Gayus Tambunan: SBY Adopts A "Hands-On" Approach...

There is a limit to the "ummming" and "ahhhhing" that one's constituents can take before they start to get fidgety and demand a more hands-on approach to end what appears to be a never-ending lurch from one crisis to another. There is probably also a point that a president reaches where they can no longer look at themselves in the mirror without being horrified at their own incompetence. So, in many respects it is a "no-brainer" that Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (or SBY to the masses) has decided to tell the nation that he has issued 12 presidential instructions and appointed the Vice President as his point man on the Gayus case.

Yet, the more hands on approach runs counter to the president's preference of the past. The president avoided getting involved in the shenanigans that saw two Corruption Eradication Commission commissioners investigated on fabricated evidence because he did not want to be seen to be interfering in the application of the prevailing laws and regulations. Yet, in this case he seems to think that it is time to meddle and sort things out.

Although his meddling is really an attempt to look like he is doing something without really doing anything at all. It is, for those of you familiar with the term, a "Clayton's Presidency"; the presidency you have when you are not having a presidency.

SBY has instructed law enforcement to cooperate. He has instructed law enforcement to engage the KPK in a more pro-active way in investigating the cases that have not already been investigated by the police. Oops, sorry Mr. President, but aren't the police implicated in some of these cases, and wouldn't having the police in charge of some of these investigations be a conflict of interest that is not all that different to letting the fox have the keys to the hen house? The KPK should be handling all these cases and the KPK must be given the mandate to re-open and re-investigate, if they so desire, any and all cases of their choosing. Anything short of this leaves you exposed to charges of favouritism and interfering in the drive to eradicate corruption.

One of the "biggies" that the president put forward was that it was time to adopt a reverse burden of proof. Simply, this means that the burden is no longer on the prosecution to prove the case, but the burden shifts to the accused to prove that they did not commit the crime that they stand accused of. The question that people should have of the president is where do you want to stop the reversal of the burden of proof? Is this just for corruption cases or is the intent to just reverse the presumption of innocence in favour of a presumption of guilt until such time as the accused can prove their innocence?

As a matter of interest, Mr President, how much smoke is needed to reverse this burden of proof? For example, if a citizen says that a bribe was demanded and then paid would this be sufficient to trigger the reversal and the accused receiver of the bribe have to prove they did not make the demand and accept the money or goods? What happens if someone accuses the president of having acquired wealth during a stint in the army from illicit means? Would the president then be required to prove the origin of their wealth? Is it not the case that the wealth reports that elected and appointed officials in government must complete designed for this purpose.

Reversing the burden of proof is a double-edged sword and a very slippery slope. In any event, one must ask whether a reversal of the burden of proof would have made any difference in this case?

But I digress.

The 12 Presidential Instructions in a nutshell are:

1. The National Police, Attorney General, and the Ministry of Law and Human Rights are to expedite the resolution of the Gayus case;
2. Increase the synergy between the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK) and the Legal Mafia Eradication Unit. And, the KPK to become more involved in cases not yet "handled" by the police;
3. Performance audits of all those involved in the Gayus case;
4. All the companies mentioned in the case to date are to be investigated;
5. Reverse the burden of proof;
6. Relevant agencies are to search for, locate, and repatriate all state assets including any money obtained corruptly;
7. All officials who have violated the prevailing laws and regulations are to be punished accordingly (within a week);
8. Restructuring of all organisations and agencies that have been found wanting throughout the Gayus case;
9. Review and reform of work systems to ensure that future failures of this kind do not occur again;
10. The president to receive written reports on the progress of the implementation of these instructions;
11. Progress reports are to be made public so that the knows what has been done, what is being done, and what will be done with respect to the Gayus case; and
12. The Vice President is appointed to head-up the supervisory team, and the VP is to be assisted by the Legal Mafia Eradication Unit.

Just a personal note. I am not convinced that this is a more hands on approach. To me it reads as a statement to try and preserve personal public support for himself while maintaining enough distance that he is not fully hands-on and can claim later, when this does not get a positive result, that people did not do as he instructed them to and therefore it is "not my fault".

Ho hum...

Torture in Papua: What? A Trial?

