+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html)
+---- Forum: General Political Discussion (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-15.html)
+---- Thread: Debate about the Vietnam War (/thread-164.html)
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - Odin - 06-11-2016
(06-10-2016, 02:46 PM)taramarie Wrote: Taylor you need to look up fascism. You and I agree on many things but throwing that word around all the time does show you do not seem to understand that word as well as you are weakening that word and weakening your POV and stance on political issues. That word is brushed off nowadays because fascism is not the issue currently. But the word is used a lot. Incorrectly most of the time I may add. I also looked up that word when i was unsure and realized that it was an error. Since then I understand that word and how it does not apply to what many think it does. I do not know why you consider Anthony a fascist. But look up the definition and perhaps tell me how it applies to him.
Fascism is radical authoritarian anti-socialist nationalism, and Tony by his own words is an authoritarian nationalist who thinks any atrocity is OK as long as it is against the "godless commies".
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - Cynic Hero '86 - 06-12-2016
Xers and Millies are tired to of boomer tyranny.We demand the right to discard the rules if the other side does so first. One of the main reason we hate boomer leadership is their refusal to permit executions of terrorist prisoners and sympathizers even though terrorists target non-combatants (technically a war crime).
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - Bob Butler 54 - 06-12-2016
(06-12-2016, 06:50 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Xers and Millies are tired to of boomer tyranny.We demand the right to discard the rules if the other side does so first. One of the main reason we hate boomer leadership is their refusal to permit executions of terrorist prisoners and sympathizers even though terrorists target non-combatants (technically a war crime).
I assume you are using the royal 'we' here? Or do you actually believe your viewpoint is shared by a significant number of others?
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - pbrower2a - 06-12-2016
Here are Lawrence Britt’s 14 points of Fascism:
Lawrence Britt wrote:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2.Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3.Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4.Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5.Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6.Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7.Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8.Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9.Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10.Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .
11.Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12.Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13.Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14.Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
My comment: all of the above traits of a political order are pathology. The more pathological the social order the more of these traits a society will have. Fascism is nearly pure pathology, even if it reflects a relatively humane and sane order (like Poland under Pilsudski or Austria under Dollfuss and Schuschnigg -- it's just that the pathologies can be milder under Pilsudski or Schuschnigg than under Pinochet -- let alone Hitler.
One could look at this list and see many of these traits under Commies, Ba'athists, Apartheid, Jim Crow, the Infernal State, and such mad rulers as Idi Amin and Moammar Qaddafi. Genuine democracies have checks and balances (or they do not remain democracies) and accept diversity of identity and thought. Undemocratic orders enforce subordination, inequality, and conformity.
Umbert Eco (an Italian scholar) wrote this next essay in 1995. I have found instances of a number of people claiming that Dr. Britt’s work is stolen directly from this essay, but actually reading the essay (which obviously a number of people have declined to do) reveals that they are two completely different works.
Umbert Eco wrote:
1.The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.
Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counterrevolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but is was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of the faiths indulgently accepted by the Roman pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages -- in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little-known religions of Asia.
This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, "the combination of different forms of belief or practice;" such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and although they seem to say different or incompatible things, they all are nevertheless alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.
As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.
2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.
Both Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon blood and earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.
3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.
Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play ("When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun") to the frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs," and "universities are nests of reds." The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.
4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.
In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.
5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.
Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.
6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.
That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old "proletarians" are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.
7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.
This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the United States, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson's The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.
8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.
9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.
Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such "final solutions" implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.
10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.
Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people in the world, the members or the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler.
11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.
In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Spanish Falangists was Viva la Muerte ("Long Live Death!"). In nonfascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.
12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.
This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons -- doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.
In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view -- one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
Because of its qualitative populism, Ur-Fascism must be against "rotten" parliamentary governments. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.
14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.
Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, as the official language of what he called Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.
When compared to Britt’s work, there is no question that it is fundamentally different. But in actuality, this is just part of a concentrated effort to discredit Britt and his theories.
My comment: Britt and Eco end up saying much the same with different approaches. The scapegoating, male chauvinism, contempt for the weak and powerless, unification of the Nation against real and imagined enemies, view of life as an unending struggle, and intellectual impoverishment (fascist culture is for morons!) dovetail in both Britt and Eco. One side of the ledger looks much unlike the other in detail, but the results are much the same. Fascism is the debasement of everything human.
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - pbrower2a - 06-12-2016
Britt and Eco say much the same through different methods. Britt and Eco in no way contradict each other. Traditionalism and irrationality dovetail with anti-intellectualism. and the support of a monolithic culture with a single acceptable shared purpose. Both see fascism as the rejection of dissent and difference (dissent as a deed of crime and difference as a state of crime through being something intolerable). Newspeak obviously works best in a controlled mass culture and fails when people have alternatives to the official narrative. Contempt for parliamentary or congressional democracy manifests itself in a rubber-stamp legislature. Since war is the noblest expression of manliness, militarism and heterosexual chauvinism must prevail. It is hardly surprising that fascist movements are all male chauvinist in the same, with little participation by women in the formulation of social policy and diplomacy. Note well how few Axis leaders tried for crimes against humanity were women -- basically camp guards who oversaw female victims, and like Irma Grese they were completely subordinate to brutal men in the Nazi hierarchy.
