I've been thinking a lot lately about entitlement. And I've come to the conclusion that it's the base for most, if not all, the discontent, unhappiness, and strife that is a feature of human living.
Take one of the most important aspects of most adults' lives - a job, work.
There is this insidious and automatic expectation that everyone is entitled to a good job and that, furthermore, we should be happy in our job.
But generally, most people don't seem to be happy at work. There's a scale - a range - to that unhappiness, certainly - from downright miserable and downtrodden to relatively ok. But I can't think of one single person that I know that honestly says "I LOVE my job". I've read books by people who say they love what they do. But these people aren't employed. They are artists, creatives, authors, musicians and they get paid to do what they love by people who love what they do. These people as a percentage of the population are in a minority.
And yes, I know that the society/culture that we have couldn't operate in the way that it does unless most people worked at a job that pays them a wage to make goods or provide services for other people to spend their money on that they've earnt by making goods or providing services for other people... etc., etc., etc.
"It's how the system works", I hear you cry. Yes. Yes, it is. But it doesn't make it conducive to happiness, does it?
"No, no", I hear you concur, "But it's the way things are."
Well then, my retort is "Then the way things are, is stupid."
A system that means that most people are generally unhappy, frustrated, bored, and miserable at work is a stupid system. Because only a few people benefit. We don't really know who those people are. But they are the ones who do very little work and profit massively from a system that pays most people just enough to live on to produce the goods and services that will be sold to everyone at a price that means that, after the wages and the other costs of production have been accounted for, will result in a huge surplus of money. There are many books and blogs which set out how and why this system works, so I'm not going to go into that here.
The point I want to make though, is that the notion of entitlement keeps people stuck in these jobs that deliver, at worst, misery and, at best, mild boredom.
And this is why:
People think they're entitled to a job because they've been conditioned and brought up to believe that if they work hard at school, get a skill or trade, then they will get a 'good job'. This good job will pay them a fair wage with associated benefits in payment for the skill or trade that they have. They sign a contract which sets out the obligations on both sides, relating to duties, hours, payment, benefits etc; which details precisely each side's entitlement. But nowhere in that contract is there explicit or implicit reference to happiness or satisfaction from the arrangement.
Ah, except there is. There are two parts of the contract which relate to happiness and satisfaction. There is the appraisal or disciplinary process, which allows the employer to take action if they are not happy with your performance.
"But what if I'm not happy? I can't discipline or appraise my employer." I hear you protest (you're very vocal today, aren't you?).
You can, though. Very, very effectively. It's called resignation. And that's a very apt word. Because when you reach the point where you realise that you're not happy in your work, when you resign yourself to that fact, you do something about it and you leave.
But all too often - really, all too often - people have an expectation that if they're not happy in their job then someone or something else is to blame. I have no idea where people got this expectation from. I can't ever remember anyone telling me that if I worked hard at school and worked hard in my jobs that I would be happy and satisfied and fulfilled. They told me that I would get a good job, with decent pay and benefits. But I can't remember anyone, ever, telling me that I would be happy.
Isn't that strange? We somehow conflate a job with adequate pay and good benefits as automatically resulting in happiness and fulfillment. As though a wage and free lunch and private health insurance will mean that we find our work meaningful and fulfilling.
But, see - here's the thing: It's not your employer's job to make you happy. Unless by ensuring your happiness you produce more. But if it makes no difference to what you produce or the service you provide then... fuck it, why would they bother? Their job is to make sure that the company/concern they run/own makes money. That's it. They couldn't give a gnat's willy whether or not you're happy. Really. It's not that they hate you. They don't really care about you one way or another (unless you're one of those whining complainers who's always coming to them with their problems - with their entitlement to happiness - in which case, you'd better have something on them, cos if not you'll find yourself being appraised out of a job or surplus to requirements. Because those people they DO hate).
You're a unit of production to them. A human resource. That's it. They may 'blah, blah', about employee satisfaction and work/life balance and investing in people but these initiatives are, by and large, box-ticking exercises.
Although, if we think that our employers care about our happiness and fulfillment then they have already gone some way to achieving that objective, because if it looks like they care about our happiness, then we'll feel valued and happier!
