SOME REPORTER: Could I read you a letter from yesterday’s Australian? It said ‘Actions of corporate dishonesty and custodial sentencing. Pity the same rules don’t apply to politicians.’ What’s your response?

JULIA GILLARD: Well, I can understand why people feel unhappy about the Government’s decision to introduce a price on carbon. But we took a decision that in the end it was more important to be economically responsible, and more important to maintain the climate in the long term than it was to avoid embarrassing the Prime Minister.

SOME REPORTER: So honesty comes a distant second in this?

JULIA GILLARD: Well, Some Reporter, when I made that statement, in the election campaign, I had not the slightest inkling that there would ever be any intention to change this. But obviously when circumstances change, governments do change their opinions, and that is actually the responsible course of action.

SOME REPORTER: You say you had no inkling it was likely to change, but Scientists knew that there’d been a blow-out, didn’t it?

JULIA GILLARD: Yes. We certainly were aware the costs were increasing, and there was no secrecy about this, Some Reporter. The, the pre-election climate outlook statement revealed that there had been a substantial increase in the cost of the carbon, and obviously since the election the Government has had the opportunity to consider this blow-out — to look not just at the current quadrennium, but to look at the long term — and has made the decision that the price had to be applied.

SOME REPORTER: So it didn’t bother to look at the long term before the election?

JULIA GILLARD: Well, we, we were looking at the long term before the election. But obviously in a budget context you can focus even more directly on the long term, and that’s what we’ve done.

SOME REPORTER: It sounds as though you can’t believe anything anyone says in an election if they follow those rules.

JULIA GILLARD: Well, Some Reporter…

SOME REPORTER: Unless it coincides with the budget.

JULIA GILLARD: Some reporter, look, I can understand your scorn.

SOME REPORTER: Mm.

JULIA GILLARD: And I can certainly understand the dismay of — of some electors. I can obviously understand that. But there are all sorts of values here. One value is obviously keeping commitments. But another important value is economic responsibility, and another — a third important value is solidarity with the team.

And in the end I think voters expect above all else that governments will be economically responsible, and certainly I think economic responsibility has been the chief hallmark of the Gillard Government.

JULIA GILLARD: Well, Some Reporter, again let me say that I can understand why people are dismayed by this decision. But in the end governments have to balance a whole lot of objectives. And sometimes you have to choose between a range of difficult, even unpalatable, alternatives.

And we could stick with the pre-election position. And further blow out the cost to the climate. Or we could make a change. And we thought on balance it was best to take the economically responsible position now.

SOME REPORTER: On balance wouldn’t it have been better to be honest before the election? Acknowledge it had blown out to $1.3 billion and make the changes thenJULIA GILLARD: Well, Some Reporter, we did acknowledge in the pre-election financial outlook statement that there had been a very significant blow-out in the cost to the climate. I think the, the first year cost of the climate had blown out by some fifty per cent in the pre-election financial outlook statement, and obviously there had been a commensurate blow-out in the forward estimates.

SOME REPORTER: Now, Wayne Swan also knew the figures were phony, didn’t he? In fact he said the parameters of the Carbon Tax will not change. In other words, he committed himself as much as you did.

And yet he’s led the charge now to break the promise. What do you think of that? This is the bloke who wants to be prime minister.

JULIA GILLARD: Some Reporter, again, I can understand your dwelling on this. But, but sometimes governments have to choose between a range of unpalatable alternatives. Now…

SOME REPORTER: One of the unpalatable alternatives is telling the truth, presumably.

JULIA GILLARD: We set up this Carbon Tax back in March of last year. Thinking that it was going to cost $440 million.

SOME REPORTER: You knew by the election it was $1.3 billion.

JULIA GILLARD: We, we discovered in September-October that it was going to cost a lot more. We made a decision in a budget context that the best thing we could do for the long-term health of the climate, and indeed for the long-term health of the climate, to change the thresholds.?

SOME REPORTER: And con the people through the election.

JULIA GILLARD: Look, we, what we, what we said to people back then was what we honestly believed to be the case. And…

JULIA GILLARD: But, but Some Reporter, the point I make is that there was no deception about the cost blow-out. The cost blow-out was there for all to see in the pre-election financial outlook.

SOME REPORTER: The deception’s about what it meant.

