Zimmerman v Martin – Self-Defense?

I overheard someone stating that the George Zimmerman would never have been charged with a crime if the threat of civil unrest hadn't forced prosecutors to file charges.  This person thought that Zimmerman's claim of self-defense was so obvious that a judicial  review was unnecessary.  That seems simplistic.

Some details have been reported since Trayvon Martin was killed that don't seem to be in dispute.  We also have some reporting on statements Zimmerman has made.  While Ie would hope more details will emerge from the trial, let's analyze what we think we know up to this point and how that might lead someone to believe that Zimmerman should not even have been charged with a crime,

On the night in question, Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain who is carrying a legal concealed pistol, spots a suspicious person walking in his neighborhood.  He reports this to police who advise him to not confront the suspicious person.  Zimmerman ignores this advice, confronts Martin and a fight ensues.  - - - According to Zimmerman, at some point Martin is banging Zimmerman's head on the concrete sidewalk and going for Zimmerman's gun.  Zimmerman, fearing for his life, pulls his gun and kills Martin in self-defense.

Clearly self-defense.

Given the above, above scenario, what if Martin had killed Zimmerman, what would his defense be?

Clearly self-defense. 

Replace the last two sentences in the description above (starting at “- - -”) with, “Martin, having been confronted and fighting with a stranger, discovers the man is carrying a gun and decides he must disarm or disable his opponent or risk losing his life.  Martin kills Zimmerman in self-defense.”

I hope we learn more details as the trial progresses, but it should be obvious from the above discussion that if either man could claim self-defense, it is Martin.  Zimmerman was the instigator.  If he had not confronted Martin, there would have been no fight and no death.

This case raises a lot of interesting issues.  I would like to hear Zimmerman's description of the interaction and exchange between the two men that night.  For example, did Zimmerman tell or make Martin aware he had a gun?  If so, what are the legal issues about when and how he conveyed this information.  What are the legal requirements for notifying an opponent that you are armed?  When Zimmerman approached Martin, did he assume Martin was armed or unarmed? Florida's “Stand Your Ground” law may be invoked, but again, that defense would seem to go to Martin.

Thinking through the issues, if a person legally carrying a concealed weapon, gets into a violent, physical fight in a public place with someone who is unarmed, doesn't any “self-defense” claim automatically go to the unarmed person?  The burden is then on the person with the weapon to prove that their claim of self-defense out weighs the same self-defense claim made by his unarmed opponent.

If Zimmerman could draw his weapon and put it to Martin's chest, he could have paused and said “STOP! Or I'll shoot.” 

Zimmerman may have been afraid for his life, but that doesn't mean his life was in jeopardy.   Losing a fist fight is not justification for shooting someone.  The burden to prove self-defense is on Zimmerman.  Having someone on top of you and beating you is not enough.  Was Martin really going for Zimmerman's gun?  We'll never know, but if you were Martin in that situation, what would you do?

Suppose that Martin had gotten the gun, put it to Zimmerman's chest and pulled the trigger, could he claim self-defense?

Contraceptives and Religious Freedom

The Obama administration is taking heat for a decision that requires all health care insurance plans to pay for contraceptive prescriptions. There is an exception for churches, but not for church supported institutions like hospitals and charitable organizations.

The objection is that this requirement infringes on religious organizations, especially Catholics, who believe any kind of contraception is a sin. The Church objects because they would be "paying" for contraceptives.

I think the rational for the requiring insurance plans to cover contraceptives is a women's health care issue. Most women will use contraceptives at some point and it is more likely that they will get contraceptives when needed if they are covered just like vaccinations. Religious institutions, like Catholic hospitals, are not exempted, because many of their employees are not Catholic.

The law would require that insurance plans cover contraceptives, but it does not require any woman to take contraceptives. If no employee used their insurance to pay for contraceptives, problem solved. Why can't the church just use its moral persuasion to convince women to not use contraceptives? Is the Catholic church's moral authority so weak that is must rely on its own version of the law to enforce its religious doctrine?

I appreciate strongly held ethical beliefs, but we live in a secular country governed by a constitution, laws, rules and elections. We all have to reconcile our personal beliefs with those of other people and the law. Why do we have a law that says no federal funds can go to support abortion, but we use federal funds to execute convicted felons? You may see a difference, but if the underlying moral concept is not taking a human life, what is the difference? The difference is that we, as a country, have decided to make that distinction. We all practice moral relativism, including the Catholic church. I'm not sure why they chose to fight this battle at this time in this way.

The Catholic hierarchy believes they should be exempt from the requirement that their insurance plans cover contraceptives because this is a religious and ethical issue. Excuse me, but that makes no difference. We don't allow Mormons to flaunt polygamy laws. We don't allow Muslims to escape punishment for honor killings. I'm sure we could find many examples of religious practices that are no longer accepted in the modern world. Times change. Values change. When I was a kid Catholics couldn't eat meat on Fridays. Now they can (at least most Fridays).