Make no mistake, if making you happy costs them but doesn't result in increased profitability then they won't care either way. It's like the whole private medical insurance thing. Most employees think that companies provide this as a benefit because they want people to have better health care when they're ill or injured. They do. But not because they want you to be happy. Or because it makes them upset when you're ill and ailing. They care because they want you back at work. Toot sweet. Honestly. I know - I used to work in the private medical insurance industry. They don't want to have to fork out sick pay for six months whilst you languish on an NHS waiting list because you've got a bad back, and a pay a temp meanwhile to do your job. It's much more cost-effective to pay for a bulk corporate medical insurance policy and get you treated and back to being productive as quickly as possible. Plus, of course, it has the nice side-effect that you think they care about you; that they value you. And they do - providing that side-effect of caring is commercially and economically viable. Because that's their job. To make money, to make sure that the company makes money or, at the very least, doesn't make a loss - that everything gets paid. End of. Whether or not they're happy and fulfilled while they're doing it, is neither here nor there.
It's not their job to make you happy and it's not your job to make them happy. It's a financial transaction you have - not a relationship.
It's your job to turn up, fulfill your contractual obligations, don't whine, don't give them problems that don't need solving, then take yourself off at the end of the working shift to replenish and amuse yourself until you're required on the next shift to go through the whole thing again.
(And, yes - I know there are some companies that don't appear to operate like this, but very few - if you can come up with one company/concern that has at the heart of it's mission statement 'We want our employees to be happy, regardless of how much profit we make', then you'll be showing me a rarity and probably an impossibility too!).
Even those companies that put employee happiness high on their objectives only do so for a reason. This from one of the companies in the Times' top 100 companies to work for: "As a result, we have built up a team of enthusiastic, talented and experienced xxxx with extremely low staff turnover. This gives us a clear return on the investment in our employees and gives you an unbeatable consistency of staffing and of customer service."
Did you notice the key component of this blurb? The only reason they want their employees to be happy is because it gives them a market edge.
And, why not? Of course, that's how it is. When everything is geared to profit then that becomes the definer and everything else is secondary if it isn't contributing to that one end. So whether people are happy is only relevant in relation to the profit it produces. If profit is dependent on happy workers, then they will ensure that you're happy. If profit is dependent on efficiency and quick, nimble actions (such as assembling smart phones, say) then they'll make sure that what's those workers are able to do. Happiness then becomes irrelevant (unless being happy leads directly to measurable increases in efficiency and quick, nimble actions).
So,whether it's making x widget in x minutes, or typing x letters in x hours, or serving x customers in x hours, or answering x calls in x minutes whilst adhering to the script, or curing x patients in x months, or returning x amount on investment - whatever it is, most of us are on a conveyer belt. A conveyer belt that churns out money - money for someone else - then it's hardly surprising that we're not happy.
So, where does that leave most of us? Stuck in a situation that puts money as the top dog. Because we've got to be realistic here. We live in a consumerist society. And that's what a consumerist society does. It consumes and it spits out money as its end result. And we all know that money doesn't make you happy. It might make you more comfortable and give you more choice, but it doesn't make you happy. It doesn't fulfill you. It really can't buy you love. The stupidly successful, very talented and very rich Jim Carey said: "I wish everyone could experience being rich and famous, so they'd see it wasn't the answer to everything." And what he's really saying here is that being rich and famous doesn't make you happy. So, what does?
I think it's this: Find what you love and do that regardless of the pay and benefits. Because if you do what you love, and find people that love what you do, then it won't matter what your pay or benefits are, because you'll be happy and fulfilled.
And it may be possible to do what you love and be employed doing it. I do think there are some people (not many, but some) that are fortunate to be paid by an employer to do what they love. But because the system isn't set up with this end in sight, then that's not what it produces. So, what's the alternative? Well, the alternative, obviously, is to leave and do what you love.
But we say things like "I can't leave, I've got a family to support" "I can't leave, it's too convenient". Or the real killer, the real immobiliser: "I can't leave, it's the only job I can get."
This is the real 'go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect £200' statement.
And it's just not true.
It's not the only job they can get. It was the job they did get. They applied for it, interviewed, got offered and accepted. And yes, it may have been the only job they were offered at the time. But it's not the only job they can get.
If they could get that job, it's a fair certainty that they could get another one. True, it might be comparable to the one they've got (or it might even be slightly worse!), but it's not the only job they can get.
