as the covid nuts, that do everything by the book and get infected anyway….because a virus is going to virus. Repeat after me. TWO WEEKS TO FLATTEN THE CURVE. That’s the “experts” telling you, the virus will not be denied
Anonymous:
Do vaccine mandate supporters look silly when they get Covid?
Please understand that the Omicron variant can evade immunity. It doesn’t know or care if that immunity was generated from a vaccine or previous infection. Its spike protein is sufficiently different that it can get behind our defences.
This is why the vaccinated have been getting and spreading Omicron. This is why vaccine mandates cannot stop the spread of Omicron. This is why it is not, in fact, a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
One of my relatives is a nurse. She got Covid in the early days of the pandemic in 2020, and it was bad. She was seriously ill. She got vaccinated as soon as it came out. Boosted. She now has Covid yet again.
While the vaccine was very effective against getting the original SARS-CoV2, and it was effective at preventing severe disease in a couple of the next variants, its efficacy is waning as new variants evolve that can evade its immunity.
One final point is that naturally acquired immunity from getting Covid is equal to or greater than that acquired from a vaccine. The immune system recognizes around 56 more binding sites than the spike protein. The vaccine only exposes us to the spike protein, so that’s all the immune system will recognize. The entire point of any vaccine is to generate immunity by simulating infection, while sparing the recipient from the actual disease. That’s why once that spike protein changes in new variants, the vaccine-induced immunity will not recognize it.
So please stop acting like the unvaccinated are plague carriers. If they recovered from Covid, then their immunity is likely superior to that of the vaccinated. They are getting Omicron because, just like the vaccinated, their immune systems do not recognize the variant.
I say this having been vaccinated for Covid. I was lucky to have the vaccine available, because it spared me from the serious effects of the earliest strains.
“. . . as staunch opponents of mandates . . .”
So that X is good means that the government should force everyone to do X?
I think you have America confused with communist China or Iran.
Nameless “sources” will always be less authoritative than direct questioning and/or statements of the parties involved. This is codified in the US rules of evidence by not allowing hearsay testimony in most cases. Every party mentioned by name in the original story have now given statements directly, none of which affirm even in part any element of the reporting. I applaud Prof. Turley’s attention to the proper evaluation of evidence, hardly surprising since he is trained to do so. The crazy thing here is that very few, many of whom have college degrees, are talking about reporting & evaluations of it in those terms. Reporters are not somehow in possession of mysterious powers that allow their statements of fact (or opinion for that matter) to be beyond scrutiny. Every statement they make is subject to potential error like anyone else’s statements,
What makes this so egregious, in my opinion, is that NPR accepts federal funding as “public programming,” and is included by most media reviewers as “mainstream.” In truth, it is another example of infiltrate propaganda that media use(s) to influence and proselytize the Moms and Pops of America under the color of “public media.” I lost all respect for NPR once Diane Rheim (sp.?) retired. She was clearly a liberal Democrat, but she made that known, and always pursued, with respect, opinion/commentary from both sides. The likes of conservative-demeaning, condescending Ari Shapiro and Mary Louise Kelly could learn a lot from her.
“Yesterday NPR fired me for telling the truth. “ __Juan Williams
FOX should fire him for telling Lies!
That is life. He gets fired for telling the truth but not for “ telling Lies!”
Lies are marketable and more readily believed in this era.
They are crafted to be believed but the truth is often rough and hard to swallow.
This shows that the media icons of the left stray far from the truth and are not worthwhile listening to. Unfortunately, the media of the left act together so that almost all say the same thing making all of them liars.
We should remember Scalia and Ginsberg were good friends. Such friendships are unacceptable to leftists that wish to cancel anyone in disagreement with them.
The question remains, why does Gorsuch not wear a mask to help protect his colleagues? Do the burdens to him outweigh the benefits to others? He should not have to be asked. It’s what considerate people do to help protect others.
For the same reason you do not wear double-latex gloves when you touch stair railings, doorknobs in a public building, use a public restroom, push a button in an elevator, use coins and dollar bills to transact business, sit in a chair at a table in public forums, etc. Microorganisms are everywhere. You might want to live in a plastic bubble since you are that terrified of them.
Abortion is murder and hence deeply selfish, not that Leftists give a damn about being selfish when it comes to developing babies.
