Grading on a Curve? TNR's Primary feature has been one of the most entertaining outlets for news and spin in the Democratic nomination race. (If you haven't seen it, the candidates are given school-style letter grades in a number of categories (Intellectual Honesty, Political Courage, Domestic Policy, etc.) But every so often you get the feeling somebody there is pulling a punch. An example from yesterday, in the category of Intellectual Honesty: Howard Dean is in the midst of the mother of campaign finance flip-flops, according to Michael Crowley's mini-feature. He cites these two quotes:

The former Vermont governor promised to make it an issue in the Democratic primaries if any of his rivals skip public financing. "It will be a huge issue," Dean said. "I think most Democrats believe in campaign finance reform," he said.

--Associated Press, March 8, 2003

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said Friday that his campaign's recent fundraising success has prompted him to consider foregoing federal matching funds and opt out of the spending limits placed on candidates. "We're going to leave the option open," the former Vermont governor said after a campaign stop outside this central Iowa town.

--Chicago Tribune, August 16, 2003

Clearly begging the bullshit flag, eh? How would you grade the good doctor for his intellectual honesty? Crowley gives him a "C."

Compare with this piece, in which Gregg Easterbrook slaps Joe Lieberman with a "D" in Intellectual Honesty for claiming he'd reverse Bush's ban on stem-cell research. Actually, says Easterbrook, there's only a ban on future federal funding of research. Yes, it's a distinction worth noting, but does it rate lower than Dean's gentleman's "C"? Grade fairly, please.

In Another Devolopment: As I predicted, Davis is playing coy on debates. A Davis aide, Gabe Sanchez, is quoted in Reuters copy as suggesting that Gray Davis is, essentially, not a candidate for governor:

Gray Davis isn't on the same part of the ballot as Arnold, Angelyne, Gary Coleman, Larry Flynt and all the others .... The candidates' debate should be for up to all 135 of those people.

As I mentioned, Davis has no choice; he has to refuse to debate, put himself above the repacement candidates, and declare it all a "circus" or a "spectacle." In this he's helped by the gross figure of 135 candidates, at which he can roll his eyes and declare that he's working for California instead of participating in a sideshow. Arnold lost his chance by not issuing a one-on-one challenge to Davis, immediately and emphatically (and repeatedly, if necessary), to make Davis refuse him personally. Another missed opportunity for Arnold.

More California: Some of the best commentary on the recall has been coming from California hand Bill Whalen, over at the Weekly Standard. He's had several pieces of analysis this week, all of them smart and well off the trail worn thin by conventional wisdom. Today he comments on an unusual endorsement of Gray Davis. You wouldn't usually accept an endorsement from a woman you once had a summer fling with, particularly if she was below the age of consent at the time. But, hell, why not make an exception for Cybill Shepherd.

Meanwhile, fellow Standard columnist Hugh Hewitt thinks "Good Constituent Service" is Gray Davis's motto when it comes to Indian affairs (read: gambling lobby). It has a much nicer ring than "Reversing My Position to Cater to Special Interests Who Can Offer Me Support in the Recall."

The Open: You're right, one more event to go. I was going to talk about it, but wanted to wait until the draws were official (tomorrow I believe). My parents have tickets for night of womens' finals, which I may glom onto. On the men's side, Roddick is really playing well. He's won his last two tune-ups, and made the finals in a couple more. OF course, winning the small "appearance fee" tournies isn't the greatest measure of the man. Roddick has to deal with the hype; something he's never excelled at. But, it's his surface, so I'd be surprised if he gets upset. On the women's, I understand Serena is not playing, and if not, then Venus must be smiling. Well, let's wait for the draws, because that will obviously make a difference.

Big Mouth: So the official fiscal crystal ball holder for Schwarzenegger, Warren Buffett, shoots his mouth off about property taxes being too low in California, and suddenly Arnold is on the hot seat, decalring his "unequivocal" and "rock solid" support for Prop 13. This is a bad sign for Arnold, not necessarily because he's on the run from a big-name advisior, but because he's been taken by surprise. He started out with a great message: Bring the tax base back to California instead of driving it away. This was the lesson New York learned after David Dinkins had managed to tax the Fortune 500 out of the city, which is why Giuliani got elected. But Arnold should remember that Giuliani was a tough bastard who alienated as many New Yorkers as he won over. Arnold is running as a popular reformer -- likeable, gives good sound bite in that crazy accent, opposed to the "special interests," whatever that means. Giuliani's tenure was more of a medecine-taking; everybody in New York (it seemed) hated it, hated him, and wanted to be rid of the tyrant . . . just as soon as he'd made the city worth living in again.