JULIA GILLARD: Well, Some Reporter, the thing is this: obviously when you have time to reflect and consider these things, as governments obviously do in a budget context, you’ve got to make a decision. And the decision was to be economically responsible.

SOME REPORTER: Now, you opposed that decision. Did you at any point consider resigning?

JULIA GILLARD: Not seriously.

SOME REPORTER: But you considered it?

JULIA GILLARD: Oh, look, when you tell me that I should resign, Some Reporter, on national television, obviously the thought goes through your head. But as I said, there are many important values here. One is keeping commitments. Another is economic responsibility. And a third is solidarity with the team.

And it’s been a very good team. It’s been a very good Government. And in the end I think people don’t have a simple-minded approach to this. They understand that governments have got to balance a range of different objectives, and probably economic responsibility is the most important one.

SOME REPORTER: But your word’s not worth much any more, is it? A Julia Gillard commitment now will rouse horse laughs.

JULIA GILLARD: Well, Some Reporter, look, these are the risks you run, obviously. And I guess I would simply ask people to appreciate the totality of the circumstances in which governments operate.

SOME REPORTER: The Productivity Commission has suggested that Australians who can afford a price on carbon should be allowed, or even obliged, to opt out of the public electricity network. Is the Government going to do that?

JULIA GILLARD: That’s not something that the Government plans to do.

SOME REPORTER: Is that an iron-clad, rock solid commitment?

JULIA GILLARD: Some Reporter, I, I’m not…

SOME REPORTER: You see the problem you’ve got?

JULIA GILLARD: Yeah, look, I understand that, Some Reporter. But the point I’m making is that when circumstances change, governments change their view. And that’s not mendacity. That’s responsibility.

SOME REPORTER: The circumstances that changed was you won the election.

JULIA GILLARD: Well, Some Reporter, we, we are considering the long term health of our climate in a budget context. And we believed on very full consideration that the best thing we could do to protect and preserve our climate — a climate which The Liberals still pledged to abolish.

SOME REPORTER: You said repeatedly in the election that the Government would not price carbon

Is that a rock solid, iron-clad commitment?

JULIA GILLARD: Well, yes it is.

SOME REPORTER: You see, at this point we cue the horse laughs, don’t we?

JULIA GILLARD: Well, well, Some Reporter, as I said, I can understand your scorn. But I think that the citizenry of Australia know that governments sometimes have to choose between a range of difficult alternatives. And in this case we had to choose between strictly keeping that commitment that I gave, and the long term health of the economy, and the long term health of the Climate.

And we chose the long term health of the economy and the Climate.

SOME REPORTER: Julia Gillard, we thank you.

JULIA GILLARD: Thanks  Some Reporter.

————————————————————————————————————-

ok… I have a confession, I didn’t write this… in fact apart from changing the words in italics and the names “Julia Gillard”, “Some Reporter” and references to Labor, the rest is actually a word for word transcript. I admit I did change the meaning, by swapping Medicare Safety Net for Climate Change.

As for the original, the actual person who broke the election promise, well that was one Tony Abbott.  See this is a transcript of an interview from April 17, 2005.  ( Sunday Programme with Lauri Oakes ) Well after Howard decided that there were “non-core promises” at election time anyway.

Food for thought next time Tony Abbott rants on about broken promises….

The destruction of a wind turbine in a North Ayrshire wind farm.

From my “limited” knowledge, I would say that the brake on the Turbine failed in the extreme conditions, resulting in the prop being free to spin.  In the incredibly high winds, the turbine would have got so hot and fast the engine caught fire.

Whilst the blade could handle the speed of the wind, the small fact of physics that heat gets generated as the turbine spins electromagnets means that in extreme winds they always have to shut turbines down.

A major set back for wind energy…..  um no.

Lets compare a wind turbine where “Fire engines attended the blaze which died out after a matter of minutes at the wind farm situated above Ardrossan” and the clean up cost, would be the replacement cost of the Turbine and some grass seed….to say…

this…

the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster where reactors 1, 2 and 3 experienced full meltdown. Unlike the Turbine fire “As of August 2011, the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant is still leaking low levels of radiation and areas surrounding it could remain uninhabitable for decades due to high radiation”.  The clean up cost could be over 100billion dollars in the next few years.