The recent past has seen a number of videos of Indonesian soldiers torturing West Papuans have surfaced. One in particular, was especially graphic and gratuitous in the violence being perpetrated against the victims. The publishing of this video should have caused Indonesia significant embarrassment as it has continually claimed that Papuans for the most part want to be a part of Indonesia and that Papua is far less "restive" and "separatist" than the media portray it to be.

Unfortunately, the acute embarrassment that Indonesia feigned at the time passed very quickly. Suggestions that the type of brutality witnessed in the video was unacceptable and that the authorities would investigate fully and prosecute the perpetrators to the full extent of the law were greeted with some degree of skepticism . And, this skepticism has been proven to be justified.

Three Indonesian soldiers have gone on trial for their respective roles in the torture. However, they have not been charged with any offenses relating the physical abuse, the torture, that they committed. Instead they have been charged with disobeying orders.

At a military court hearing in Jayapura the reasons for the charge were laid out in the following terms:

1. Aside from the video there is no evidence that the three committed any offenses against the victims
2. The victims refused to submit any statements to the court.

The maximum punishment that could be imposed on the three is 30 months in a military prison.

To suggest that the trial is a whitewash of another dirty chapter in Indonesia's occupation of West Papua is an understatement. The outrages committed against the Papuans rival those committed against the people of Timor Leste. The difference, sadly, is that the UN was complicit in the integration of West Papua into the Republic of Indonesia through its participation in the fraud that was the "Act of Free Choice". It is estimated that almost one-fifth of the West Papuan population have perished during this often bloody occupation.

Yet, any serious consideration of Indonesia's ability to address human rights crimes must note that, the despite the enactment of a human rights law and the establishment of a human rights court, has been very, very, very poor. The President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY), is a former general and a man with many skeletons in his closet that for the most part he has been given a pass on because of the promise he offered for change when elected to the presidency. However, he is also the president that promised a grieving nation that those responsible for the assassination of Munir in 2004 would be brought to justice.

So, the suggestion that the Papuan victims of these more recent outrages would see justice was more "omong kosong". This trial and the litany of failures throughout the SBY first, and now second, terms as president highlight that the President is not in control of the running of his own administration. The "reformasi" (or reformation) period in Indonesia has been like watching a wayang performance where you can clearly see the puppets but never see the puppet master (dalang).

But, I digress. The point is a simple one: for Indonesia, like any other country, to move forward it must face up to the ugliness of its past with respect to the violations of human rights that have been perpetrated against Indonesians. Furthermore, there is a need to not only acknowledge that these outrages are continuing in the present, but to be pro-active in ensuring that they stop.

Free West Papua!

Thus endeth today's rant and rail.

Legislating Student Study Time...

As a teacher it would be a very positive development if students would study for at least two hours a day in addition to the six or so hours they spend at school. The reality is that students need to be inspired to do this. However, the Depok City Council has decided that the best way to get students to study is to pass a city ordinance (by law) that mandates students must study for two hours between the hours of 6pm and 8pm. The ordinance requires that students also spend some of this time studying the history of Depok.

It is hardly surprising that the driving force behind such a law is none other than one of the wives of Tifatul Sembiring (TitS), Sri Rahayu. Obviously, there is some family competition here as to who can garner the most coverage for the promotion of ineffective legislation. Rahayu's argument is that Indonesians must accept that to be a scholarly nation they have to ingrain study into the culture of the masses. If they won't come willingly, then we will legislate to make it happen.

There are a couple of problems with the legislation. There is no Depok history curriculum in place. This curriculum will not be in place until at least 2012. More importantly, the ordinance does not include any sanctions for failure to comply. Herein lies the problem. If students are not inspired or inclined to study then they won't, particularly when they know that they will not be punished for not doing it. And, parents need not fear the long arm of the Depok ordinance if they too cannot be punished for not forcing their children to study.

What would be interesting is if the ordinance included provisions to set up the education police. The education police would be granted the authority to randomly visit homes of school-age children and check that they are at home and doing their homework. The ordinance would even be a little scary if the education police then had the power to impose on-the-spot fines or arrest children they found wandering out on the streets or in malls and send them to "reform schools" for the truanting and delinquent type.

The ordinance goes on to say that the community is obligated to create an environment that is conducive to studying. I wonder if this means that Mosques will not be able to have loud calls to prayer or Koran recitals during the hours of 6pm to 8pm?

