Was Bush right to withdraw from the International Criminal Court?

[Jodi]

ISSIDIQUI –

[quote]
So, who’s '100% totally wrong…‘confirmed via the links’ now?
[/quote[

It appears that I am. Shit. I really, really hate that. And I hate having to own up to it. But you live by honest debate, you die by honest debate, and in that spirit I would also point out that you were wrong in asserting that “act of aggression” is in any way included in “war crimes.”

[quote]
I think it does. Unless we confirm we are hypocrites, because we will continue to violate national soveriegnty as it suits us.[/q uote]

I think it is wildly overstated to say that we “violate national sovereignty as it suits us.” Even if true, that would excuse the violation of our sovereignty by other nations (if they could get away with it); it does not IMO engender an obligation for us to voluntarily surrender it.

As said, wrong. Signing it but not ratifying it means that you are advocating a wait and see approach. Not signing it at all, means you disagree that such a court should ever exist.

Really? Do you have a cite for this? On what do you base the assertion that failing to sign a given treaty is tantamount to a declaration that the treaty should not exist?

You’ve seem to created a totally new excuse for rejection, creating the term of ‘acceptable legal systems’, which ‘isn’t what the treaty says’.

I have not “created” anything. I have analysized the treaty to the best of my limited ability, and reviewed the arguments for and against it, as I have been able to discover them.

It says that if the country proceeds with a trial then then the ICC won’t prosecute. HOWEVER, if that trial is thought to be ingenious, or there is a refusal to trial, then the ICC may step in. By saying ‘acceptable legal systems’ you are being somewhat decietful. They do not look for if the system was acceptable or not, they evaluate each trial, on a trial-by-trial basis. They make NO judgments on the systems that exist, contrary to what you say.

The fact that the evaluation of the acceptability of the national legal system in question is made on a “case by case basis,” does not mean that the evaluation of the acceptability of the system is not being made. And I would appreciate it if you were very careful throwing around words like “deceitful;” I take implications that I am a liar very seriously.

So do you believe a Supreme Court of the US should not exist because their might be the threat of political shenanagans, because they are appointed by politicians?

Look, the Supreme Court and the ICC are not comparable, in part because the status of signing/ratifying nations under the ICC is in no way analagous to the status of American citizens vis a vis the U.S. Supreme Court. We as individuals do not agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; it asserts (or can assert) its jurisdiction over each of us because we are citizens of an over-arching national government. Appurtenant to that are mechanisms for enforcement by the Court, by which it may impose its jurisdiction upon each of us – we can, quite literally, be dragged before it. A court – any court – set up by consent is a different animal; it only exists through the consent of the participating nations, and for so long as the nations agree to participate. Furthermore, if the Supreme Court were being set up today, a real, demonstrable risk of “shennanigans” (i.e., corruption) would certainly be reason to refuse to submit to it. IMO.

Yes, we have that right, and yes, it makes us seem very arrogant. You can’t always get ALL you want, especially when there are more than 2 sides.

Of course we can always get what we want, or walk away. If you won’t play by my rules, I’ll go home. I won’t take the ball andd bat – you can keep them and play with the other kids – but I’m going home. As is my right. What rationale would allow you to force me to stay and play? I continue to fail to see the arrogance of that position. If the treaty is deemed unacceptable, then it is not “arrogance” to walk away from it. Now, reasons may exist to stay (as COLLOUNSBURY argues), but the reasons to stay or go do not (and should not) devolve to “arrogance.” You may consider the action to be “arrogant,” but that is of course only your opinion and I am not required to share it.

Then protest away . The federal courts don’t have the protections that your state courts might. So if you are hauled in front of federal courts, you might not be getting the rights your state or even your municipality has. It is the compromise that Americans make.

That is not a “compromise Americans make.” The systems are largely separate, and the exercise of jurisdiction is inndependent in each case. You get [set X] rights under the federal system; you get [set Y] rights under the state system. You do not “compromise” in either case, because you get what is handed to you, in an existing system that is imposed upon you from above. The ICC is not part of an existing legal system, but rather part of an attempt to create one, and it is not imposed under the rubric of an overarching legal system of global governance, but rather by the consent of the treaty members, and only the treaty members. Again, the two are not comparable.