Yep, lets all get up in arms because one wind turbine had a failure….

Poor Barnaby really didn’t do well in science did he.

I guess, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Argon, Methane, LPG ( that is the gas that we have built a large chunk of the economy on, one that we add the smell to ) don’t count. Oh and every other gas as well….

Perhaps he would be happy to sit in a room full of Radon for example.

But Barnaby isn’t alone in this…  eg.. Abbott earlier this year.

Allowing politicians to make such statements is not just indulgent it is culpable.

As an aside, but within the same context of nut job statements.  If you stand up in the Gallery at Parliament and scream out Democracy is dead and A: Don’t Get Shot even entering the building, B: Don’t realise that Parliament is sitting as scheduled, and C: Don’t remember you will get a chance to vote in the next two years, you are an idiot.

My children are going to be the benefactors from this legislation. No it won’t reduce the temperature in the the short or even medium term. It is designed to halt the rise that is already coming.

– Update –

Dec 7 2011 Via Twitter: @Barnaby_Joyce Carbon tax working already coldest start to summer in years. See just talking changes the weather.

This tweet would be funny, or ironic even, but in light of what he has said before, I fear he actually thinks this!

Whilst I thought iphones were evil, it was because they were overpriced and under featured.

But it turns out they are <grandpa simpson voice>evil.. I tell you, evil evil iphones</grandpa simpson voice>… so evil that the man that “invented” them must be punished.

Surely if you are going to protest at the funeral of this person you are going straight to hell as well for using his device..

What next, eating shellfish or cloth of two different fabrics, it will be the ruin of us all..

]]> http://www.wolfcat.com.au/randomrants/2011/10/postid-2010/feed/ 0 http://www.wolfcat.com.au/randomrants/2011/10/postid-2004/ http://www.wolfcat.com.au/randomrants/2011/10/postid-2004/#comments Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:10:05 +0000 Wolf http://www.wolfcat.com.au/randomrants/?p=2004 Now, I don’t want to harp on or anything… but hey Fairfax…

“Fairfax’s Metropolitan Media division is to abandon its controversial autoplay policy from September ahead of a major expansion of its online video offering.” ( AdNews 21 April 2011 )

Perhaps you are using a different calendar to the rest of Australia. Or perhaps because you did not specify a particular year, you meant 2015?

Perhaps you thought, hey lets make a date so far in the “internet” future no one will remember.

But it is now October 2011, your autoplay ads ensure that if I come across a story I never finish reading it, I just go elsewhere. ( Update: Nov 3 – nope Autoplay videos are still there!)

Oh and while your at it, don’t have video stories when it is just a radio interview and all the content is covered in the text anyway.

The autoplay video is even MORE annoying, who thought that would be possible? When you have one of your “Live Updating” pages.  Not only do you have to hit stop once, you have to do it every 90 seconds. Oh wait no I don’t I can just go to another website.

(Oh and one more think, for the love of god, please fix your pages so that when I click “Show More Comments” please just show me more comments, don’t push me back to the top of the page and make me scroll.  Please look up the Anchor Tag in any HTML guide and use that. )

Dear Mr Crean

Now I know that we don’t live in Western Sydney and that your seat is about as safe as it gets in our current parliamentary system, so my letter and more so my vote is not of major concern.  However the actions of the Labor party in the last few weeks have seen me increasingly outraged.

I am referring to the issue of “Off-Shore Processing” for refugees.  Having seen the draft legislation that was announced today I must say that even if the Liberals had introduced this legislation I would have been as outraged.

Not specifying minimum rules for a country and then announcing  “in the national interest” will ensure that this legislation will ensure that people, those that are some of the most down trodden are treated even worse.  If the outrage over onshore processing is already at this point, what it to stop “national interest” being twisted to see valid refugees sent to places like Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, or Burma.

Any legislation that contains “The rules of natural justice do not apply” is inherently flawed. Australia not only has international obligations, we have the ability to be a world leader when it comes to showing how to be a good and moral country.

Why the Labor party feels that is not only O.k, but reasonable to waste billions of dollars on offshore processing, when countless studies have shown that onshore processing is cheaper, more cost effective and has the same result on people smuggling.  That is those that are not refugees are sent back, those that are stay.

It is a sad day for me, when Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison can claim the moral highground compared to Labor.