Unfortunately, the ordinance is a waste of time and has been a waste of taxpayer Rupiah as there has simply been no consideration given to enforcement. The standard problem of any piece of legislation at any level of government is enforcement. If no thought is given to enforcement and no provisions are put into place allowing for enforcement or compliance to occur, then compliance will just not happen.

As an educator, I want to see children learn, I want to see children gain the knowledge they require to be successful, I want to see children contribute now and in the future, and I want to know that they have been inspired to learn. But, this ordinance is not the way to create a nation of learners.

Gayus Tambunan & A Sense of Humour...

When one is facing some time in the 'big house' it is important to maintain a sense of humour in facing such circumstances. Gayus Tambunan, the tax officer at the centre of a corruption scandal that touches a lot of the big names in Indonesian politics and business, in his final plea to the South Jakarta District Court asked to be made a member of the expert staff of the Chief of Police.

His plea also suggested if not the Chief of Police then he could produce equally excellent outcomes as an expert staff member at either the Office of the Attorney General or at the Office of the Head of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

With a bit of luck Gayus will see the inside of a jail cell for the crimes he has committed. By his own admission he is a corruptor. Hopefully, this time he will be afforded the opportunity to stare at the walls for 23 hours a day rather than enjoy jaunts to the tennis or overseas to Singapore, Thailand, Macau, or Mainland China.

The rest of the plea focused on how he was but a bit player, a small fish, in the corruption scheme and he fully supports the president, SBY, in his drive to eradicate corruption from the Republic of Indonesia. The cynic in me says, "of course you do!" Let's face it, you have been caught. If you had not been caught out then in all likelihood you would still be trying to fleece big business using the schemes that made you so much money in the first place.

To suggest that you have now seen the error of your ways and support the anti-corruption drive is nothing more than a desperate cry from a desperate man. Where was your support for the president's anti-corruption drive when you were bribing judges, police and prison guards?

Nevertheless, the funny in the plea was the request to be made an expert staff member of the Chief of Police. However, Gayus seemed serious in his claim that if he was made an expert staff member of the Chief of Police then he would be instrumental in eradicating corruption within two years. Gayus, not only do you have a sense of humour, but you also have a wonderful imagination. Seriously, Gayus, what makes you think you can achieve what so many others have failed to achieve since 1998?

Sri Mulyani Indrawati went hammer and tong to ensure that corruption and the culture of corruption was torn down in her spheres of influence when she was a minister. Her reward was to be hung out to dry by the president. In a shrewd move she is now at the world bank (there is more than one way to skin a cat - that is the saying, right?).

With a bit of luck Gayus you will receive a sentence that will afford you many years to think about your fantasy. Alternatively, you could write a confessional, tell all, name names autobiography about your 15 minutes of fame as a corrupt tax official that titillated the odd Indonesian with your international travel itinerary from your pre-conviction detention days.

Gun Violence: Enough of a Reason to Restrict Gun Ownership?

The Constitution of the United States of America provides in the Second Amendment the right of her citizens to "keep and bear arms". The US Supreme Court has addressed the issue a number of times and has affirmed that the right extends beyond guns being kept solely for use in a militia (see District of Columbia v. Heller). I do not claim to be a US constitutional law expert, or even a constitutional law expert.

What follows is commentary in light of the recent shooting deaths of six people in Tuscon Arizona recently. The attack occurred at a "meet & greet" the constituents event being held by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

I am anti-guns. I do not see the use of them. I have fired the odd gun in the past, but it is just not my thing. I do not enjoy guns. I know many people who do enjoy guns and who make a good case for owning one or two or more. I am not anti-guns in the sense of law enforcement having them. Perhaps I am anti-guns in terms of how easy they are to acquire and how devastating they can be when used for illegal purposes.

I cannot imagine that the founding fathers or the early political masters of the US had in mind the sort of gun violence that afflicts the US now. I am almost certain that the founding fathers did not envisage that the right to own guns would become a right to wreak havoc, despair and death on innocents; men, women and children.