[Gadarene]

catsix:

Since when is any international body recognized as being supreme to the Constitution of the US and deciding whether or not, within our borders, our legal system is ‘able’ to exercise jurisdiction?

See NAFTA’s Chapter 11. In practice, it does exactly that.

[Jodi]

GAD!! :: waves :: How ya been, stranger? How’s school?

[ISiddiqui]

I would also point out that you were wrong in asserting that “act of aggression” is in any way included in “war crimes.”

Yes, I wasn’t totally true in that, however, it does seem under war crimes would be things you’d attribute to an act of aggression.

I think it is wildly overstated to say that we “violate national sovereignty as it suits us.” Even if true, that would excuse the violation of our sovereignty by other nations (if they could get away with it); it does not IMO engender an obligation for us to voluntarily surrender it.

But don’t you want to move away from individual countries violating each others’ soveriegnty and place that right in an international body, which would have soveriengty over the others? I would. While ‘Might Makes Right’ is the rule, doesn’t mean it has to be.

Really? Do you have a cite for this? On what do you base the assertion that failing to sign a given treaty is tantamount to a declaration that the treaty should not exist?

It is common international interpretation. As Colloun. would say, PR. When you refuse to sign a treaty, in diplospeak that is tantamount to saying you disagree with it, and no I don’t have a source.

The fact that the evaluation of the acceptability of the national legal system in question is made on a “case by case basis,” does not mean that the evaluation of the acceptability of the system is not being made. And I would appreciate it if you were very careful throwing around words like “deceitful;” I take implications that I am a liar very seriously.

Yet you had no problem saying that you are through with a line of debate because I was 100% percent wrong (ie, meaning continuing to lie on my behalf)? It is pretty deceitful to say that they are evaluating the acceptability of the system, because that is soemthing they are most definetly not doing. They see if the that trial has been conducted by the government fairly and genuinly. Just because one trial hasn’t, doesn’t mean that others don’t.

Furthermore, if the Supreme Court were being set up today, a real, demonstrable risk of “shennanigans” (i.e., corruption) would certainly be reason to refuse to submit to it. IMO.

That was the only answer I’ve been looking for. The threat with ANY startup court is that there is always this belief that it will not work, or be corrupt. It was there with the Supreme Court (look what the anti-Federalists said), the EU Court of Justice, and the ICC. The fear is always worse than the reality.

That is not a “compromise Americans make.” The systems are largely separate, and the exercise of jurisdiction is inndependent in each case. You get [set X] rights under the federal system; you get [set Y] rights under the state system. You do not “compromise” in either case, because you get what is handed to you, in an existing system that is imposed upon you from above.

There may be (and are) different requirements of evidence, different standards for protection of witnesses, etc. If a state case goes to the federal system (ie, a Supreme Court tries to solve a problem between different rulings in differnt states), you might have lesser protections. How is this not a compromise?

The ICC is not part of an existing legal system, but rather part of an attempt to create one, and it is not imposed under the rubric of an overarching legal system of global governance, but rather by the consent of the treaty members, and only the treaty members. Again, the two are not comparable.

In the same way, the ICC is a seperate system from the country systems. The member states have a window where they can try international criminals under their own laws. If they do not attempt this, then the international criminals go to the International Court. The WHOLE part of having member states being able to have the right to try international criminals in their own courts was a compromise (which I don’t think should have been granted). So, yes, they are comparable, they are two different systems, with a compromise for the members states of the charter…

People that commit international crimes (crimes illegal under international law) should be tried in international courts.

[ISiddiqui]

Of course we can always get what we want, or walk away. If you won’t play by my rules, I’ll go home. I won’t take the ball andd bat – you can keep them and play with the other kids – but I’m going home. As is my right. What rationale would allow you to force me to stay and play? I continue to fail to see the arrogance of that position. If the treaty is deemed unacceptable, then it is not “arrogance” to walk away from it. Now, reasons may exist to stay (as COLLOUNSBURY argues), but the reasons to stay or go do not (and should not) devolve to “arrogance.” You may consider the action to be “arrogant,” but that is of course only your opinion and I am not required to share it.

No, you aren’t… but we live in a community of states. We aren’t alone in this world, and we need to live with these other states. Most, if not all, of the other states in the Rome Statute, including our allies, consider the actions, and plenty of our recent actions, to be very arrogant, with no respect to our allies feelings. We can’t alienate them… especially because we won’t be on top forever.

