When You Have Questions About Pigs, Don’t Ask A Muslim

So just how bad is swine flu? Are we all going to die while digging for truffles?

The PenPo is pretty sure the disease is serious, but there are many others that are a lot more serious — in the sense that they threaten to kill hundreds of thousands of people in the next few months — such as malaria. Well, if you want to understand swine flu and you go to the wrong source, you will get some really lousy information. Consider the disinformation spread by this pest of a Muslim, for example. He says you get the flu only by eating pig meat, and that the disease is not communicated from human to human.

In spite of the fact that he’s either lying or ignorant — maybe both — he got some traction on the internet with this nonsense.

In fact he’s a dangerous man. If he’s not lying about pigs and the flu, then why didn’t he get correct information, which is a snap to find on the internet? Probably because he has a religious point to make. For a true believer in the Koran, that’s more important than facts, and it’s more important than your life.

Before you believe some Muslim nutcase about viruses and disease, believe the Centers for Disease Control located in — no offense — the USA. About swine flu, the CDC say:

Swine influenza viruses are not spread by food. You cannot get swine influenza from eating pork or pork products. Eating properly handled and cooked pork products is safe.

CDC has determined that this swine influenza A (H1N1) virus is contagious and is spreading from human to human. However, at this time, it not known how easily the virus spreads between people.

Spread of this swine influenza A (H1N1) virus is thought to be happening in the same way that seasonal flu spreads. Flu viruses are spread mainly from person to person through coughing or sneezing of people with influenza. Sometimes people may become infected by touching something with flu viruses on it and then touching their mouth or nose.

Infected people may be able to infect others beginning 1 day before symptoms develop and up to 7 or more days after becoming sick. That means that you may be able to pass on the flu to someone else before you know you are sick, as well as while you are sick.

First and most important: wash your hands. Try to stay in good general health. Get plenty of sleep, be physically active, manage your stress, drink plenty of fluids, and eat nutritious food. Try not touch surfaces that may be contaminated with the flu virus. Avoid close contact with people who are sick.

CDC recommends the use of oseltamivir or zanamivir for the treatment and/or prevention of infection with these swine influenza viruses. Antiviral drugs are prescription medicines (pills, liquid or an inhaler) that fight against the flu by keeping flu viruses from reproducing in your body. If you get sick, antiviral drugs can make your illness milder and make you feel better faster. They may also prevent serious flu complications. For treatment, antiviral drugs work best if started soon after getting sick (within 2 days of symptoms).

You can’t believe the politicians, you can’t believe the bankers, you can’t believe the folks who control most of the world, and you damn sure can’t believe the Muslims, but you can believe the CDC. When the CDC have more information, they will post it here.

A Letter To The Editor


The Penguin Post recently queried a subscriber for reactions to this internet post which was written from the politically conservative viewpoint. The following quotes summarize the author’s argument:

Conservatives are torn. On the one hand, a “truth commission” to investigate enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the Bush administration would criminalize policy differences, potentially tag the Bush administration’s good faith efforts to prevent a second 9/11 as “war crimes,” and tear the country asunder. All that strikes conservatives as dangerous in the extreme. And yet –¦ the temptation to plunge into the abyss is palpable.

Visions of Nancy Pelosi on the stand, caught in a web of denial and finally revealed as an abject liar, dance in Republicans’ heads. (“So you were briefed, Ms. Pelosi, and never objected! You never moved to cut off funding, did you?”) The desire to settle the score with those who vilify in hindsight but cheered contemporaneously is understandable.

And there is also the underlying suspicion that public truth commissions would prove so controversial and explosive as to permanently hobble Obama’s domestic agenda. Even Obama’s team sensed the danger….

…in moments of quiet contemplation most conservatives know that way (“truth commission” hearings – Ed.) lies madness.

…we can do without the histrionics and the blood lust. And even if the Left foolishly roots for political civil war, conservatives need not follow — no matter how tempting it might be.

The PenPo is not, strictly speaking, a conservative publication, although many of its sensibilities run almost parallel to “wingnut” dogma. The subscriber who wrote a letter to the editor is a self-described conservative. It was hoped that this individual could provide provocative commentary that would not be at all likely to appear in the PenPo, but that, because of its somewhat different view of events, would provide a useful contrast. That goal was achieved. Accordingly, the author of the letter has the last word.