So what does this have to do with Arnold? Back to his message, to save California by expanding the economy: Excellent long term plan, but what's the Giuliani plan? What are the hard cuts you're willing to make right now to start things moving, the ones that will make every red-blooded Californian damn you to hell? What tax hikes can be made? Nobody can claim greater hatred of taxes than ol' Enobarbus, but it has to be on the table in California, or else services will have to be cut, at least in the short term. Again, as an ideological matter, I'm not opposed to cuts in state services. But as a political matter, I realize that liberal Californians generally are opposed to cuts, and liberal Californians make up a large part of the electorate. Arnold's defense of Prop 13, a clear signal that property taxes are off the table, makes his job harder. He's already criticized Davis on fee hikes, so those are taboo, too. Suggesting a state income tax raise would be ballot-box suicide. About all that's left is that stepchild of trickle-down economics, the liberal trickle-down: keep borrowing and spending, funding services at current rates of growth until the economy booms (cf. Clinton's "victory" over the deficit) or until the tax base has entirely disappeared and you get voted out of office (Dinkins again).

Word is that Schwarzenegger will start talking economic specifics this week. Not a moment too soon.

The No Fun League? Sorry, Razor, but the NFL will have to wait a couple more weeks.

Productivity, yeah!: Tangentially related to our "globalism" discussion, I find on NRO Biz this article by Bruce Bartlett. He deftly examines the concern that we're becoming a nation of "hamburger flippers" as we export all our manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China. In short, it's a myth. We're making plenty.

Looking at gross domestic product, real-goods production as a share of real (inflation-adjusted) GDP is close to its all-time high. In the first quarter of 2003 — the latest data available — real-goods production was 39.2 percent of real GDP. The highest annual figure ever recorded was 40 percent in 2000. By contrast, in the “good old days” of the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, the U.S. actually produced far fewer goods as a share of total output. The highest figure recorded in the 1940s was 35.5 percent in 1943; the highest in the 1950s was 34.9 percent in 1953; and the highest in the 1960s was 33.6 percent in 1966.

This despite declines in manufacturing employment. How are we doing it? Productivity is rising, which is a benefit to everybody, even the laid off workers at Pillowtex. If workers are more productive, companies can pay higher salaries. Higher salaries create a higher standard of living which makes people want to consume more goods and services. New businesses start to meet that demand and, voila, our textile worker has an interview on Monday.

All right, not really. As I've acknowledged, global capitalism does cause pain, and there's no guarantee Joe Textile will land on his feet, no matter how many government sponsored retraining programs we create (in fact, I bet they're another part of the problem, but that's another day's argument). But it's that pain that has given us the largest, most important economy in the world. Our standard of living (which is more than BMW's and lattes; it's also health and safety and the time to worry about whether our kids should watch another half hour of Barney) and the rest of the world's is higher now and continuing to improve because of the the economic growth that is the flip side of the coin.

Videos and Toddlers: This has evolved somewhat from where I started, but that certainly won't stop me from chiming in. I watched a good amount of t.v. growing up. I also read a lot - I read very fast; this probably means I comprehend less, but there you have it. On your average book, I can put away 100 pages in an hour. Still, I like to watch the tube, even today. My children watch some videos and some t.v. One video I swore my children would neer watch was anything from the "Barney" series. I presumed it to be vapid and too p.c. Well, come to my house some time and you'll see a veritable library of Barney. Two things in its defense: 1) tons of songs, and my oldest loves to sing - she has memorized hundreds of songs. I'm not saying she's the next Maria Calas, but in my mind, anything that has her exercising her brain and mouth at the same time can't be bad. She also makes up a lot of songs, thereby showing that she's not just aping the er, dinosaur. 2) that series of videos is short on p.c. messages, and more about learning about places and things. For instance, there is a song about what to do if you get lost in the woods: a) stay where you are; b) blow your whistle; and c) hug a tree (okay, there are a few p.c. messages). Still, she can recite to me what to do if she gets lost in the woods - hell, it's probably better than what I would have told her to do (start a fire - heh).