[Jodi]

ISSIDIQUI –

Yes, I wasn’t totally true in that, however, it does seem under war crimes would be things you’d attribute to an act of aggression.

Hm. Not “totally true.” I must then under your definiton of “deceitful” assume you are a liar, because your definitions do not appear to admit of anyone being simply mistaken. So consider yourself deemed deceitful as well.

But don’t you want to move away from individual countries violating each others’ soveriegnty and place that right in an international body, which would have soveriengty over the others? I would. While ‘Might Makes Right’ is the rule, doesn’t mean it has to be.

No, actually, I am not convinced that I would be in favor of removing national sovereignty in criminal matters and placing it in an international court, though I do not foreclose the possibility. I haven’t thought it through. But it should be obvious that being generally in favor of national sovereignty as opposed to international oversight is in no way the same as advocating violating the international sovereignty of other nations.

It is common international interpretation. As Colloun. would say, PR. When you refuse to sign a treaty, in diplospeak that is tantamount to saying you disagree with it, and no I don’t have a source.

It is “a common international interpretation” that failing to sign a treaty indicates active disapproval of the treaty? I’m not sure that I agree with that interpretation.

Yet you had no problem saying that you are through with a line of debate because I was 100% percent wrong (ie, meaning continuing to lie on my behalf)?

Please attempt to distinguish between deceit and mistake; it’s rather a crucial distinction.

It is pretty deceitful to say that they are evaluating the acceptability of the system, because that is soemthing they are most definetly not doing. They see if the that trial has been conducted by the government fairly and genuinly. Just because one trial hasn’t, doesn’t mean that others don’t.

They are evaluating the acceptability of the system, and the fact that such evaluation may occur on a case by case basis in no way changes that. You may consider that interpretation to be “deceitful,” but then I am rapidly ceasing to care what you consider it.

The threat with ANY startup court is that there is always this belief that it will not work, or be corrupt. It was there with the Supreme Court (look what the anti-Federalists said), the EU Court of Justice, and the ICC. The fear is always worse than the reality.

Really. The fear is always worse than the reality. And on that touchingly faithful hope, we should jump right in, huh? Allow me to disagree.

There may be (and are) different requirements of evidence, different standards for protection of witnesses, etc. If a state case goes to the federal system (ie, a Supreme Court tries to solve a problem between different rulings in differnt states), you might have lesser protections. How is this not a compromise?

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here – are you? A state case generally does not “go to the federal system;” you are either in one or the other. The chief except to this is an appeal of a U.S. constitutional issues – i.e., an assertion that the law or procedures applied by the state are unconstitutional. Even then, the federal court is determining whether the state law/procedures violate your existing federal rights; you are not “compromising” those rights by moving to federal court, but rather exercising or protecting them. A single case is very unlikely to raise a conflict of laws question between states, because the crime will be prosecuted under one state (or the federal) system. If you have, for example, a greater right to privacy under a state constitution than you do under the federal constitution, but you are prosecuted under the federal law, you are not “compromising” your state-based rights; you are not implicating them at all. The two systems are separate.

People that commit international crimes (crimes illegal under international law) should be tried in international courts.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this as a general principle. I’m just not sure how one successfully sets up a workable international criminal court when the members can engineer it to opt in or out of it (by exercising, or claiming to exercise, or claiming reason exists not to exercise their own territorial jurisdiction.

No, you aren’t… but we live in a community of states. We aren’t alone in this world, and we need to live with these other states.

I am aware we live in a community of states; unsigning this treaty does not remove us from the planet. We will continue to live with these other states; this appears to me to be self-evident.

Most, if not all, of the other states in the Rome Statute, including our allies, consider the actions, and plenty of our recent actions, to be very arrogant, with no respect to our allies feelings. We can’t alienate them… especially because we won’t be on top forever.

I do not consider the perception of arrogance or the risk of alienaton to be risks serious enough to prompt us to undertake an action that is arguably not in our best interests.

[China_Guy]

*Originally posted by Estilicon *
**1) ICC
2) Kyoto Treaty
3) Supporting Venezuela Coup
4) Farm Bill
5) Guantanamo’s prisioners of “not war”
6) Axis of evil
7) Middle east
8) anti ICBM shield (is Bush still on this?)