This letter to the editor is grist for your mill. The PenPo iterates its lack of interest in what its readers think, as long as they do think.

Note that the publication of this letter to the editor is not to be taken as the instigation of a policy. The Penguin Post will not serve as a vehicle for ideology that it opposes, so “moonbats” are encouraged to be content with the fact that the current administration and an overwhelming majority of the news media are powerful conduits for neo-Marxist propaganda and action. The message from here to “moonbats” is: exploit the political and journalistic resources you already have, and don’t try to co-opt the PenPo. Yes, that means the PenPo rejects (for reasons already enumerated and explained) the lunatic concept of “balance” in journalism — for all publications. The PenPo has its targets, and targets are not handed a weapon told to lay on. They have done more than enough damage already.

The Letter

The selective release of memos is a result of the narcissist Messiah, Obama Mugabe, seeking to damage the Bush administration. He is furious over Cheney’s remarks about His making America less safe — see this news item. To a narcissist, any criticism must be met with destruction.

The Democrats hate the United States that the Founders intended, and seek to deconstruct our entire society. So, of course, they are not only not bothered, but delighted by the damage that release of the memos does to our national security.

Now the surprising part of all of this is the fact that a Republican, Cheney, is actually standing up for himself, and for the truth. The standard procedure for Republicans when confronted with slander is to assume the fetal position. And if any Republican does attempt to impersonate a Man, some “maverick” (McCain, Graham, Specter) Republican inevitably stabs him in the back. So it only makes sense that the feckless Republicans, Bush included, would prefer to “take the high road” and not fight back by mounting a defense that would cause the attack to backfire on the Democrats.

The idea that show trials would damage our defense ability in the future is certainly a cause for concern, but that horse has already left the barn. There are going to be Congressional hearings, carefully controlled by the Democrats to only target Republicans, and the damage to the intelligence community will be completed.

Now, as for show trials actually backfiring against Pelosi, et al, don’t hold your breath. Any trials will be held in O.J., I mean D.C. And any Congressional hearings will be staffed with the Democrat culprits. Think “Gorelick on the 9-11 Commission.”

And only Republicans will be in the news. When Fred Thompson’s committee investigated China’s bankrolling of Clinton’s ’96 campaign, the only portion covered live by CNN was when the Democrats grilled Republican Haley Barber over perfectly legal and ethical loans. The fix is in. The Monica Media will portray the whole thing like Nixon redux.

The only chance there might be to bring out the truth is for the Republicans to be united, to act with courage, and to stand up to the lies. Which is no chance at all.

So, any way this comes down, the American people will believe what they watch on television, and what they will be told on television is that Bush is Hitler, and the brave Democrats are the defenders of the falsely accused Muslims.

What do I think about all of this? I say bring it on. Let the chips fall where they may. If a miracle happens and the American people learn the truth, then we are on the road to recovery. If instead events lead to the destruction of our national security, then it’s the Change the people voted for.

The propaganda campaign has begun. Here is the lineup for the Sunday Morning talk shows:

Sunday, April 26th, 2009

* Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:*

*FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): * Lawrence Summers, director of the National Economic Council; Sens. Kit Bond, R-Mo., and Carl Levin, D-Mich.; Maj. Gen. Carla Hawley-Bowland, commanding general of Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

*MEET THE PRESS (NBC):* White House press secretary Robert Gibbs; Jordan’s King Abdullah II; Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian.

*FACE THE NATION (CBS): * Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

*THIS WEEK (ABC): * Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. *STATE OF THE UNION (CNN):* Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to President Barack Obama; Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.; John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton; Ken Duberstein, former chief of staff to President Ronald Reagan; Pete Souza, White House photographer.

The Dissidents And The White House Maneuver For Position On The Political Battlefield

TARP is beginning to look like a TRAP. Trying to keep up with all the junk coming out of Washington is a real pain, but a good citizen really should give it a try; start here.

The problem: once you have it figured out, government does not want your opinion and wants to shut you out. Really! You are supposed to get your news from the major media, vote for the incumbent (or media favorite) and otherwise shut up. Congressional ethics are not your proper concern.