And if it is true that it's the only job they can get, they might want to look at the reasons why. Just why is it that out of all the millions of jobs available there is only one for them. If it's true then either it's their dream job, or they are so utterly crap at everything else that this is the only thing they can do, so they might as well accept it and enjoy it.
But I don't believe that's true. Not for anyone. I don't believe there's anyone who only has one limited and specific ability that means they don't have options.
People might not want to be be bothered. They may not want to face up to the truth that they're too lazy/afraid/complacent to do anything about it. So they blame everything and everyone else precisely because they don't want to do anything about it. And again there's that word: stupid. It's not right or wrong, it's just downright stupid and it makes for so much unhappiness.
To get bogged down by fear and convenience and security (which is an illusion anyway) in exchange for happiness is stupid and sad.
So.. do we want to be happy? Or do we want to be safe/lazy/unhappy? Do we want to go on believing that we have an entitlement to expect someone else to make us happy? Or can we just go ahead and do what we love?
Hardly anyone reads this blog. I don't make money from it. I just do it because I love reading, thinking and writing. It makes me happy. Will it lead to me being able to earn my living from it? Who knows? But unless I keep doing it, unless I keep doing what makes me happy, I'll never find out. And if I still have to earn enough money to pay the rent and the bills by trading 8 hours a day for a barely-adequate amount of money to do that, then I'll carry on. But I'm making a commitment now to spend as much of the rest of my time as I can to doing what makes me happy. There, I've said it. I choose myself. (A thank you to James Altucher and his excellent book "Choose Yourself").
I choose to do, as much as possible, what makes me happy. Because that's my job. I get paid, at the moment, to type letters and answer phone calls and administrate. But that's not my real job. My real job is to do what makes me happy.
And your real job is to make you happy. If you happen to get paid for it - great. If not, then do it anyway, because you might find that doing what makes you happy, doing what you love to do, makes others happy because they love what you do too.
I was recently part of a lunchtime conversation where in the space of a few minutes those assembled had decided that seagulls, deer and badgers 'needed' to be culled because there were too many. I made a comment something along the lines of 'much like humans, then'.
There was nervous laughter.
According to the lunchers' logic, there are too many of these species (seagulls, badgers and deer) which means their population is too large to be sustained (although I'm not aware of being over-run by any of those species. In fact on a day to day basis, I may see/ hear a couple of sea gulls, one dead badger, no deer [unless I'm out walking in the forest or driving and they happen to cross my path - but that's a rare occurrence] whereas, I come across literally dozens of humans every day - thousands if I'm in a city!).
I refrained from further comment since I had already been labelled a do-gooder - although why doing good should be construed as a bad thing, is beyond me. (As an aside it's an interesting observation that the word 'do-gooder' has become a snide insult. On some level the actions of a do-gooder are recognised as being 'good' i.e. beneficial, but when their actions do not ally with the requirements of a convenient way of living, then they are derided and scorned and ridiculed - such dissonance!)
Anyway, the case put forward for these species needing to be culled went like this:
Seagulls - there are too many of them and they take food out of the hands of humans. Seriously. That was the reasoning. Personally, I find it funny when a seagull does that - someone's sitting by the sea troughing down their greasy fish and chips and a seagull swoops down and nicks a chip. I love their audacity and daring and the comic look on the face of she/he who has a chip nicked.
(A little side story here: very recently we were having lunch outside at a pub by the sea and had put a piece of ham on the wall next to where we were sitting because of the wasps that kept settling on it anyway, so we thought to entice them away. Also on that wall were two Jack Russells. Suddenly a seagull flew in and landed in order to take the ham. One of the dogs was immediately alerted and and stood staring at the seagull and then started advancing (this Jack Russell was barely bigger than the seagull, but that's Jack Russell's for you). The seagull looked a bit nervous, thought better of it and then flew off. We added some bread to the ham on the wall and watched the seagull as it circled the patio and food. The skill and precision in its flying was fabulous to watch. It never got up the courage to land again and take the bounty and eventually it got bored and left.
Perhaps this particular seagull wasn't as bold as the seagulls that my lunchtime friends had encountered or perhaps it was the dogs that it was really scared of - whilst a few shrieking humans wouldn't put it off.
So, seagulls need to be culled because they sometimes take food from humans. That's a bit like the recent view that we should bomb Syrians to stop Syrians killing Syrians. Same line of thinking, really.