My condolences to the families of those who lost loved ones in this tragedy: U.S. District Judge John Roll, 63; Christina Greene, 9; Giffords aide Gabe Zimmerman, 30; Dorothy Morris, 76; Dorwin Stoddard, 76; and Phyllis Scheck, 79.U.S. District Judge John Roll, 63; Christina Greene, 9; Giffords aide Gabe Zimmerman, 30; Dorothy Morris, 76; Dorwin Stoddard, 76; and Phyllis Scheck, 79. I also offer my best wishes for a speedy and full recovery to all those who were injured in this instance of madness and senseless violence.

I have been reading with interest that there are connections being made to the "vitriol" and over-the-top rhetoric, which includes references to gun violence, in the political debate. In my mind this is an associated, but secondary issue. The focus must remain on guns and the ease of access to them.

I wonder if there would be a significant drop in gun-related violence if the rules governing gun ownership were further tightened to a degree that they became incredibly onerous? Or, would this just serve to promote a black market for weapons allowing gun violence to persist?

I would be happy to live in a world without guns. Yet, I am a realist. If we did not have guns then we would kill ourselves with whatever weapons were available. yet, it would probably take a lot longer to kill six people with a bow and arrow in comparison to getting off 20 rounds from an automatic handgun.

Hopefully, this tragedy will spur some debate about guns and gun ownership that will generate a whole lot of bipartisan support that will ultimately see the rules tightened even further. Maybe, it is time that politicians and others stopped trying to hide behind some universal and blanket right allegedly secured by the founding fathers and had a little bit of a think about what the founding fathers were really concerned about when it came to the right to keep and bear arms.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I submit that the founding fathers and the early political statesmen of the Republic did not have the attempted murder of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in mind when confirming the Second Amendment as part of a "Bill of Rights".

SBY and the English Language...

It has been a while since I have felt like writing a post about SBY, but not being one to pass up an opportunity to "bang on" about what a fraud the man has turned out to be as president, I figure that this story is as good as any to get started on. The president's spokesperson for international affairs, Teuku Faizasyah, has had to defend the president's use of English in a speech to an Indonesian audience at the Stock Exchange building recently.

There are a few legal issues to be considered here in light of Law No. 24 of 2009 (which you can read about here). However, in a more practical sense the real issue is why does the president need to use English at all in the context of a speech on the economy to an Indonesian audience? Admittedly, there will be the odd loan or borrowed term from English that is similar or even the same in Indonesian. Yet, on the whole, most English words, even some of the loan and borrowed ones, have Indonesian equivalents.

But back to the gist of the story, according to Faizasyah, the president felt the need to use English as a means of clarifying some difficult economic concepts. Now, with all due respect, he is making a speech at the stock exchange and on the whole the majority of those employed there are going to have a whole lot more knowledge of all things economy-related than the president. So, exactly what was he trying to clarify? The idea that the speech was intended for a broader audience is not borne out by those in attendance.

The majority of the speech was in Indonesian and some English words were thrown in. So, to suggest that the words were used to remind people of the foreign roots of the concepts is a furphy at best. At worst it suggests that Indonesia is behind the game when it comes to all things economy-related and therefore the English has to be used. If I was Indonesian, I would probably be offended with the suggestion that I was not as smart as those economists in the West.

Perhaps the real reason that the president uses English in these speeches is that he feels that he is intellectually inferior to his audience and he is trying to mask that intellectual inferiority by pretending to be knowledgeable in the use of the English language.

Or maybe he is angling for a job on the world stage. After all, it was not all that long ago that the Indonesian Democrat Party was suggesting that the president was a serious contender for the job of United Nations Secretary General. So, maybe the use of English is an attempt to convince people that he really is an international statesman.

In any event, there does not appear to be a legitimate or even an arguable, reason for the president to use English in the speech he gave at the Indonesian Stock Exchange.

I wonder if in hindsight Indonesians are beginning to wonder whether SBY was the right choice for a second term as President of the Republic of Indonesia?

KPK to PDI-P, Bugger Off!

Unfortunately, it would never happen! But, that is probably because I am not a member of the KPK. If it was me, then as soon as the PDI-P delegation turned up they would be turned away with a: "On ya bikes, and get the hell out of my office!" Closely followed with, "I am trying to do some serious work, you people down the DPR building in Senayan should consider trying it some day...work that is!"