Well, no matter what Congress and Obama hope for, you are not a serf. Click on the links and ponder how Congress devolved into a jealous oligarchy.

So you say there are Good Guys in Congress? Remember, when a Bad Guy proposes a change like the one described at the link above, if Good Guys didn’t vote for the change, the Bad Guy would be foiled. But no, it does not happen. What has happened is that the rules were changed to exclude the electorate from the process of insuring Congress’ ethics. And Obama supporters are very angry about Tea Parties, which they deceitfully claim are astroturf paid for by plutocrats (that’s typical socialist cant).

Yes, Murtha has certainly scored pre-emptively against those who want a decent Congress. But the battle is not over before it has started. The biggest barrier to the effective organization of the national community is a headless, spontaneous, cheerful and irrepressible segment of the public that is just plain fed up with the egregious leadership of both parties.

It would be interesting to know whether the administration would handle the Tea Parties differently if that promised domestic security military were in place (you recall; this federal force). One can only speculate.

How Reasonable, How Heartwarming, How…How Much Sense Does This Make?

The knee-jerk reactions to diplomatic initiatives undertaken by Obama have been totally predictable. Lefties like the idea of talking with simply anybody, pressing the flesh with monsters, and jawboning people who can’t be convinced of anything sane. Righties want to talk to the Bad Guys only if reforms the USA wants are imposed, and somehow they think the world’s villains are so eager to talk to the man in the White House that they will eagerly abandon their ingrained ways.

Sheesh, isn’t there any common sense here, on either side? Is everybody nuts??

Consider this commentary, for example. It was pasted together by one James P. Rubin, an adjunct professor at Columbia and former Clinton State Department official. Quotes, with the PenPo’s reactions:

Despite the results of November’s election, Mr. Obama’s critics are judging him on the basis of the old Bush calculus. Whether it is Venezuela or Cuba, they assess Mr. Obama’s actions based on whether or not they immediately contribute to the downfall of a regime.

Yep, there it is again — the triumphalist “We won!” that pulls the rug out from under the other side’s opinion, facts and principle. “No matter how misguided we are or how ethically superior you are, we won, so you are wrong.”

Next, there is not much anybody can do (short of tossing some nukes around) that will immediately contribute to a regime’s collapse, so this charge is a straw man. You have to invade, as W could tell you. The problem with Obama’s approach is that he has told a lot of people something he did not mean to — namely that the USA is unsure of its convictions, weak, ready to give on vital issues, and afraid to stand up to the rhetoric of some of the worst people on Earth. Iran’s mullahs are rubbing their hands in glee, and Castro glimpses eventual triumph.

How could that be? Obama has forgotten that the identical message delivered to ten different governments will be interpreted in the light of each government’s values, goals, (mis)understandings of the world, and so on. So of course Iran and Castro were heartened by a display of weakness, while Ireland praised a new flexibility. For inflexible ideologues, flexibility is weakness that can be exploited.

…Mr. Obama’s critics…say the president’s politeness to Hugo Chavez, for example, should be judged by the standards of the Cold War.

And those standards were bad? If so, in what ways? (To employ a prime leftist criterion, who won? Heh, heh.) Are we now to renounce US opposition to the genuinely evil Soviet empire? One might also ask how the dispute — and it is a dispute — between the USA and Chavez is unlike the relationship between opponents in the Cold War.

…not all countries respond the same way when a dictator falls.

Certainly not, but does that mean that because we can’t be sure exactly what Venezuelans would do if Chavez were deposed, we must send him warm and cuddly signals? Those signals will also tell the democratic factions in Venezuela something, won’t they? Given a choice, why alienate the Good Guys?

…the Obama administration has used recent summits in London, Prague and Trinidad as a way to restore respect for the U.S. abroad, and to build the base of support that is necessary to achieve larger goals.

Read the article, and then name those “larger goals” it enumerates, please. Too, it would be nice to know exactly what that glittering generality “base of support” might be.

Can a willingness to talk to anybody at all cultivate a useful base of support among mature, rational nations? If so, what currently alienated foreign governments can the US seduce? Is it really just a matter of glad-handing tyrants, or should solid principles be involved? How do you build trust in a world that knows far better than to accept glib words and salesmanship as substantial?