Did I miss anything else? **

Don’t forget steel subsidies, which is going to WTO arbitration. Maybe Bush is going to pull the US out of WTO.

[Jaakko]

And then there’s the new children’s rights treaty:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/11/un.children.summit.ap/index.html

[Gadarene]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
**GAD!! :: waves :: How ya been, stranger? How’s school? **

[hijack]Hi, Jodi! Drop me an e-mail, and I’ll tell you all about it![/hijack]

[jshore]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
And I’m aware that the U.S. was in favor of the carbon-sink adjustments, but that doesn’t mean that they are a good thing.

I think that those who are opposed to Kyoto are happy to argue this point either way. If you give them carbon sinks, then they complain that these are unfair; if you don’t give them carbon sinks, they claim that this is unfair. Come on already. Is it a perfect treaty? Absolutely not. Can we arrive at a treaty that everyone will think is perfect? No. Is it a reasonable start at taking the world onto a new path? Yes.

Kyoto is not the end-all and be-all of existence. It is just a starting point. The developing nation’s emissions are going to be considered in future frameworks. But, it makes sense to start with the nations that are using the most energy per capita, can most afford to make changes, and have the technological base to do what needs to be done.

As a Canadian, I want a special exemptiion for the fact that I live in a freaking deep-freeze for 8 months of the year. That’s one reason why Canadians are some of the highest per-capita energy users in the world.

What are you whining about? Kyoto is all relative. You are not being asked to cut your energy usage per capita down to the level of China…You are only being asked to reduce it by something like 7 or 8% (probably less with various credits) below 1990 levels.

The last study I looked at said that by 2100, the net effect of Kyoto would be to delay warming by six years. In other words, the world will be about as warm in 2100 without Kyoto as it would be in 2106 with it. That doesn’t sound like much of a reduction to me.

I always find it amusing when people try to project the effect of Kyoto to 2100 when it sets emissions targets for 2012. My guess is that they didn’t adopt the rosiest scenario for what happens beyond 2012. The point is to start to correct the huge economic distortions that already exist due to the costs of greenhouse gas emission that are not being internalized so that the market actually starts to behave in a more rational manner.

So, Sam, if you think Kyoto is so bad, why don’t you tell us what a fairer, better treaty would have been and justify it to us all?

Finally, the whole “Kyoto treaty was flawed” argument was shown to be pretty much of a smokescreen in this country when Bush revealed his own plan for dealing with global warming which is to do basically nothing but make it sound like you consider it a serious issue and are doing something. Do you think that is a better policy?

[december]

*Originally posted by jshore *
**Finally, the whole “Kyoto treaty was flawed” argument was shown to be pretty much of a smokescreen in this country when Bush revealed his own plan for dealing with global warming which is to do basically nothing but make it sound like you consider it a serious issue and are doing something. Do you think that is a better policy? **

There are three plausible positions to hold on global warming. [ol][li]There is no global warming. (very unlikely)[]Activity of mankind has little impact on global warming (true, according to some models) []Activity of mankind has a big impact on global warming. (True, according to some models.[/ol] Those models supporting #3 all show that the greenhouse gas reduction produced by Kyoto would have a negligible effect on global warming.[/li]
The likelihood is that** global warming is occurring and we do not know how to prevent**. A better alternative approach would be to learn to live with global warming, because we probably have no choice.

[jshore]

december, while there remain uncertainties in the science of global warming, the general consensus of the scientific community, as expressed in the NAS report and the IPCC is that your (3) is correct and your (2) is not [to simplify only a bit].

Also, I have already explained why saying Kyoto will have a negligible effect on global warming is non-sensical. Of course, almost anything we do over the next 10 years will have a fairly negligible effect on the climate over the next 100 years if we assume that all we do is do it for 10 years. Hell, even not emitting any greenhouse gases for 10 years won’t have such a big effect if we go back to business-as-usual after that. But, the point of Kyoto is to start to move our energy production and use in new directions. It is not the end; it is the beginning. It is an attempt to start to roughly give the market the cues it needs to recognize costs in our current system that are not being accounted for.