Your misunderstanding (ignorance?) is that all of the examples you cite only have the potential to protect yourself, not others. Your argument is based on selfishness, an unwillingness to do things that minimally burden you and benefit others.
First, according to Chief Justice Roberts, he never asked the justices to mask up. Second, why would any of them need to wear masks when they are all triple vaccinated and are tested before each in-person meeting as are all attorneys presenting before the court? Masking in these circumstances is no more necessary than it is when people are driving alone in their car.
The question remains, why doesn’t Gorsuch wear a mask to help protect his colleagues? Is it too much of a burden on him? He should not have to be asked to do that. It’s what considerate people do.
Masks are NOT effective at stopping the spread of covid. Even if all the justices masked, Sotomayor should stay home and you should stay in your playpen.
The question is why SHOULD Gorsuch submit to the tyranical lies of the Fauci scientism?
YOU DO NOT STOP A VIRUS BY WEARING A FREAKIN MASK! Or Two! Or Three!
Fauci is a lying dog faced pony solidier.
Thank God for Gorsuch making a stand against the science-free medical tyranny.
So it is “considerate” to wear a mask? And we should all do it, even if the “science” and now the CDC says it is utterly useless? Please go back to sleep.
Gorsuch should wear a mask to be “considerate” and “help protect his colleagues”…..even though the SCIENCE and the CDC say it is USELESS.
The BRAINWASHING by Fauci and CDC and the Fake News is complete.
When the DAMAGE done, by Fauci’s unscientific and CRUEL Mask Mandates, to children especially, is finally, FINALLY reported in the corrupt fake news, then the Democrat Party will pay. They deserve to LOSE IT ALL in 2022 and beyond.
“qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent”
(they who lie with dogs will rise with fleas)
Matt Taibbi:
NPR has not run a piece critical of Democrats since Christ was a boy. Moreover, much like the New York Times editorial page (but somehow worse), the public news leader’s monomaniacal focus on “race and sexuality issues” has become an industry in-joke. For at least a year especially, listening to NPR has been like being pinned in wrestling beyond the three-count. Everything is about race or gender, and you can’t make it stop.Conservatives have always hated NPR, but in the last year I hear more and more politically progressive people, in the media, talking about the station as a kind of mass torture experiment, one that makes the most patient and sensible people want to drive off the road in anguish.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/nprs-brilliant-self-own
Old Haitian proverb: “if you want to lie down, you have to put out the dogs.”
The Court should bar Totenberg from the building.
Taibbi also said, 100% correctly: “NPR sucks and is unlistenable, so people are going elsewhere.”
Nina Totenberg has a history of honest and truthful reporting, even on NPR as it goes MORE woke. I will believe her over any of these Justice’s.
Whether or not you believe Totenberg is beside the point, do you believe her sources? Do you know her sources?
It seems to me Totenberg may be angrier about this than anyone, three Supreme our Justices might not be a roomful of bishops… it’s better.
Including Sotomayor? Interesting. I notice that Totenberg and the rest at NPR take the word of an anonymous source over the three justices involved in the story. With the history of reliability of anonymous sources coupled with Totenberg’s own history with the truth, I think I’ll go with the justices
Phil…..you ever hear the story about Pierre the Engineer…the greatest most skilled Engineer in all of France?
The Engineer who designed the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower, and the Statue of Liberty?
If you have…..or can find it in a search….you will grasp the significance of a telling a Lie and getting caught.
Pierre complained that except for one slight mistake….he was called something besides the Greatest Engineer in all of France.
NPR has always been closet biased. Now it’s out of the closet and justifies its blatant bias with some abstract notion of “social justice,” defined as “whatever it takes.”
The circle of the honor-group within which Totenberg, like much of the rest of the media, now operates is drawn so tightly along ideological lines that Totenberg never need fear dishonor—or even honest error—alleged against her by anyone outside it.
I’m sure some unethical political hack has already created a meme with Gorsuch face and some words to promote the false story and instill the hate.
This shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone that’s observed society and the world of politics for a while; propaganda is the most manipulative form of public communication that exists, it morphs the thinking of those that consume it, it’s fueled by implicit and explicit bias, it manipulates the masses both positively and negatively causing polarization of opposing viewpoints and, most importantly, it’s distributed almost instantly via modern digital media which is the most consistent rapid disbursement platform to deliver propaganda that has ever existed.