Labor is looking at this legislation for what could be less than 7,000 people per-annum.  This number means that it would take over 14 years to fill the MCG. This is not a flood of refugees, nor is it the major “moral issue” of our time.

I implore you as my local member to lobby internally with Labor to ensure that Australia does not go down this path.

Yours deeply concerned

( Please feel free to copy this letter and send it to your local member )

—

QUESTION:

Craig Thomson’s wife is heavily pregnant. Will you offer him a pair so that he can be at the birth of his child?

TONY ABBOTT:

Look, we’ve made it crystal clear that only in the most extraordinary circumstances will pairs be offered for the carbon tax vote. This is by far the most important vote that the Australian parliament will take in the current term of parliament and the first duty of members of parliament is to be in the parliament when critical votes are taken.

—

It was a question that deserved  a simple Yes answer.  What Abbott delivered was political speak to cover an act that is the lowest of the lows. He of course went on to claim he was taken out of context.  Sorry Mr Abbott, but where is the out of context in the above transcript.

Abbott claims to be a man that upholds family values.  Not allowing a father to attend the birth of their child, shows while he may have family values, they are more say 1050CE values, not 2011CE values.

The issue of who is involved is redundant.  The fact that Thompson’s wife is pregnant, shows that what, if anything that, happened in the past is just that for them. Further it is was and still is a private matter between them, not for I or anyone else to pass judgement on.

Labor granted Abbott a pair so he could attend anti-carbon tax rallies, showing that they can play by the rules. Yet, this form of petty politics is the norm for Mr No.

He said what he said.  If he had meant yes, he would have said it. He is able to say  “no” often enough.  But then given the Turnbull and Crean had a written document for a pairing arrangement for a funeral, this really doesn’t come as any surprise, written or verbal his words can’t be trusted.

This man is going for the top job of the country, he should be setting an example.  Showing us in part what kind of leader he would be.  Here we have a leader that shows that Work/Life Balance is not important.  I’d like to see a list of what other business in Australia could bar someone from being at this special moment.

Any business that attempted this would be dragged through the media as an outrage.  This story as it unfolds is front page on Fairfax and ABC, below the fold on News LTD and no where to be seen on the front page of the Australian. I looked across the Australian and could not see any mention on the home page, nor the national section or even the politics sections as well about this statement. It is almost as of they have an agenda. Once again, the media builds its own case as to why we need an enquiry into media.

Labor will have run the numbers before introducing the legislation.  And like the vote of no confidence that stopped Turnbull visiting the funeral of a close friend, Abbott will lose the vote on the Carbon Tax.  So a man may well miss the birth of his child, just to fit the petty mind of Abbott.

– Update –

When asked directly on Twitter would Barry O’Farrell give a pair to a father to be.. his answer was “Yes”.  Abbott’s answer still remains “Taken out of context”.

– Update 2 –

First thing this morning:

Pyne: “If they are foolish enough to schedule the vote at a time when Mr Thomson can’t be there, then that will be on their head.”  So the Government should stop functioning for a whole month until an event that can occur within a 2 week period either side of a due date occurs? Further it isn’t just one bill, it is 23 of them that make up the Carbon Tax.

“We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. No request has come in,” Mr Abbott told Channel 9.

“Obviously the birth of a child is a very important event, but so is the carbon tax.” ( what like attending a protest or sleeping through the vote on the GFC! )

Abbott has backed down.  Thompson will be offered a pair if the baby arrives during the Carbon Tax debate.  The fact that his first/gut instinct was to block shows his character, even Barry O’Farrell could say yes when asked outright.  Abbott was asked outright and couldn’t.

And in his own words later in the day…

“Finally, on the matter of Mr Craig Thomson, I just want to say that where he is concerned the most important thing is that he should give a complete explanation to the parliament about the misuse of the union credit card. Then the Prime Minister should give a complete explanation to the parliament of what she knew about the Labor Party’s loan or gift to Mr Thomson and what she thinks about the misuse of union credit cards, but if Mr Thomson wants brief absence from the parliament for the birth of his child obviously the Coalition will provide that.”

So where as yesterday it was a whole par about importance of the vote, today to get rid of the issue half a sentence.