Remember, virtually all governments are run by flim-flam artists who are conversant with the fine art of deceit. Those wily rascals are not easy to fool with empty words and smiles, so why would they be won over by sincerity, even if Obama could muster it?

In addition to those hard questions, there is one fact that Rubin literally cannot deal with (and therefore does not): a rational defense of Obama’s clownish personal diplomacy is made only with the greatest difficulty. So far, Obama’s efforts have been downright embarrassing — regarding which, more anon.

Rubin refers to the allegedly egregious sins of the Bush administration’s conduct of foreign relations without naming them and their consequences. That should arouse suspicion that he cannot name them, except only vaguely and not to the satisfaction of the majority of observers.

Then it seems that some star quality, a popularity with the general public of foreign lands, is of tremendous importance to Rubin, and — in his words — because

Mr. Obama’s new diplomacy is well-suited to an era of democratic government and instant communication. By refusing to snub Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama makes it harder for dictators and anti-American activists to demonize the U.S. Of course, national security is not a popularity contest. But since governments around the world are increasingly democratic, they must respond to the attitudes of their people. A popular America has more leverage at the negotiating table on issues from trade to terrorism. (Emphasis added.)

Baloney. Obama disgraced himself with his offensive gifts to PM Brown, for example, and if that’s “new diplomacy,” we need to turn back the clock. Anti-USA activists will not back off because Obama is cute, thin, and charming, you can be sure of that; the Birkenstock Brigadiers are not that stupid. Next, which governments are “increasingly democratic”, pray tell, and how much so? Where on Earth are despots “respond(ing) to the attitudes of their people?” In North Korea, Cuba, China, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Haiti? Where??

Rubin presents a fanciful, indeed ludicrous, scenario. It belongs in the trash dumpster alongside the delusion that during the W administration, the loutish Colin Powell and slatternly Condi Rice went from capital to capital, urinating on carpets and slandering their hosts….

Rubin, of course, has nothing whatsoever to say about the gaffes and fake facts scattered about by Obama and Hillary Clinton in the last few weeks as they traipsed around alien lands. Perhaps he thinks that Hillary’s shockingly ignorant “Who painted it?” was a high point in the history of diplomatic intercourse.

Presidential popularity overseas may have its benefits, and if so, they must be compared to the benefits of morally upright firmness. What tyrant will loosen his grip on his people if he is flattered by the leader of the world’s premier democratic republic? The dictators will always misinterpret affability as validation of their legitimacy.

As long as the world knows that the USA says what it means and means what it says, there need be no quest for popularity. Rubin seems not to grasp the fact that Western Civilization has made only a very superficial impact on the value systems of the “developing” or “third” world, and that having a rock star in the White House will only sell a lot of T shirts. The thugs and fanatics running most of the world may enjoy Obama’s entertaining quirks, but that will not in the slightest enhance their tendency to take him seriously. Of course W instigated no regime change by his diplomacy; nor will Obama soften the hearts of the murderers, pirates, lunatics, autocrats and gangsters who control most of humanity. Rubin believes in magic, not reality.


“Wow… imagine — we are, like, running the government now! And this Maui Wowie is really dynamite pot, right, Dudes? Hey, like let’s do something needless, wasteful, obnoxious, insensitive, thoughtless and really really scary, just to, like, shake up those morons who voted for us….I have a, a, whatchacallit, an idea, yeah, that’s it….” Later, consequences. It’s not over yet.

Bitter, bitter, bitter! You won’t see this quoted in your whitehousebroken newspaper, except as an example of criminal insanity.

Men: you know power tools are essential. And you know that feminist whining is pestiferous bigotry. Declare your sovereign right to self-realization! Buy power tools!

The sun and the AGW crazies. — Grammar police here: the subjunctive is a mood, not a voice.

If you use e-mail and browse the internet, do not do it with Microsoft Windows. You need only one reason why.

What do you call this, if not fascism? “Gosh, it’s being adopted by a nation with a huge government health program, high taxes, a Labor government, and tons of political correctness. So it can’t be fascism!” Well, yes, as a matter of fact, it is fascism. Leftist fascism.