O.K. - so the next species that we need to cull are badgers. From what I understand, this is because badgers have and spread TB to cows and then farmers lose money. So, essentially, it's a financial thing - badgers may interfere with the income of farmers.
The third species is deer. Apparently, they're way too successful as a breed and eat too much ... forest, woods, grass - whatever deer eat. So we need to control their numbers. I really can't see the logic in this one (I can't with the other two either, but at least I can see that people make the connection between 'they take our stuff, so we need to get rid of them' in the case of seagulls and badgers). But in the case of deer, they don't even get in the way of humans, don't take food from us and don't spread disease to cows owned by farmers. But in our megalomaniacal way of needing to control everything and see it as a resource owned by us, we seem to think that we know the best way that a forest or wood or meadow should be. And that in order to do that we should 'manage' these areas and control the population of each species. Where on earth will this kind of thinking lead? Are we going to end up having to manage everything? The ants and the worms and the fungi and the flies and the dragon-flies and the spiders and the foxes and the flowers and grasses and rivers and streams and clouds and heathers and wasps and bees - to name but an infitessimally tiny, tiny portion of the 'natural' world. How could we possibly do this? What kind of status quo would we be aiming for? Who would decide? How would they know? Are they able to see the entire picture? Of course not - no-one can see the entire picture.
But we think we do. Because we think we have a right to. We actually believe that we know best. We really do. And so this belief in our unassailable position of knowing 'how things should be' means that we're entitled to do ..... well, whatever we want, really. Merely because we can.
That belief in entitlement is such a big thing. It's huge.
It gives us the reason to believe that we can kill anything we want for the most spurious reasons. The underlying reasoning being that we are the most important, superior, entitled species on earth. We own it all. We have a right to control, and cull, and use. However we want, whenever we want.
And if you express an opinion counter to that belief, then you're a do-gooder. A woolly-liberal-leftie who thinks that it's ok to let things take their natural order.
I don't see what's wrong with that. And I'm not actually saying that it's wrong per se for humans to kill and control. We're just as much a part of the natural world as badgers and deer and seagulls and forests and woods and farmers and cows and profits and wars. I get that. Life makes us in the same way it makes everything else. It just does.
So, no, wanting to kill badgers and seagulls and deer because they cause us inconvenience and because this inconvenience gives us a belief in our entitlement to do so isn't wrong. It's just stupid. Because if you continue in that line of thinking then you'd certainly have to cull humans for their over-population, because they spread disease and take from other humans and other species.
Oh, wait. Yup. Of course, we already do cull humans. Every day, in so many awful ways. In deed and in thought. And at the very base of this culling isn't greed, isn't hate - it's a basic belief in ENTITLEMENT. Writ large and surrounded by lights - the basis of everything we do. If you don't believe me, next time someone gets upset about something have a look to see why they're upset. I bet your sweet bippy it's because their entitlement was thwarted - usually by someone's else's entitlement!
Somewhere along the line we took on the idea that humans as a species have a right to do exactly as they want, as they see fit. That somehow we ought to fix things so that they fit our limited viewpoint - because we don't see that viewpoint as limited - we see it as the one true viewpoint, the correct way of looking at the world.
Maybe this way of looking at the world arose with religion or maybe religion arose from the viewpoint that we have a right, an entitlement to do as we wish. And again, it's not wrong - it's the way we are. But it is stupid. It is insane - literally meaning unhealthy (in = not, sane = healthy). Because if we follow this belief in entitlement we'll end up destroying everything that we believe causes us inconvenience, everything that we believe doesn't fit in with our way of 'how things should be'. So, we'll continue to cull badgers, deer and seagulls. And we'll continue to kill other races of people to stop them from killing themselves. We'll go on taking what we want in order to make things we don't need, can't afford and which never make us happy.
Why? I don't know. Not for sure. None of us do. Not really. We're all experts in 'making it up as we go along'.
And we do that cos that's how we're made. It doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it wrong. But it does make it stupid if we want to continue to survive. Because, we'll end up self-culling, which isn't good or bad - it will just be the natural order of things. Ironic, really, that the natural order may end up in our own extinction - the one thing we won't be able to control because of our excessive and addictive need for our belief in our entitlement to control!