Propaganda needs the following to effectively manipulate the public:
The message mentioned above does not even have to be true or fact based, it can be innuendo and/or lies. Paul Joseph Goebbels the Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 put propaganda into practice building it to absurd levels of public acceptability using these principles:
What do modern day propagandists use as their “trustworthy” platform of delivery, the modern digital media that’s designed to deliver instant gratification.
“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” Malcolm X
Truth be damned.
Totenberg never said “Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask,” so saying that’s false is irrelevant to the NPR story. Totenberg said that Roberts asked the justices to wear a mask, and Gorsuch didn’t, and Sotomayor then chose to participate remotely.
The question remains: why did all of the Justices participating in person suddenly show up wearing masks except Gorsuch, with Sotomayor joining remotely? Did the rest just mask up spontaneously?
What difference, at this point, does it make?
Denying something that was never asserted fails to address the actual claim.
It’s entirely possible for both Totenberg’s story AND the joint Sotomayor-Gorsuch response to be true, so no one should take their response as evidence that her story was false. We do not know whether it’s true or if it’s false, and no one should pretend otherwise, least of all a law professor who should model for his students what it means to attend to relevant details.
Totenberg said that Roberts asked the justices to wear a mask, and Gorsuch didn’t, and Sotomayor then chose to participate remotely.
And from that, your critical-thinking skills lead you to not ask why Totenberg lied?
You are the Hunter Biden of the art of trolling.
Damn.
And YOUR critical thinking skills are insufficient to understand that their statement doesn’t imply that she lied?
Damn.
Totenberg said that Roberts asked the justices to wear a mask, and Gorsuch didn’t, and Sotomayor then chose to participate remotely.
All of that is a lie. From memory Totenberg very carefully worded said that Roberts never required masks. But Roberts said today, he never required masks on the bench. Totenberg in her fake report never claimed Sotomayor would be in person under any circumstance. That is your imagination. Exactly what Totenberg was going for, but never actually said in her elaborate lie.
An old, obese, diabetic, should avoid groups. Especially if options exist to work remotely.
NPR, Nina Totenberg and MOST ALL of the liberal “media” today are: Communists.
See…the most recent opinion piece in Washington Post: “As one Joe builds, another Joe destroys”
Really???
As if Joe Manchin is the one destroying “democracy”???????
These “media” people are Communists. They are NOT “journalists.”
Journalism is dead in American media. Stick a fork in it.
When the media says “destroying Democracy” what they really mean is destroying “Democrat Party”….
BACK TO THE FUTURE
Let’s get back to the basics; back to the fundamentals.
NPR is unconstitutional.
Taxation for NPR is unconstitutional.
Nowhere does the Constitution provide for regulation to establish NPR.
Nowhere does the Constitution provide for the taxation of Americans in order to fund NPR.
NPR is yet another item on the centuries long list of failures, and malicious crimes of high office, of the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MANIFEST TENOR
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
________________
AD LIBITUM
“…[Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please:…”
“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“Every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”- ‘1984,’ George Orwell
I care not for those who inhabit the realm of FAKE media and am not surprised that they are toadies on this FAKE story. Then, too, there is someone like McCaskill who is quick to pick up on FAKE and, in true sycophant style, repeat FAKE as fact!
Ms. Totenberg is a notorious partisan and a liar.
And we (taxpayers) pay her salary.
Lefties like to talk about “fake news”, but they rarely fess up when they are caught lying to us (especially when lying on our dime).
Ugly people, but worse ugly, dishonest people.
Just look at the mendacity of our Lefty posters on this blog.
Not true. Nina Totenberg is the most honest. She only reports on legal affairs, not politics. Usually just SCOTUS. NPR is super woke, but Ms Totemberg is the best of the lot.
She just perpetrated a lie, a hoax and STOOD by her reporting. The best of the best. Not even close.
In 1972 Nina Totenberg was fired for plagiarism from the National Observer—
If you won’t wear a mask you are not up to task!
Basically, journalists resort to outright fabrication and lying in order to shape public opinion for political purposes.
The truth is not going to over reach the lie.
At least Gorsuch and Sotomayor appear to have a good working relationship, and that she came to his defense. Perhaps they will be friends, like Scalia and Bader Ginsburg.
It’s sad that such a friendship would be unexpected. It does seem to be getting harder today.