One part of what you say is true though…The climate system takes a long time to equilibrate so even if we were able to freeze the level of CO2 in the atmosphere at what it is now (and, of course, we won’t be able to do that anyway), we will be stuck dealing with effects of global warming. However, that doesn’t mean it is not very worthwhile to try to minimize our grand “experiment” on the planet’s climate system, particularly if dramatic enough forcings could lead to strong nonlinear effects, as some scientists believe (although the science of this aspect is still pretty young).

[system]

I might add that further to Jshore’s comments, we should also allow for the effect of possible efficiency gains if carbon reductions are undertaken in a properly constructed market framework.

One item I find deeply annoying about the neo-Con critique (despite having deep reservations, as noted frequently in the past – and I do think there are serious flaws in Kyoto which required renegotiations) is the neo-Cons enthusiasm for finding costs but lack of attention to finding benefits (speaking of direct economic savings, abstracting away from externalities).

There are robust balanced critiques to be made, but as Sam’s use of the Carbon sinks shows, the neo-Con authors upon which he is depending have made a rather slanted effort.

Ideological blindness.

Rather like the issue of the ICC and removing the signature.

[JMRossi]

The “treaty” was never legally binding on the US anyways. Clinton just signed it(probally for PR reasons),he never sent it to the Senate for ratification because he knew it would lose.

[system]

As noted, signatories also gain certain practical advantages on influencing internal operation w/o most of the costs. Not only PR, there are then other advantages. Whereas signature removal only plays to the know-nothing isolationist crowd.

[december]

*Originally posted by jshore *
december, while there remain Also, I have already explained why saying Kyoto will have a negligible effect on global warming is non-sensical. Of course, almost anything we do over the next 10 years will have a fairly negligible effect on the climate over the next 100 years if we assume that all we do is do it for 10 years. Hell, even not emitting any greenhouse gases for 10 years won’t have such a big effect if we go back to business-as-usual after that. But, the point of Kyoto is to start to move our energy production and use in new directions. It is not the end; it is the beginning. It is an attempt to start to roughly give the market the cues it needs to recognize costs in our current system that are not being accounted for.

Let’s be clear. If Kyoto were approved and followed for the next 100 years, the reduction in global warming would be minimal, acccording to the models that support Kyoto. (There would be no reduction at all, according to the models that attribute global warming to other-than-man-causes.)

jshore, I wish you were correct, when you wrote, “But, the point of Kyoto is to start to move our energy production and use in new directions. It is not the end; it is the beginning.” In fact, Kyoto is not the beginning, because it was never going to be confirmed. It’s unclear when, if ever, the world will agree on a treaty as restrictive as Kyoto. Yet, it would require a treaty much, much more restrictive to make a major reduction in global warming.

I’m not the least bit happy about this state or affairs, but that’s how it looks to me.

It’s conceivable that some technological advance might save us. Either a way to get most of our energy without greenhouse gasses (fusion?) or a new way to reduce the earth’s temperature, which doesn’t involve reducing greenhouse gasses.

However, barring some sort of unexpected luck, our grandchildren may be in the hot seat, and they’ll have to make the best of it. It would be a good idea to start research now to figure out how we can best cope with a warmer world.

[ISiddiqui]

Hm. Not “totally true.” I must then under your definiton of “deceitful” assume you are a liar, because your definitions do not appear to admit of anyone being simply mistaken. So consider yourself deemed deceitful as well.

That’s fine… I probably was.

No, actually, I am not convinced that I would be in favor of removing national sovereignty in criminal matters and placing it in an international court, though I do not foreclose the possibility. I haven’t thought it through. But it should be obvious that being generally in favor of national sovereignty as opposed to international oversight is in no way the same as advocating violating the international sovereignty of other nations.

Then how do you prosecute international crimes like genocide?

It is “a common international interpretation” that failing to sign a treaty indicates active disapproval of the treaty? I’m not sure that I agree with that interpretation.

What you agree with or not is wholy irrelevant in this case.

Please attempt to distinguish between deceit and mistake; it’s rather a crucial distinction.

You made no mistake. You knew it was a case by case decision, but decided to paint it as evaluating legal systems. In my book that’s very decietful and something that professional politicians would applaud you for.

They are evaluating the acceptability of the system, and the fact that such evaluation may occur on a case by case basis in no way changes that. You may consider that interpretation to be “deceitful,” but then I am rapidly ceasing to care what you consider it.