Moving on, there are some thing you have to keep them from, but her love of singing means that if it's got songs, she'll watch. Recently, she started to groove on the tape of the original Peter Pan television movie with Mary Martin. So, the point is that it's really about the quality. But it's also about recognizing that our kids don't have to be the center of everything we do - or more accurately, that we don't have to agonize over everything they do or don't do. No one would deny that they are probably the most important part of our lives, but the fact is that sometimes it is they who have to bend to what we want to do. Why do we have to give up all of our free time to their activities? Here's a rake, kid, now don't bother me.

Kids and TV: Flyer, I think back on my TV days with mixed feelings. As I've grown older, I've become a real bookworm, but I read terribly slowly, no doubt because I practiced so little in my formative years, preferring the company of the idiot box.

On the other hand, I'm culturally literate up to about the mid-90s.

I think video has tremendous potential for teaching, and I'm an advocate of some type of TV in the classroom. Some of the learning that stuck with me most from childhood, and influenced my thinking, came from television. James Burke's Connections stands atop the list. Ken Burns's Civil War and Jazz, though flawed, excited and enthralled me, and his brother Ric's New York documentary, while derivative, was so educational it bordered on didactic, particularly in its focus on the labor movement. Meanwhile, there is plenty of empty reading out there. Educators praise the Harry Potter books (which I am not singling out for scorn, by the way) by saying, "At least the kids are reading something." That, to me, is a cop out of the first water.

My point is, kids don't need to be media restricted so much as media guided. Some reading is better than other. Some video is better than other. And I think we all know brain-jelly entertainment when we see it. My wife and I have pulled videos from our son's viewing after seeing how little protein they offer (Fisher-Price's "Little People" videos are particularly vapid). Then again, I think I'd like to be allowed to reserve that same editorial control of what my son reads and is taught in school. (Off limits: Constructed self-esteem exercises, environmental propaganda, sexual pre-programming, racial guilt, and "sharing," just to start.) So we're all pulled in multiple, competing directions. I suppose if my own educational background offers me any guidance, it's this: A child with a good set of tools (literacy, numeracy, and a good balance of open-mindedness and skepticism), an age-appropriate amount of freedom of choice, and parents with a no-bullshit policy on answering questions is armed to enter the world on its own terms.

Time to get serious: With the ultimate hobby, golf, on the way out, it's time for us to concentrate on what matters; namely the NFL. To celebrate here's a few must-read columns to get started with. First off, the irrepressible, irreverant, and irreversible (don't start with him on "double reverses") TMQ. Last week was just a general commentary on what happened in the off-season in the world. Next Tuesday ... er tomorrow, he starts with his AFC preview. Don't forget, all of his predictions are guaranteed wrong, or your money back! Next, and more conventionally is CNN/SI's Peter King's "Monday Morning Quarterback" (yes, I should have started with Monday before Tuesday, but ... get over it). King is more of the insider, meaning he actually goes to games and interviews people. Not as funny as TMQ, but certainly more factual, and very perceptive. These two guys are all you need to read: one for hard facts, one for what they really mean. Ahhh, I love the smell of NeXturf in the morning!

Re: Children: Just as I'm mulling over your musings, Razor, on modern parenting and related issues, I checked in at Iain Murray's blog, The Edge of England's Sword, and found this post by Iain's wife, fretting over how much TV her daughter should be watching. I don't have kids, so I'm the least qualified to get into this, but I think you're onto something. Maybe because it is so easy (relative to the very inconventient centuries past) to care for the basic needs of child's health and well being, parents are now searching for more "needs" to address. It's not enough to put a kid in the corner with a coloring book, what are they learning from it? Is it a valid assertion of a three year-old's independence to put pudding in the VCR, or does it show his desire to feed the world? Adults try so hard to shape and understand these little minds and I don't know if it's getting the kids anywhere or not. Just as you don't advocate putting them back to work at age 6, I don't think vegging in front of the tube is good for kids (it did little good for me as a kid), but maybe it's not the end of the world. You've certainly seen a kid take a spill and cry for a few minutes. They're usually back up and running again after a few minutes, once they figure out they're okay and Mom or Dad gives 'em a little love. And what do we always say? "Kids, they're so resilient." I suspect their minds are as well, and that with a little encouragement at the proper time, they'll find television to be less interesting as they get older. And by then they'll be necking in the backseat of a Volvo and Mom will be wishing they'd stay home and watch Survivor.