( If text is too hard to comprehend, I recommend First Dog on the Moons Cartoon today which explains everything. )

When the High Court handed down its decision re the so called Malaysian Solution in a 6-1 judgement today Australia had a chance of moving forward again.

I won’t go into why calling anything a “solution” to a problem that doesn’t actually exist is fundamentally wrong, I’ll look with just this issue and its outcomes.

Firstly, as I have previously pointed out, Labor lost to the left in the last election.  Off shore processing isn’t going to get the votes it needs to win again. The fact that they right royally screwed up is going to lose them more, especially after today. A day when Labor could have gained ground with Abbott’s not so tacit support for Howard’s comments on work place reform.  That little thing called work choices.

Whilst Malaysia is definitely out, Manus Island looks like it is, and Nauru (possibly) needs to be tested in court, one thing is clear, offshore processing is on shaky legs.  The only reason that Nauru could now possibly survive this judgement is that only recently have they now signed the UNHCR agreement.

Of course Morrison et.al forget and certainly don’t remind people, that this decision had it been made when the Pacific Solution first came in, would have seen it cancelled.

The reasoning for this is quite simple.  The High Court ruled on Section 198A of the Migration Act.  That little bit of the Migration Act was brought in by Howard.  As it turns out,  the High Court decided who comes to this country and how they do. So while yes this is a massive failure for Labor, it is an even more massive failure for the Liberal Party.

The only possible justification would have been that Australia ran all the details of the facility on Nauru.

Even after all this we still have the questions that neither side of politics has been able to answer, that of why?

• Why do we need to process offshore if we run everything?
• Why do we need to waste so much money processing offshore if we run it all anyway?
• Why do we damage so many people, just to allow them to come to Australia anyway?

If when 10 years ago, Beazley had taken a stand when the Tampa arrived and said no, we will process onshore, perhaps Labor would be in a better position. At least they would have a moral high-ground from which to argue.

Given the similarities between the parties on this and other issues, no wonder we ended up with a hung parliament.

Process people onshore. Sure give them health checks and security checks first.  Then release them into community supported housing.  It will not only save a lot of money in the short term, but even more long term when you take into account ongoing mental health issues. This won’t win people over from the right.  But even opening Nauru ( if even possible ) at this point wont anyway.  But it will win people over from the left.

Despite so much legislation passing under this government and the ground work for the future being laid out with pricing carbon and the NBN, even this week the passing of the plain packaging for smokes legislation, they just screw up.  The biggest screw ups always seem to be when they try and out do the right. As the saying for goes, never argue with a fool in public people can’t tell the difference. When the left are heralding the High Courts judgement Labor should look not to Alan Jones, Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott but to its real heart land.

And for those that think that the last Pacific Solution fixed the problem, I’ll leave you with this graph.

Funny how during the 80’s when there was no Pacific Solution there was no boat people problem.

– Update –

Julia Gillard pres conf 1/10/11: “There are questions over the future of offshore processing arrangements that must be considered”

Labor has nothing to lose at this point. When Gillard said “The court’s ruling represented a missed opportunity”, she shows she is still missing the point.  It isn’t a missed opportunity.  It is one that can fix the issue and cut off the divisive statements from the Liberals.

Further Julia Gillards seemingly narky attack on only one of the Judges over the judgement makes no sense.  It was a 6-1 Judgement.  Picking on Justice French makes her look petty.

And from the ABC: The United Nations refugee agency says it will not be involved if the Federal Government restarts offshore processing in Papua New Guinea or Nauru.

The Pacific, or Indian Ocean Solutions are all but dead in the water.  Morrison and Abbott must be fuming at Labor for the fact that no longer can Australia process offshore because it fits an agenda that never made any sense.

Can we now stop talking about off-shore processing and start working out how to do it on the mainland.

Firstly that ad should sell something, say a product or a service, then it should make me want to get that service as soon as possible.  Certainly before I change my mind.

Why yes, I’d love an ice-cream.  And what I can use EFTPOS for it. Why all of a sudden EFTPOS felt the need for expensive TV ads and this huge placement in Flinders St Station I will never know.  Perhaps NFC is coming soon, who knows, but I digress from my need for an ice-cream.

Low and behold, just below that giant ice-cream, the one that I can purchase on EFTPOS is an ice-cream shop.

Perfect….. well it would be….