Very decietful… you knew what the process was, but catagorized it your own way to make it seem worse.

Really. The fear is always worse than the reality. And on that touchingly faithful hope, we should jump right in, huh? Allow me to disagree.

Yep, since that fear is the only reason we are out, knowing that the fear is always worse than the reality should make us realize the US propaganda is false.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here – are you? A state case generally does not “go to the federal system;” you are either in one or the other. The chief except to this is an appeal of a U.S. constitutional issues – i.e., an assertion that the law or procedures applied by the state are unconstitutional. Even then, the federal court is determining whether the state law/procedures violate your existing federal rights; you are not “compromising” those rights by moving to federal court, but rather exercising or protecting them. A single case is very unlikely to raise a conflict of laws question between states, because the crime will be prosecuted under one state (or the federal) system. If you have, for example, a greater right to privacy under a state constitution than you do under the federal constitution, but you are prosecuted under the federal law, you are not “compromising” your state-based rights; you are not implicating them at all. The two systems are separate.

Not really… since the state laws can be struck down. And to hear whether or not that state law is struck down you move from the state system to the federal one. Therefore, you don’t get you state rights under the federal court. After all, you are a citizen of your state, why should you give up those rights? Even if the case involves constitutionality? Isn’t that federal case violating your state’s soveriengty?

I don’t necessarily disagree with this as a general principle. I’m just not sure how one successfully sets up a workable international criminal court when the members can engineer it to opt in or out of it (by exercising, or claiming to exercise, or claiming reason exists not to exercise their own territorial jurisdiction.

Would you rather set up a United Nations police force to go in and extract the arrested? But you back state soveriegnty, so you wouldn’t. Therefore, I’m not sure you really do agree with it as a general principle.

I am aware we live in a community of states; unsigning this treaty does not remove us from the planet. We will continue to live with these other states; this appears to me to be self-evident.

Yes, while thumbing our nose at the community. Not a smart thing to do at all.

I do not consider the perception of arrogance or the risk of alienaton to be risks serious enough to prompt us to undertake an action that is arguably not in our best interests.

Wait 50 years and then tell me if you share the same position. Then you will see why agreeing with the international consensus was in our interests, and not doing so will end up being foolish.

The likelihood is that global warming is occurring and we do not know how to prevent. A better alternative approach would be to learn to live with global warming, because we probably have no choice.

No offense, but this is a dumb move. Kyoto (while I didn’t agree with it) realized the reducing our emissions would be better than simply let emissions continue unabated. By ‘learning to live’ with global warming, we basically say that when New Orleans is underwater, it wasn’t our fault, since we could do nothing. Kyoto might not have been it, but we HAVE to do something. We must reduce our carbon emissions while it might help.

Put it you this way, if we wait and try to ‘learn to deal’, it’ll be the end of us. Because global climate change (global warming might lead to a cooling because of a shut down of the Gulf Stream) might eradicate humanity.

[Sgt.J]

ISiddiqui you keep saying things like

especially because we won’t be on top forever.

yet you chide Jodi because his opinions are "wholy irrelevant in this case. " While it is highly unlikely that the United States as we know it today will remain the world’s lone Superpower, it’s nothing but speculation on your part that we will be at the mercy of nations we’re pissing off by being nationalistic today. You also claim the argument against the Treaty is fear. That is also an opinion. Many Americans, me included, feel it’s not in our best interests to cede these rights to an international body. We would characterize the argument for the Treaty as “asinine”, but that’s opinion as well. The fear mongering here is “we’d better not thumb our nose at people”. While sound advice in most cases, including (I have been persuaded) in the cases of withdrawing the signature unilaterally, it’s a rather foolish basis for signing these rights away.

so… why are your completely unproven (and unprovable) opinions allowed as part of the debate when Jodi’s aren’t?

[Sgt.J]

Now that I think of it, Germany tried to take over the fucking world 60 years ago. It was disastrous in the short run, but so much for the “we’ll be pariahs in 50 years” argument.

[Jodi]

ISSIDIQUI – I yield the field to you. I do not generally bother to associate with people who call me a liar, and am infinitely less inclined to do so with people with whom I have no history and therefore no reason to respect. Life is too short to get bent out of shape by some total stranger whose opinion I don’t value anyway.