Seriously, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) names some PDI-P legislators, former and current, as suspects in a bribery case, and the PDI-P thinks that as a party it has a right to interrogate the KPK and demand some answers (and presumably a copy of the current case brief).

It would seem that the PDI-P beef with the KPK is why the KPK made a public announcement that named the PDI-P legislators as suspects. The rationale being that this is not all above board and that the KPK is being pressured, politically, to rush to judgment. This rationale is premised loosely on prevailing laws and regulations, at least the PDI-P interpretation of them, namely: that the receivers of bribes are secondary level suspects and the main suspects have to be those giving the bribe.

The best part of the PSI-P argument for not naming the former and current PDI-P legislators as suspects is that state officials who have received bribes but pay that money back cannot be guilty of a crime. I am sure that their will be plenty of Indonesians who find this truly offensive to their sense of right and wrong, and to the idea of justice. The whole idea that corruption is only corruption if you get caught, and then if you are caught you can absolve the original crime by paying back any monies or assets you received. Simply, if you are a state official what have you got to lose. You take the bribe, if you get caught you pay it back. If you do not get caught, then you just live it up with your new found wealth.

Too sad for words. It is no wonder that Megawati and the PDI-P have fared so badly in recent elections and lost the popularity of the "little people" or wong cilik that the party once so dominated.

Another classic PDI-P quotable moment was provided by Trimedya Panjaitan. Panjaitan suggested that the KPK was being politicised and that the KPK had only named the PDI-P lawmakers because the PDI-P was a successful opposition party, and the KPK was being used to undermine the PDI-P. He then goes on to suggest that the visit was not intended to interfere with the investigation of KPK's affairs. Uh huh! Whatever he is smoking, I need some of that!

PDI-P really needs to rethink its game if it is to walk the walk as an opposition party instead of doing a poor job on trying to talk the talk, and make that enough to sway voters to their party.

Ho hum...

Facebook -- Nude Photos -- Defamation?

This is not an only in Indonesia story as it the 'art' of sexting and sending naughty pictures of oneself happens pretty regularly so it seems. It has been reported that Tiger Woods asked at least one of his mistresses to send him a naughty photo or two. I guess he has more than one mobile phone, otherwise the odds of getting caught out by the wife seem a little on the 'not worth it side'.

Anyways, it has been reported that a 26-year-old civil servant encouraged his 17-year-old girlfriend to send a naughty picture of herself to him. She obliged. The nude photo then found itself uploaded onto a Facebook page. Apparently, the report was that he defamed her. I am not sure that this is the right 'complaint' to be lodging with the police. It would seem that the new pornography law and the information and electronic transactions law would be a little more appropriate. Considering the age of the 'victim' in this case there could be a criminal code angle to explore as well, perhaps along with some child protection issues.

Nevertheless, the nude photo is only part of the problem. It seems that the pair had a sexual relationship and decided that they needed to take some mobile phone footage of their encounters. The boyfriend has been using this footage as a means of keeping the girl his girlfriend by telling her that if she leaves him then he will show the footage to her parents.

Maybe the moral of the story is: do not voluntarily or knowingly allow yourself to be filmed in compromising positions and don't be tempted to send naked photos of yourself to supposed trusted confidantes. Sometimes things just do not work out.

Homosexuality -- Not Normal -- In Queensland

Queensland is a bright and sunny place that is known to be good one day and perfect the next. However, it would seem that it is neither bright and sunny not good one day and perfect the next when it comes to the adoption of children by same-sex couples. Reforms to the adoption regime in Queensland is set to continue a ban against same-sex (homosexual / lesbian) couples from adopting children.

This was a pleasing development for Dorothy Pratt, the Independent MP for Nanango. In Pratt's view, homosexuality is not normal. I am guessing she also believes that homosexuality and lesbianism is a disease that can be cured. It is a sad state of affairs when we discriminate against a sector of the community based on their sexuality with respect to their ability to be parents.

The first and foremost considerations should be that of the child. Therefore, if this is the paramount right, then the consideration moves to whether the applicant(s) to be would make a good parent(s). It is a sad indictment when righteous do-gooders hide behind the idea that God ordains only parental relationships with children that involve a married mother and father. The idea that a child cannot be given a balanced view of the world with two fathers or two mothers is naive at best. The reality is that children can and will have interaction with role models outside of their immediate families.