Quiz: Nancy Pelosi will be the poster girl for (a) Botox, (b) corruption and more corruption, (c) prevarication, (d) the Fairness Doctrine. Answer: yes.

Putting W’s crew on trial for torturing people. A good commentary, knowledgeable and lucid.

The world can only benefit from a fantasy that might conceal a moral. Unfortunately the people who matter believe that morals don’t matter to people who matter. And if you can say “We won!” you matter. Everyone else is, as the chilling line from Blade Runner goes, little people.

A thoughtful commentary on jurisprudence. Related: US law seems about to turn a corner.

At last! We finally have explanations of history that make sense.

It’s getting crowded in the tank: more than journalists are in there these days. How does The One do it? He actually seduced Gallup, which is a huge score, not like pocketing a few seedy reporters and embittered, increasingly irrelevant editors!! — Oh, cripes, it’s sinking in:Gallup has gone over, sold out…is there anybody left whom you can trust?

If you noted the link in the previous PenPo that led to the final proof that I. F. Stone was a Soviet spy, you might want to follow up with this commentary. And yes, some on the left (at The Nation, as one might have predicted) are still in denial. Plus ca change….

This is an interesting site covering modern architecture. If you can’t but not long ago could afford what you see here, send a note to Barney and tell him how you would like to thank him for his service.

Mark Steyn will never quit, no matter how much the fascists hammer him. Thank goodness. Here’s his latest declaration of his stubborn commitment to Liberty — it’s a thumb in the eye of Canada’s Human Rights Commissions. Those star chambers somehow, in spite of exposure, remain in business. Canadians, wake up and rejoin the free world!!

From The Archive

Did you spot the discrepancy in the first item in this issue of the PenPo? Problems of that type were discussed in March, 2005, in the 32nd issue of The Terrapin Gazette; the relevant section is republished here.

More Fussy Picky Persnikety Stuff On English

Plurals this time. There are some very commonly used plurals in English that are too often abused, ignored or otherwise molested. You already know that “media” is a plural, always; the singular is “medium.” We here at TG never never never use “media” as a singular, and we are correct and the rest of the world is wrong.

“Data” is another one. Like “parameter,” it has been adopted by semiliterate computer geeks who use the hapless word willy-nilly. Correct: “The data are properly filed.” Grossly, incompetently incorrect: “The data has been corrupted.” That’s right; no matter how odd it sounds, no matter how many reservations you have about this one, “data” is plural, and that is that. The singular is “datum.” Now you know, so don’t misbehave.

These errors occur because the words involved are not English, but Latin. So you say we can pick up a word and use it as if it were English? Fine, go ahead. And thereby distinguish yourself as ignorant.

The staff here at TG believed until a few years ago that “octopusses” is incorrect, and that “octopi” is the plural. We were flummoxed by yet another pesky foreign word. Well, the presence of visitors is no reason to behave badly; facts and knowledge are not only better than the alternatives, they are more polite. As it turns out, “octopus” comes from Greek, not Latin, and the proper plural is neither “octopusses” nor “octopi.” It’s “octopodes.”

No kidding. But then long-term, careful readers will recall that we told you about this as soon as we learned of it.

The Poms have a stupid habit of screwing up plurals. They take a perfectly good singular noun such as “team,” “staff,” “faculty,” “company” or “firm” and use it incorrectly, saying such silly things as, “The company are convinced that profits will rise,” “Woolclampton’s team were fit,” “Our staff are at your service,” and similar contradictions. They may have invented the language, but that does not grant them license to be obnoxiously irrational when speaking and writing. After all, would any British sports reporter write, “The town of Muddlehead-on-Murk will be fielding team of talented footballers next year”? Clearly, there is a missing (indefinite) article there: “…fielding a team….” Even the British know you can’t use “a” in front of a plural!!

“Any” can be singular or plural. “Any employee is eligible…” and “I shall admit any latecomers….” “Anyone” is historically and commonly used with plurals, such as, “Anyone who wants to study French can buy their texts at….” but we do not write, “Anyone are likely to be injured….” Better to use the singular consistently: “Anyone may leave his materials here….”