Community based on membership in the dominant majority fits nationalism; that is the "national" part of "national socialism" in which the socialism is essentially a Big Government in the service of big landowners and Big Business (or should I say, "Pig Business"). A culture of martial heroism implies glorification of the soldier in principle even if the soldier is to become cannon fodder.
So what is the alternative to fascism? Its antithesis -- liberalism. The opposite of a raging fascist is not a raging Communist; the opposite of a raging fascist is a sober liberal. Liberal democracies may loathe war as much as fascist regimes relish it, but the liberal democracies have had the better record in winning wars. Liberals see shared danger as a cause for shared struggle when the struggle arises. They may not want the struggle, but they aren't looking for scapegoats when victory is the objective. Fascists win the initial battles with surprise but lose because they can never win the peace unless they annihilate their enemies.
Break the male chauvinism in a society, and one breaks fascism. Thus the victorious British and Americans imposed the right of women to vote in defeated Italy and Japan... and in France, which barely dodged fascism in the 1930s but in which the monstrous Vichy regime showed considerable support under Nazi rule. Fascism is very much a male phenomenon, and fascist parties and movements are very much male clubs. Can you imagine a fascist cause having use for an assertive woman like Rosa Parks? (Communism is also fairly good at gender equity, and that characteristic separates Communism from fascism as do internationalism and the rejection of inequality based upon ownership).
Fascists demand heroism -- but they cannot appreciate heroism from the Other Side. That happens when one sees other parts of Humanity as vermin.
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - Eric the Green - 06-13-2016
The fact is that we read those 14 points during the Bush-Cheney administration, and many of us thought then that we were on the verge of fascism because so many of them applied to the USA. And especially the last point, which put Bush in office.
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - Dan '82 - 06-14-2016
Thread Split http://generational-theory.com/forum/thread-196.html
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - Ragnarök_62 - 06-14-2016
Dan Wrote:Thread Split http://generational-theory.com/forum/thread-196.html
Again? This happened, what just yesterday? Lessee... Yes,
Where's there's split threads, there's Eric.
Such a special occasion calls for a special song. It's one so few know of, but one for which many should be edified upon.
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - Eric the Green - 06-14-2016
(06-14-2016, 06:03 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:Dan Wrote:Thread Split http://generational-theory.com/forum/thread-196.html
Again? This happened, what just yesterday? Lessee... Yes,
Where's there's split threads, there's Eric.
I already created a new thread for this. But I have no power to split threads.
But I admit Dan's title is better.
No, the split just happened. He included previous posts in the new split.
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - Ragnarök_62 - 06-14-2016
(06-14-2016, 06:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(06-14-2016, 06:03 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:Dan Wrote:Thread Split http://generational-theory.com/forum/thread-196.html
Again? This happened, what just yesterday? Lessee... Yes,
Where's there's split threads, there's Eric.
Quote:I already created a new thread for this. But I have no power to split threads.
Yes, but that doesn't change the basic fact that a new thread got spawned due to stuff you wrote.
Quote:But I admit Dan's title is better.
Buttering up the admin?
Quote:No, the split just happened. He included previous posts in the new split.
Obviously, that's not in dispute. Apparently, it's the fact that Eric is the catalyst for thread splits that is.
I think you need another song.
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - Eric the Green - 06-15-2016
(06-14-2016, 07:53 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Yes, but that doesn't change the basic fact that a new thread got spawned due to stuff you wrote.No, I was responding to radind's stuff.
And it doesn't change the basic fact that you and others refuse to recognize that your views on guns help to enable the massacres. And so you don't want to discuss it, and so you complain about me mentioning what is clearly the most relevant subject regarding the Orlando shooting, and generalize from that to accuse me of being the catalyst for thread splits.
Your accusation against me here is clearly not relevant to this thread. You are being a catalyst for a thread split.
Quote:Buttering up the admin?when deserved.
Quote:Obviously, that's not in dispute. Apparently, it's the fact that Eric is the catalyst for thread splits that is.
Prove it. Count up the number of thread splits, and how many of them I was the catalyst for. And you can't count this one, because radind was the catalyst. I on the contrary recognized the problem and started another thread. Sometimes you just don't get it.
So, because you are attacking me, I am not going to listen to your song.
And, you are the one who said that my "best songs ever" thread was bait. So, you got Taramarie to blame me.
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - Eric the Green - 06-22-2016
(06-15-2016, 03:18 PM)taramarie Wrote:(06-15-2016, 12:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(06-14-2016, 07:53 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Yes, but that doesn't change the basic fact that a new thread got spawned due to stuff you wrote.No, I was responding to radind's stuff.