But, I think I'll keep that view to myself at any future lunchtime discussions.....
There's something going on in a small village about half an hour from where I live. A company called Caudrilla (a UK-owned, but mainly financed by Australian and American investors - how's that for global co-operation...) has obtained a licence from The Department of Energy and Climate Change and temporary planning permission from the local council to test drill for gas, in a process which has become known as fracking. The end result being that they will use this technique to extract gas which they will then sell, at a profit, of course.
Nothing too controversial here, I hear you murmur. After all, people have been banging on about peak oil for a couple of decades now; so we all know that oil is running out and we need to find alternative energy sources in order to continue to live life in the way we do. Because, of course, it (almost) goes without saying that our lifestyle, i.e. corporate-led consumerism is "A Good Thing". Were it not, we wouldn't all be so happy and satisfied. And the world, but particularly, our little bit of it, wouldn't be so perfect. Would it?
Ah, and here's the crux of the matter - because other forms of energy are running out, in order for civilisation to continue operating the way that it does - which is to say by consuming - it does need to find other forms of energy. And it would appear that one of these forms lies in the extraction of gas from underground rock formations through forcing water, and other substances (and depending on what you read, these substances range from sand to those listed here) through the underground rocks to cause fractures that allow the gas to be released and 'harvested'. And Cuadrilla believe that gas is located in the rock formations beneath a middle-England village called Balcombe in West Sussex, South-East England.
But the residents of Balcombe aren't happy about it. Well, judging by the last poll of all village residents, 85% of them aren't happy with it (9% don't know, 6% are happy). So they are protesting. And the protesting has garnered the attention of the media (here for instance, and here, to name but two of the current stories). Because not only have the villagers come out in protest, but they have been joined by environmental activists who are opposed to any form of activity that they see as being detrimental to the environment, including Bianca Jagger and Chrissie Hynde's daughter; about which there has been some dissent, since it's not deemed appropriate that 'outsiders' and/or 'celebrities' involve themselves in protests in areas where they don't live, i.e. it's nothing to do with them.
There are several points I want to make:
The first being that I was in a local shop and the young man serving me automatically put my 2 purchases in a plastic bag. I said 'I don't need the bag thanks.' and he replied 'Saving the planet?' and I responded 'It's not really going to have an effect is it?'. To which he countered 'We need to save the UK first.' Says I: 'We could start with Sussex' (since this whole local fracking thing has been on my mind a lot). His come-back was 'There are lots of places in the UK much worse off than Sussex. We're very privileged." And he's right. We are.
So, here's one of the points (I'm getting there...). We are privileged. We look out of our windows and all appears very well with the little bit of the world we inhabit. The sky is blue, the sun shines, rain falls intermittently but copiously, enough to help grow the trees, and the flowers and the grass and the bushes and the veg. And the bees buzz and the butterflies flutter by, and there are insects and birds and it's all very fecund. But now, that could be under threat, since two of the side-effects of hydraulic fracturing is that it poisons the aquifers and that it causes earth quakes (as reported here) So no longer is damage being wrought elsewhere *waves hand in vague over there manner*. Potentially, the damage could be wrought right here; it could poison the local water system (the drill site is 1.6 miles from one of the water reservoirs that serves the South-East of England); it could cause earth quakes (the drill site is yards from the London to Brighton rail line - so it wouldn't just affect local residents, but could also disrupt the commuter population going into London and the southern rail network).
Which leads to the question: What are you willing to put up with in order to have cheap energy, or indeed, any energy at all? What are you willing to sacrifice in order to continue buying what you want, when you want and where you want?
Is it o.k. to sacrifice the environment of someone else, somewhere else - is that o.k.? Out of sight, out of mind, out of conscience, out of consideration? Not my fucking problem, mate.... Are you willing to sacrifice YOUR water supply? YOUR land? YOUR children's health? Or is that too much of a sacrifice?