Sometimes singulars are used as units of measure when we really mean plural. We have, for example, a “…five thousand man brigade.” Then there’s “Get a twelve-bottle case,” and next comes, “He’s six foot tall.” In Britain, no one weighs “six stones.” We personally prefer “The French had sixty cannon” to “…sixty cannons,” but we suspect we are wrong about that one. Our point: when it comes to measure, we play fast and loose with plurals, saying what sounds natural and correct. OK.

The other day we were challenged to name the singular unit which describes a group of owls. As: geese come in gaggles, dogs in packs, and lions in prides. We were stumped, and on looking it up, were surprised that one can have a stare of owls. Do owls congregate?? We doubt it, but if they do, they can also be said to form a parliament, which charming usage we vaguely recall, we think.

Whales form a pod; fish make up a school. We think parrots should come in squawks, and a bunch of homosexuals should be referred to as a simper, a flounce or a mince. Could we call a group of physicians a growth, a syndrome or a lipoma? Perhaps journalists should come in lists (as in, “A list to port”), angles or takes? Let’s say accountants come in sums, and terrorists come in horrors.

What is a group of politicians called? Let us have your suggestions, please. (A plague? A blight? A bane?)

English was the topic in the April 11, 2005 Terrapin Gazette (issue 37), as well.

Yet More Griping And Grumping About Bad English, Part (Whatever It Is Now)

1. Aren’t you tired of, fed up with, and otherwise bored by these irritatingly moronic expressions?

At the end of the day

When all is said and done

Avoid like the plague

At this point in time

Think outside the box

Run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes

There are many more such lame imposters pretending to be thoughtful expression, but we cannot bear to extend this noxious list.

Our point: it’s time to make the use of these monstrosities illegal!

Well, we are kidding…but almost not.

2. Here’s a misbegotten piece of failed prose produced by a person who actually writes for a living. We find this so offensive, so puerile and stigmatizing, that we hereby nominate it for consideration as The Prose Abomination of the Month:

Still the Vatican turns a blind eye to this most repugnant and damaging of all sexual practices, the suffering little children whose priests come unto them.

From: “Not in My Name,” by Polly Toynbee, 08 April 2005.

Oh, what malicious agency intervened in this female’s thought processes, so to distort her creativity? What demon, what imp from hell, what malignant entity could be so mischievous?

More to the point, what ignoramus of an editor let this get past him??

Consider the multiple travesties. First, we note that little children, suffering or not, are not (absolutely not!) a sexual practice. Yet that is exactly, precisely, what this sentence asserts.

Second, we have here a tasteless reference to a passage from the New Testament, the line in which Jesus says, essentially, “Let the kids come and talk with me.” The verb “to suffer” has an archaic meaning of “to permit, let, allow.” Several wags have tried to make a play on this, each implying that somehow the children are in torment. Rubbish, all of it.

Third, we think this addlepated female is trying to refer to the sexual aspect of the verb “to come.” If so, she should be horsewhipped. Her excursion into prurient fantasy is stupidly unimaginative, vulgar and disgusting.

Polly, obviously an untalented scrivener, was trying too hard. She attempted to write above her low level, and she disgraced herself. We are happy to point that out.

3. Finally, we ask whether those who resort to three rather common terms have any idea — even a ghost of a notion — what they really mean.

We often read or hear that someone accomplished multiple tasks “in one fell swoop.” We doubt that the usage is EVER correct. What does “fell” mean?

And then there is “ironic, ironically, irony.” The person using these words is almost always totally confused. The intent is often “oxymoronic, self-contradictory, contradictory, contrasting, juxtaposed, sarcastic.” Wrong, all wrong.

Last and definitely least, we have the term “pun.” When did its meaning become obscure? We can hardly believe how many authors insert “(no pun intended)” in their prose — when no pun is present.

Example: “The Schiavo case should be a wake-up call (no pun intended) for authorities….” From: Bangkok Post, 08 April 2005, page 13, Matters of life and death weigh heavily, by Wasant Techawongtham. No, Thais are not the only people who are confused about puns; this is the umpteenth time we have seen an ignorant use of the word.

My, my. Do people today know what a pun actually is?

Of course words change their meanings. Our questions are not attempts to dispute that fact: we simply want to know whether an author actually knows what he is doing. How tolerant should we be of ignorance?