The law is alive and is constantly changing. So, as we move into the brave new world of the future, it seems almost certain that at some point Queensland will have cause to revisit this issue. And, perhaps at that time all Queenslanders will be given the right to adopt where they are deemed to be suitable parent material.

Thus endeth the sermon for Friday.

Sex Discrimination -- Sexy Uniforms at the Rocket Bar

Above is the Facebook picture and below is the offending dress.

It is interesting how news is written.

A young Bosnian Muslim woman who managed to get herself a job at the Rocket Bar in Mayfair and then quit after just eight days has won a £3,000 damages payout because she was made to wear a figure hugging red dress. According to the woman, Fata Lemes (photos courtesy of here), the dress made her feel like a prostitute.

It seems that the Rocket Bar has two uniforms; a summer one and a winter one. The winter one being a loose-fitting black deal and the summer one being the offending red dress that was the subject of the claim. Lemes was so concerned about the look of the dress that she could not bring herself to where it for a shift. However, she had no qualms about getting a picture in it.

The interesting part is that she is reported to have said: "I was brought up a Muslim and am not used to wearing sexually attractive clothes. I might as well be naked in that dress." I guess the key words here are "am not used to wearing" because that must be construed to mean, it is uncommon for me but I have been known to wear the odd sexy outfit.

The social networking phenomenon that is Facebook means that if you are on it then someone somewhere will know who you are and be privy to what you have posted on Facebook. This is the case for Lemes, who has posted pictures of herself wearing clothes that seem far more revealing than the red dress.

Now, for the interesting news bit. The Central London Employment Tribunal rejected her claim for £17,500 as 'manifestly absurd', and was explicit in stating that the dress was not revealing or indecent. However, they did make an award to her based on sexual discrimination in the work place. It seems that the Rocket Bar did not make their male employees where an alternate uniform in the summer months.

Is there a lesson in all of this? Yes, make sure that your male and female employees are treated equally across the board, at least in terms of uniforms.

Circumcision in Australia -- Legal?

I was reading an interesting article earlier today and thought it was worthy of a post. Not quite sure how it fits in with my recent posts on alleged Indonesian criminals and the underage marriage and the alleged subsequent abuse of Manohara, I am guessing it doesn't. However, circumcision is something that we have thought about with young Will.

We talked about it with the doctor while we were in Indonesia. I am not sure 'talked about' is the right phrase, as we broached the subject with the doctor and his response was, "no need!" And, that was the end of the conversation. We have not talked about it with the doctor here and to be perfectly honest we have not talked about it between ourselves either.

So, onto the post.

Circumcision was a routine procedure when I was born. Estimates suggest that the rate of circumcision around the time of my birth was somewhere around 90%. Generally, the reasons for the procedure were health based. Simply, it was healthier to be without a foreskin than to be with one. It has only been in more recent times that the argument has moved to the rights of the child, serious questioning of the supposed health benefits of circumcision, and whether the "mutilation" is warranted. I must say that I have never felt mutilated myself and harbor no ill will to my parents for allowing the procedure to be done.

The current rate of circumcision in Australia is about 12%. The numbers are approximate. However, it is suggested that a great number of the circumcisions that still occur are for religious reasons. Religions where circumcision is required include Judaism and Islam.

The debate not only revolves around the physical and health implications of the procedure but also the legal implications. The recent discussion on this point by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute says that the criminal and civil law with respect to circumcision is far from certain, and in fact circumcision may abuse the rights of the child.

Circumcision is the general term in the sense that the mere utterance of the word is recognized by most However, in legal terms, the correct term for where problems may arise is 'non-therapeutic male circumcision'.

The main concerns revolve around the physical loss and then the social and psychological effects of having one's foreskin removed. The issues though are more interesting in that there is some debate as to whether circumcision is in fact an assault or wounding or maybe even grievous bodily harm.

If the argument is accepted that the procedure constitutes any one of the actions noted in the previous sentence, then it is unclear as to whether a parent could in fact provide consent to allow their child to be harmed. Nevertheless, the jury is still out on whether the procedure is in reality something that causes an injury in the strict legal sense.

So, is Will to be circumcised? The jury is still out on this one as well.

This post probably lends itself to a gratuitous posting of a penis picture...but I won't go there.