See that little yellow sign.  Small problem with that sign… yes, they don’t have EFTPOS.

Seriously who placed those ads in that location.  Why didn’t they either A: not put the ice-cream banner next to the ice-cream shop, or B: give the shop EFTPOS for the duration of the campaign.

Even better, they could have let two other shops, the two out of five there that actually have EFTPOS have a limit below $5 per transaction.  Why, because then I could have brought the cup of coffee that is in one of the other banners that is less than $5.  The one the ad says I can buy on EFTPOS, the one I can’t.

But then, what do I know.

P.S Dear staff at Flinders St Station, why do you get so upset with people taking photos all the time.

When the next day Pyne and others came to his defence, hypocrisy was the word of the day.  The excuse that was delivered was that the government is not functioning due to the Thomson crisis and that a vote needed to be taken.   Yes, of course, this is the minority government that still has managed to achieve more than Howard did in his first term.  Sorry, keep forgetting the Libs won’t allow facts like this to get in the way.

Labor don’t want to spend time on this.  Why would they? It is damaging to them, so the statement about spending time on it is completely disingenuous. The people that have been talking about this are the Libs.  A sniff of a stolen victory, for something that happened before the member was even in parliament. We wont mention “Children Overboard” which turned out to be a lie, or say, tax payers monies used on a phone card under Howard will we.

Abbott was never go to win the vote he put up.  He doesn’t have the numbers.  Trying to bribe Wilkie with a billion dollar hospital showed what he was willing to do to get power.  Wilkie didn’t go for it then, why would he know.  Oakeshott and Windsor believe in the NBN, it was the thing that got them over the line, why would they change their minds.

The result of this was that Abbott went back on his written word, stating that the situation had changed.  Not unlike for Gillard when she entered a minority government, when the situation changed. It seems reasonable for Abbott to change his mind, why can’t Gillard.

Abbott is playing grubby politics for the aim of getting power. Yet for all his grandstanding, the latest Newspoll has him at  Approval 36 (-3) Disapproval 55 (+3). Gillards numbers are about the same.  Massive disapproval of both leaders shows that people are over it.

Even if the Libs do succeed in getting rid of Thomson ( doubtful in the next 12months ), the situation for Abbott would be no different.  Why, because unless a full election is called, it will still be a hung parliament.  So, a 75/75 parliament means nothing has changed, so we end up with an election. In that case the Greens will still hold the balance of power in the Senate. Abbott wouldn’t be able to pass much of the legislation he would want to regardless. Although, to me it seems most of the policies seem to be No, we will roll back, No, No, and No.

Turnbull and Crean missed out on going to the funeral of a close friend for no reason, because despite the grandstanding nothing did or was ever going to come of it.   This behaviour will come back to bite Abbott.  Maybe not before he gets into power though.

– Update –

Another day, and more grub.  This time a combination of News Ltd, the Telegraph, Abbott and very very lazy journalists.

When Jay Rosen said on Lateline on Thursday night “A much heavier emphasis on fact-checking – calling out lies and distortions – would be a good start “, little did he or anyone else know what the Telegraph were sending to the press.

A front page article, one that Abbott, jumped on the next morning that Julia Gillard’s chief of staff called the industrial registrar in 2009 to ask if he was investigating the besieged Labor MP.  Abbott predictably took the line that she knew before hand.  The kicker was that lazy News Ltd didn’t even bother to check Hansard, it didn’t fit their or Abbott’s agenda.  A search of Hansard proved that all the contacts were made POST the story being on the front page of the SMH, not before.

Will News Ltd run a front page correction saying, we were wrong, we were lazy.  Of course they wont. Will Abbott admit that his party knew this story was a beat up and they knew over a year ago that this wasn’t the case.  Of course they won’t, and people wonder why Labor and the Greens wants to launch an enquiry in to media power.

When Albanese said “Tony Abbott has not accepted the result of the last election when he lost and what we’re seeing is the longest dummy spit in Australian “, not only was he correct about Abbott, but also News Ltd, Alan Jones et.al.

This is a dummy spit that knows no bounds.  One that News Ltd continues via its papers continues, facts be damned.

–

Of course the Libs have all their policies fully costed and ready to go at the next election.  They keep telling us that all the time. Just that small matter of a $70billion black hole to fix first.