One argument I heard this morning is that Catholic hospitals provide much of the care for people in this country. I appreciate that Catholics provide this service, but what percentage of any Catholic hospital's cost are provided by the Catholic church? My guess is that these are self-supporting institutions. They may have started as charitable activities, but now they are businesses. Is it really Catholic religious money that goes to pay for employee health insurance?

I suppose I could change my position if Catholic hospitals only employed Catholics. And I would be even more swayed if they only provided services to Catholics. But then again, contraception being a sin, no one would be using contraceptives if these were purely Catholic only institutions so health insurance coverage of contraceptives would be a non-issue.

I heard one comment that said the church would be satisfied if they didn't have to pay for any contraceptives. Contraceptives could be provided if they were fully paid by the employee.
Most medical plans have the employer and employee sharing some portion of medical care costs. Why couldn't the church just state that any payments for contraceptives, by definition, come from the employees portion of the insurance payments and co-payments? Problem solved.

Or try this. If having the employee pay for their contraceptives is acceptable, presumably because the Catholic church is not directly involved, why can't you just push responsibility to the insurance company. The hospital pays an insurance provider to reimburse health care expenses. It the health insurance company pays for contraceptives, the sin is on their heads. Again, problem solved.

If this blog has seemed silly at times, that is intentional, but, seriously, I do not understand this issue. Catholic leaders are outraged over being forced to provide a service they believe is immoral, but most people, including Catholics, believe contraceptives are moral and provide health benefits for women. It might even be considered more moral to prevent a pregnancy when parents are not prepared to adequately care for a child.

If this is such as serious moral dilemma, why do the majority of Catholic women use contraceptives? If the moral authority of Catholic leaders can't convince Catholic women to not use contraceptives, why should we and therefore, the government, accept their moral authority? On what moral basis can they claim to be exempt from providing a health care service that citizens consider to be moral and beneficial and is required of other organizations?

The political line is this is an attack on religion and the First Amendment by the Obama administration. Once again, bull crap. This is a health care issue, not a debate about religious freedom. It might be politically expedient to grant Catholics an exception to the insurance requirement, but it would be morally wrong.

.

Politicizing Choice

After the re-ignition of political/cultural wars this week and inane comments by conservatives on talk shows this morning, I have to vent.

This week the Susan G. Komen Foundation walked into a self-inflicted firestorm by withdrawing its limited financial support to Planned Parenthood to provide breast cancer screening and referrals for mammograms. They then threw gasoline on the fire with an obviously unbelievable rational.

After being hit with scathing attacks on social media, Komen partially retreated. Several Conservatives whined this morning that this was somehow an attack on a private organization's right to spend their money the way they want.

That is not the way I see it. No one is arguing that Komen can't choose to fund Planned Parenthood or not (a cynic might say they have choices). The objection was to Komen's choice to attack Planned Parenthood over providing abortions (which is about 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget) at the expense of decreasing women's access to other health care such as mammograms.

No one forced Komen to make monetary grants to Planned Parenthood, although they have for many years. No one would have made a big issue if Komen had quietly stopped making grants to Planned Parenthood and used that money to provide mammograms some other way. The problem was that Komen tied their decision to a political decision to attack Planned Parenthood and indirectly abortion. And then denied that is what they did.

Komen's initial defense was that they had made a decision to not make grants to organizations that were under investigation and Planned Parenthood was under investigation. Bull crap. The investigation that sparked the defunding is one started in the House by a Republican Representative. Komen can't hide the fact that they made a political/cultural decision by hiding behind a politically based investigation. Add to that several reports of organizations under actual legal investigation that are still being funded by Komen. The defunding was clearly a political decision aimed directly at and only at Planned Parenthood and Komen's claims otherwise were unbelievable.

But to the spark that ignited my outrage, conservative claims that by some logic the attack on Komen is some extension of liberal, Democrat, Obama, whatever, attacks on personal freedom. They claimed that the attacks on Komen were attacks on Komen's right to make their own decisions. They even tried to tie Komen's problems to the Catholic insurance debate (to be discussed later).

Komen was free to make grants to Planned Parenthood or not. They did. Presumably they monitored those grants to make sure the the money was used properly and effectively. Now Komen is free to withdraw all those grants. Most people are not questioning that. But many people were outraged that an organization that asks for donations to provide better health care options to women chose to make a political statement that decreased options. Komen's choice was not based on what was best for women's health. None of the money from Komen went to provide abortions. All people were saying was that if Komen decided to not help Planned Parenthood provide mammograms, we can decide to send our donations somewhere else.

So how do conservatives tie my choice to not donate to Komen for any reason I choose, to an attack on personal freedom? I don't get it.  Sometimes I think that personal freedom is something that only applies to conservatives.

If Komen really thought their position was morally defensible, they didn't have to retreat. That is, if they really reversed their decision. What I heard was that Komen said they would allow Planned Parenthood to again apply for grants. We will have to wait and see if they actually make any grants to Planned Parenthood. Again, that is their choice, but now we know that Komen has another agenda besides breast cancer and people will be watching.