And it doesn't change the basic fact that you and others refuse to recognize that your views on guns help to enable the massacres. And so you don't want to discuss it, and so you complain about me mentioning what is clearly the most relevant subject regarding the Orlando shooting, and generalize from that to accuse me of being the catalyst for thread splits.
Your accusation against me here is clearly not relevant to this thread. You are being a catalyst for a thread split.
Quote:Buttering up the admin?when deserved.
Quote:Obviously, that's not in dispute. Apparently, it's the fact that Eric is the catalyst for thread splits that is.
Prove it. Count up the number of thread splits, and how many of them I was the catalyst for. And you can't count this one, because radind was the catalyst. I on the contrary recognized the problem and started another thread. Sometimes you just don't get it.
So, because you are attacking me, I am not going to listen to your song.
And, you are the one who said that my "best songs ever" thread was bait. So, you got Taramarie to blame me.
Ae? Did i miss something? I never blamed you for "bait" and was never encouraged by rags for that. I never saw your thread as bait. I already run down the points I was addressing with you regarding the reason for your thread as well as issues from the past that buttress my points. Rags had nothing to do with actions that were purely mine. I do not remember rags saying your thread was bait.
Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean he didn't say it. As far as I know the moderator hasn't removed it, so if you were to take the trouble to read it, it's still there.
It's just a question that you are unable to hear the music that I share. Too bad; it's you that is missing out.
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - Anthony '58 - 06-28-2016
Quote:No Taylor, he seems to be a hard hat democrat.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comm...republican
He pretty much said as much. If you're old enough to remember. the Democratic party suffered a rift during the Nam era.
In the South, there was a similar rift that extended way to to Jr High. It was hippies vs. rednecks.
As usual, a fellow Baby Buster comes to my rescue.
roadbldr '59 and ASB '65 used to do this a lot as well - but both became so disgusted at the shrill partisanship that informs both this forum and its predecessor that they no longer post thereon. Yet Odin's temper tantrums have never really gotten under my skin for some reason.
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - Eric the Green - 06-28-2016
(06-28-2016, 08:37 AM)Anthony 58 Wrote:Quote:No Taylor, he seems to be a hard hat democrat.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comm...republican
He pretty much said as much. If you're old enough to remember. the Democratic party suffered a rift during the Nam era.
In the South, there was a similar rift that extended way to to Jr High. It was hippies vs. rednecks.
As usual, a fellow Baby Buster comes to my rescue.
roadbldr '59 and ASB '65 used to do this a lot as well - but both became so disgusted at the shrill partisanship that informs both this forum and its predecessor that they no longer post thereon. Yet Odin's temper tantrums have never really gotten under my skin for some reason.
That's good. Being partisan is necessary these days. It doesn't have to be shrill, even if frank.
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - Anthony '58 - 06-28-2016
But the currency of partisanship is being recoined - drastically.
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - Eric the Green - 06-28-2016
That may be true. There are many views on where things might go during this 4T.
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - Anthony '58 - 06-28-2016
Assuming that "Trumpism" is not a passing fad, the Republicans are now a national liberal party, while Hillary's win over the left-liberal Bernie Sanders clearly marks the Democrats as a neoliberal party.
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - Eric the Green - 06-28-2016
(06-28-2016, 10:33 AM)Anthony 58 Wrote: Assuming that "Trumpism" is not a passing fad, the Republicans are now a national liberal party,Assuming that, yes, except it should be called nationalist conservative.
Quote: while Hillary's win over the left-liberal Bernie Sanders clearly marks the Democrats as a neoliberal party.
Except that Hillary is not a neo-liberal. And Sanders did so well that it means the left-liberals are ascendant.
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - Anthony '58 - 06-28-2016
As I see it, all four cardinal points on the political compass - and it is a compass, not a spectrum - will be represented in the election: National liberalism by Trump, neoliberalism by Hillary, conservatism by Gary Johnson, despite his libertarian label (the "libertarians" never seriously push for legalizing drugs, etc.), and left-liberalism by Jill Stein - and a poll reported by MSNBC yesterday had Johnson and Stein getting 16% between them.
RE: Debate about the Vietnam War - Eric the Green - 06-28-2016
Trump = nationalist/neo-liberal conservatism or nationalist moderate conservatism (what he actually stands for changes according to what he thinks will get him support; he really has few ideas, and so is hard to classify, except that his economic nationalism seems sincere and consistent over time, although even here, he doesn't practice it himself, so he's a hypocrite of the first order too).
Johnson = neo-liberal libertarian
Stein = left-liberal
Hillary = moderate liberalism
The conservatives more-or-less opposite to Stein seem to be out in the cold this time. They are folks like Romney, Cruz, Bush, the editors of National Review, George Will, etc.
So the compass is the best model, but the 4 cardinal points are not equally represented.
Most polls give Johnson and Stein combined around 10% at most; usually less.