See, this whole protest isn't about the danger to the village of Balcombe and its surrounding area - the real issue is really about what sacrifices we are willing to make and to inflict on others - and by others I don't just mean human people, but on everything - the land, the rock formations, the atmosphere, the air, the water, the wildlife - in short, the entire planet which gives us life. We are not born into the world, we are born out of it. And if we are willing to sacrifice it in order that WE can continue to live in the way we are, then we're signing our own death warrants - because by trashing the environment, the land, below ground, the air, the atmosphere, the water, wildlife, we're fucking up everything that allows us to live - at the very least. So, this isn't just a local issue. It's a world-wide issue. What Caudrilla has done is ignited these people's awareness - see this group for evidence of people's feelings - and made them conscious of the issues involved with energy extraction. Made them curious about the issues, the pollution, the poisoning - the consequences, in other words. And they are getting angry and they are waking up to the facts. They are beginning to see that if it's an issue for them, then it's an issue anywhere and everywhere else. And those people - those 'outsiders' and 'celebrities' are merely evidence that the use of energy and 'resources' is not a local issue. Ever. It's a global issue. You may enjoy the fruits of others labours and degradation in your own back yard, but now it's becoming apparent to people that it is that very back yard which may now be subject to degradation and spoiling itself. It's now in their back yard. And whilst that's a shocking and distressing thing for people to deal with, it may also make them realise that wherever these resources are taken from is SOMEONE'S back yard.
The second point is that even if we manage to safely extract gas out of the deep ground through fracking, it's still not very likely that we will be able to continue to live this way for very much longer. That gas won't last forever. And yes, there's a lot of talk (insert the words 'wishful thinking' here) about 'Alternative Energy Sources' which technology will somehow produce out of a hat to save us all, halt the destruction and plundering of the land, and all above and below it. Maybe that will happen - maybe science and technology will win the day and find some magical, renewable, cheap or free, minimal impact form of energy that will allow us to continue to have what we want, when we want and at the price we want it. But that won't stop us using up the world's 'resources' in order to continue; i.e. wood, metal, minerals, water, soil, fish, animals, vegetation. It will just mean that we won't be using so much oil, or gas, or coal in order to convert those things into products - stuff, basically, that we don't need but which we're persuaded we do. It won't stop people being paid a pittance to produce those products. It won't stop the population growing, it won't stop starvation. It might halt global warming or slow it down. It might stop drilling for coal, oil and gas. It might stop or decrease chemical spillages and poisoning. But, I doubt it.
In order to produce we need raw materials to convert into the stuff we think we need. And those raw materials (read; the entire world), are not endlessly renewable for a population that continues to grow and continues to spread its story of 'Consumption is Good'. In fact not just good, but eminently desirable. In fact, not just eminently desirable, but absolutely necessary. Because we have bought into the story of progress and growth, at all costs. At any cost. Most of us don't even question it. We're raised within a culture that believes, for whatever reason, (and the reason for the existence of that belief may actually be the $64,000 question - although with inflation it's probably something more like the $1,000,000 question!) that we need to consume, to inflate, to grow, to progress, get more, be more, have more. And it believes too, and this is it's greatest flaw and downfall, that this growth/progress/consumption can continue indefinitely, without the so-called resources that we churn into goods and products being used-up, depleted, spoilt. Gone. And that sorry belief can best be summed up by this alleged Native American saying: “When the last tree is cut, the last river poisoned, and the last fish dead, we will discover that we can’t eat money…”
At base, though, in the end it all comes down to whether or not you/we/I care in any real and meaningful way. Whether we are willing to wake up and face the fact that we're trashing our home. And if it takes the local water supply to be poisoned, and local earthquakes, then so be it. The information and evidence is there for anyone to access - has been for decades. And in this age of easy and convenient global access to information from anywhere in the world, nobody has an excuse to say they didn't know what was going on.
Unless, of course, they really don't care. And that is what it finally comes down to. Whether or not we care.
That's it - in a nutshell. Even if we do wake up to the facts, the reality - if we don't care, then we'll just carry on. Do we care more than we value convenience?
What, if anything, are we willing to sacrifice? Will it really take your water to be poisoned, and local earth quakes through fracking to force you to care, to convince you to make a sacrifice. Because, necessity isn't a sacrifice - it's unavoidable. If it's your land-base and environment that's being ruined, not someone else's, then you no longer have to consider whether or not to sacrifice your way of life - because the decision will already have been made. Your way of life will be ruined. Too late for you to make a choice.
But as things stand at the moment, you may still have a choice - but not for very much longer. That's why it's important that not only local people protest and get active and curious about what's going on in their own back yard, but that we all get curious and active and protest about what's going on in our entire back yard. This is not a local issue. It never was.