Nifty Technology Stuff: Wired's piece on the applications and manufacture of man-made diamonds. It's just like you thought when you were a kid: smash some carbon really, really hard. Since few things are more common than carbon, it's only natural that we would someday exploit technology to force the element's most valuable crystal to form. But the consequences, economic and social, are extensive. Your computer may run faster on nature's most durable crystal. And the flaw in your engagement stone may make it all the more coveted, as machines crank out flawless diamonds on demand. This goes back to our capitalism, globalism, progress discussion from last week. I won't shed big tears for DeBeers, nor for generations of African dictatorship propped up by diamonds' value. And I'll happily welcome the industrial benefits that will create jobs, efficiency, and continued advances in technology that will do more for the economy than 200 years of traditional diamond digging, cutting, and marketing -- an industry that is, of course, in panic. (Via A&LD.)

California Dreaming: The latest Field Poll in California shows Bustamente over Schwarzenegger by a hair. Could be, but I have a couple questions. First, does their questionnaire really identify Bill Simon as a Democrat (see page 2 of the linked results)? And just what, exactly, is a "likely voter" in the most unusual gubernatorial election in recent California history? I think the polls are going to say some odd things for the next month.

Call Schieffer: Somebody get the host of Face the Nation on the blower and explain the free market to him. Twice in his interview with Sec'y Abraham, Schieffer stopped and got all bent that electricity customers would have to pay for upgrades to the grid. First time:

SCHIEFFER: I've seen some estimates that it may cost up to $50 billion to fix this. Who is going to pay that?

ABRAHAM: Well, I think the type of money you're talking about relates to the need for modernization on the transmission grid. Ratepayers, obviously, will pay the bill because they're the ones who benefit. And that's where most of the responsibility ultimately will be assigned.

SCHIEFFER: Wait, wait, wait. Let's back up.

ABRAHAM: Right. Right.

SCHIEFFER: Ratepayers -- that means people who pay in their electric bills.

ABRAHAM: Right. It does. That's right.

SCHIEFFER: So you're saying the customers are going to have to pay for this?

Kudos to Spence Abraham for not ducking this one, not suggesting re-regulation, and saying (in bureauspeak), "You're goddamn right the ratepayer will have to pay for this, Bob. Who the hell else would you suggest?" Well Bob had an answer for that:

SCHIEFFER: Excuse me for asking, but, I mean, aren't the companies going to have to bear some of this cost?

Now, either Bob's doing his faux-populist schtick for the very slim demographic that tunes him in (folks for whom the lines on the IQ and age graph are getting ready to meet), or else Bob really is dumb enough to believe that the power companies have $50 bil in some big bankroll somewhere that they could take out and use to build a Reeeeeal Naaaaahce 'Lectric Grid for the country, but they'll probably take it to the political strip club and stick it all down the g-string of Tom Delay instead. (And if Schieffer thinks that he hasn't learned a f*cking thing in all his years as a journalist, so I'll have to assume he's playing it up for the fixed-income crowd.)

Spence Abraham seems like a nice man who works hard and calls home if he can't kiss his kids goodnight. You know what I mean? And here he is sitting there on CBS, in front of god and everybody, telling Americans that, if they want better electric service, they may have to pay more money. In essence, he's been sent naked into the lion cage to announce that the porterhouse wagon broke down outside Dubuque, but (not to worry) Spence is here to keep them company until the ratatouille is served. And here, opposite, is Bob Schieffer, snow white coiff shaking in disbelief: "You mean to say, Mr. Secretary, that if Americans want to drive around in a BMWs instead of a Yugos, those conniving thieves at Big Auto will expect them to pay more? And the government intends to just stand by and let this happen?"

Sound of Freedom: Friendly wave to Brian Kieffer, one of the new kids over at the Agitator, who (I presume) got a peek at the Thunderbirds this weekend. Says Brian:

This is the weekend of Chicago's Air and Water Show, and this year's headliners are the U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds. I love that I live in a country where the average citizen will experience an F-16C Fighting Facon only as a form of entertainment.

I'm always reminded of the moment, a couple of years ago, when a boy standing near me complained to his father about the noise from the jets. The father smiled and replied, "Son, that's the sound of freedom."

The Blue Angels were here this weekend for an airshow, and I got to see them practicing on Friday. Heading North on the highway, and rounding a corner to a flat, straight stretch of road, I looked up and saw two of the bright blue F/A 18s, close enough together to appear to have linked wings, following the highway South directly toward me. Scared the shit outta me. Now imagine being the poor schmuck in Iraq or Afghanistan who has the misfortune of the very same view I got of the Hornet. Plus this.

The PGA: Well, four majors, four nobody champions. CBS, the Golf Channel and ESPN all weep. I watched exactly 12 minutes all weekend as my cry of non-recognition on the opening day re: the leader board turned to a whimper. Flyer, I greatly appreciate your encapsulating (in a more than amateur manner) what I missed. I still don't understand how Tiger has such a bad tournament. It's not like Sampras in tennis, who simply couldn't play on clay. While the courses vary in many ways, it's still basically the same grass, sand and wind, isn't it? Was it the Nike driver again? Is he blinded by his own brilliance? I mean, +12??!!

Appropos of nothing: I was reading a book this weekend and the author wrote this line: "The nineteenth century created children." I re-read it again, and thought about it - and by jove, he's right. I mean, this isn't something new per se, but I had not really thought about it. It became particularly resonant for me as I sat on the beach watching the hundreds of children play in the water, eat ice cream, throw temper tantrums, and in general, get treated like little Pashas. Before the industrial revolution, children existed to (a) carry on the family name, and (b) provide cheap labor on the family farm, or maybe in the family shop. Children learned (meaning book learnin'), if at all, at the home, or maybe at the community church. Then, cities began centralize the means of production, and all of the sudden, children went from working on the family spread, to leaving the family cold-water walk-up, which housed three generations, and went to earn their $.015 daily wage at the nearby industrial loom. Of course we're all familiar with the child labor movements which decried the horrible conditions that children had to work in. Well, the little buggers have been coddled ever since, and now we (adults) spend every waking moment ensuring that our children's psyches are not damaged by a harsh word, tug on the wrist, or non-politically correct book.

We have subjugated ourselves to them willingly. I'm not saying that 8 year-olds should be tanning hides for a living, but we really have lost a sense of proportion. Holidays, after-school - it's all about their horizons being expanded while we find creative ways to have dinners with our spouses twice a month. I'm not sure we haven't gone too far in the other direction. Now back to your regularly-scheduled programming.

A brutal test: That's what Tiger called the 85th PGA Championship at Oak Hill. But he also had praise for the course and the setup, despite finishing tied for 39th, his worst finish as a professional in a major.

"This is a very fair test. It's right there in front of you," Woods said. "It's just very difficult.

Ths is an important statement for a tournament that will receive some criticism for a few reasons. The most heard complaints will be that the course conditions were too difficult for a PGA, too U.S. Open like, resulting in scores that were too high and didn't showcase the players enough, and that there were no stars in the hunt at the finish. Well, sucks to all of the critics, it was everything a golf fan could want.

The course: I know I criticized the PGA for trying to "out Open" the Open by growing the rough to an outrageous heigth, but turns it there was a reason. Heavy rains for two weeks in Rochester prevented cutting the rough to normal PGA length. If they'd tried to cut it, the course would have been even harder, with long grass laying down and hiding golf balls even more. I think they did the best they could with difficult circumstances. The scores were high, relative to par, but it was a par 70 course (instead of the more common par 72), depriving players of two par fives every day on which to rack up birdies. The Open does this frequently with no complaints and it's the way Oak Hill sets up best for elite players. All in all, the course was gourgeous, lush and green, and the greens were immaculate. It was a difficult course, but that's what identifies the best player of the week. And, with few exceptions, the majors do that pretty well.

As for the lack of stars at the end, that only hurts the tv ratings, which while important to the growth of the game, should not be the motivating factor or the standard by which players or tournaments are judged. Tiger, Ernie, Phil, and Segio weren't there at the end, or at all, but we got to see a couple of rising stars show off thier impressive skill. Champion Shaun Micheel won the tournament in style. When Ben Curtis had his Cinderella story at the British Open it was more lost by Thomas Bjorn than won by Curtis. Curtis deserves much praise, but he got a lot of help when Bjorn blew his lead. Micheel won after sleeping on the lead (a nerve wracking experience for even the most hard boiled pro) and made clutch shots down the stretch. It was fun to watch, despite his lack of a pedigree. And Chad Campbell, who finished second, is a highly respected rookie.

Campbell, a 13-time winner on the Hooters Tour, was voted by his peers in a Sports Illustrated poll a few weeks ago as the next star-in-the-making. He almost made them look good in a hurry.

We'll see a lot more of this guy in the future, and I suspect he'll get a major before long.

Finally, the tournament had a dramatic ending that will go down in history as one of the greats. With a one stroke lead and Campbell sitting close for a birdie, Micheel laced a 7-iron closer than a Florida recount to seal the victory. Within minutes people were comparing it to some of the greatest shots in golf history, including Waton's chip-in on the 71st hole at the '82 Open at Pebble Beach and Corey Pavin's remarkable shot on the last hole of the '95 Open at Shinnecock Hills. If you know nothing about golf, know only that this is high praise indeed.

And so the golf season winds down. There's little of import, except to real junkies, to come in the next few months. And what have we seen in the past year? The "star" players dominated the tour this year, with Tiger, Davis Love, Ernie Els, Mike Weir, Jim Furyk,and Kenny Perry (all right he's not quite star material) all carding mulitiple victories. But the majors were a different story, with each title going to a first time major winner and the last two taken by first time tour winners. That's more than unusual. Never before have two consecutive majors been won by first timers. Tiger will be back in full force next year (he'll be hungrier for another major than he's been in a while), but we've seen how deep the talent pool is and it will be tough to be surprised by anything. The PGA Championship provided a fitting end to a season that nobody envisioned and provided much fodder for next year's debates and predictions. And it was a hell of a lot of fun.

PS Thanks for indulging my amateur golf commentary during major weeks. I see it as a relief from my amateur political commentary every other week.

Don't Call Me . . . Shirley: Flyer, you make some excellent points re: the validity of Pejman's argument, particularly on his wrong-headed (but appealing) comparison to vouchers. The libertarian view here is easy enough to articulate. This is another example of government putting unnecessary restrictions on business. The government functions best when it performs jobs that individuals cannot do. We cannot all deliver our own mail (though FedEx can). We can't individually conquer Iraq (actually, we could outsource that, too; maybe two or three of us could with a truckload of beer, Playboy, and Nintendo . . .). A sufficient and limited response to telemarketing is the do-not-call law, already on the books, which allows me to get my name off call lists simply by asking. This puts no particular burden on the telemarketers, other than to simply respect my wishes not to be bothered. It's arguably good for them, since someone who goes through the trouble of requesting removal is a bad lead anyway. (Hangups are a different story.) The do-not-call list, on the other hand, functions to remove the burden from the consumer at the expense of both the taxpayer, to pay for the maintenance of the service, and the marketer, who is under pressure to keep lists up to snuff. In other words, it's a waste of time and money, all to keep Joe Blow in (hell, let's hit the trifecta) Rockaway, New Jersey, from having to get off his lazy ass, pick up the phone, and say, "Please do not call me." This is not a proper function of government.

Now, the sticky wicket: I do intend to put my name on the list. Hypocrite, eh? You're goddamn right. Look, nothing in my power will undo this crappy idea made law; there are just too many people willing to let the government run the rolodex of business for a moment of peace in front of "Survivor 14" (motto: "Just like the Democratic primary race, but with smarter contestants!"). Thus, I'll make use of it. Any libertarians who want to give me shit about this can kiss my rebel ass and show me the return receipts when they begin mailing their Social Security checks back to the government with the "Thanks, but no thanks" note attached.

I'm suddenly a long way from home: From Opinion Journal:

Kim Jong Edwards
In an article on Democratic presidential candidates and the recall of California's Gov. Gray Davis, the Associated Press's Ron Fournier observes: "Sen. John Edwards of North Korea said he opposes the recall and will not back an alternative." Do we really care what a senator from North Korea thinks of an election in an American state?

Being from North Carolina, I hope Edwards remembers who he's representing, that is until he bails and makes his campaign official. We'll leave the Senator AWOL routine to John Kerry as long as possible.