I have a suggestion for Komen. Don't fund Planned Parenthood. Start your own clinics and provide women, many with few health care options, access to the same kind of health care provided by Planned Parenthood. They can even choose to not provide abortions, if that is medically possible.


.

When Does Life Begin?

Given the vote today in Mississippi, here is a blog from 2007. Click on the title below.

Does Life Begin At Implantation?


If Mississippi makes a fertilized egg legally a human, every miscarriage will have to be investigated as a murder.

"Excuse me, mam. I am Officer Jones. I understand from your doctor that you recently had a miscarriage so I am required to ask to some questions. Prior to your miscarriage did you engage in any activities that might put your unborn child at risk? This could include use of alcoholic beverages or tobacco, but it also could include any activity that could be considered unhealthy to a child. Please tell me all drugs, legal and illegal, that you have used from the time of the miscarriage back to a month before you became pregnant....."

Is this really what the people of Mississippi want?

Why Exempt Seniors Over 55?

In their new budget plan, Republics plan to basically end Medicare, but not for people 55 or older. They say their rationale is that people 55 and older have made plans based on the current system and it wouldn't be fair to take Medicare away from them now.

I suspect their are a lot of people under age 55 who have also been counting on Medicare. Parents putting kids through college may be counting on catching a break on health care costs once they turn 65. Call me cynical, but I think this exemption for older people is probably an attempt to buy them off. If seniors aren't affected, maybe they won't be quite as mad about the proposal.

If privatizing Medicare will lower medical costs and reduce the deficit, why not start it today? We can protect seniors already enrolled in Medicare by giving them vouchers to pay for the full cost of private health insurance. Seniors wouldn't be hurt economically and the country would benefit.

Implementing vouchers for seniors health care now would also give us a chance to see if the idea really works. Come to think of it, has anyone asked insurance companies to develop the kind of insurance policies that the Republics say will be available for seniors under their plan? I'd like to see what they cost and what is covered.

Dog Smart

I saw a bumper sticker today that said

My bulldog is smarter than your honor student.

I'm not so sure about that, but I'd bet that bulldog is smarter than its owner.

Republic Plan To Ration Health Care

Republics screamed about rationing and death panels in the Democratic plans for health care reform. Of course there has been health care rationing forever. As I've written before, unless there are unforeseen changes to health care in the future, there will always be rationing of health care. The question in whether we can find rational, humane ways to ration.

Republics plan to save Medicare by giving people tax credits and having them buy insurance on the open market. From the reports we've heard, the plan is to control and reduce health care costs by giving people less in tax credits than insurance is expected to cost. Therefore people will have an incentive to buy only the coverage they need and use only the services they need. This is self rationing. In addition, the amount of tax credit the government will give will not be tied to the rising cost of health insurance. So as rates go up, individuals will have to pay ever more out of pocket costs or decrease their coverage.

From reports I've heard, Republics believe this difference between what people will have to pay and what the government will pay will incentivize private health insurers to control costs. It's nice to know Republics still have a sense of humor.

The Republic plan is guaranteed to work just as they plan. The costs to the government will go down and Medicare will be destroyed. Will the health of Americans be better?

Pass The Damn Bill

The stakes for the next budget battle are even greater than the one just completed. If Congress fails to authorize an increase in the debt limit the result could be devastating. History and current Republic statements indicate that many Republics will not vote for an increase without guarantees of drastic spending cuts.

There will be an agreement before the United States defaults. Banks and big business know that default is not an option. Even threats could damage the credit standing of the United States in the world. Business will jerk the leashes of Republics and make sure a bill is passed.

I would like to make a suggestion. Republics should agree to increase the debt limit enough to cover the debts projected for the next three years under the Ryan budget without any policy riders. That's right, for all their huffing, the Ryan plan has significant annual budget deficits for years to come.

Can Republics really destroy the credit of the United States when their own budget plans will require that the debt ceiling be raised significantly?

In three years, the Republics will have time to elect a Republic Senate and a Republic President. Then they can do whatever they want. In the meantime, raise the debt ceiling without bullying and threats so we can tackle other issues. Like the FY12 budget.

Responsible Chickens

The recent budget debates that threatened to shut down the government have been compared to a game of chicken. An example of this game was depicted in the movie "Rebel Without A Cause". Two young men race to run their cars off a cliff. The object is to see who jumps out of their car first and therefore is a "chicken".

The budget battle wasn't really a game of chicken. The two guys were risking their own lives in those cars. Politicians were risking the American people and economy.

The two guys in the car were willing participants. They may have been pressured into the game, but they could have said they wouldn't play. Republicans and Democrats had to play the game and reach an agreement or the government would have shut down.

The choice was over the stakes and what the other side would agree on. Republicans chose to set the stakes high and then force negotiations to the eleventh hour to see how far they could push Democrats. This wasn't a game of chicken, it was blackmail perpetrated by Republicans.

This wasn't so much a fight over the budget as a test by bullies to see how much Democrats were willing to compromise rather than hurt the country. Democrats jumped first and further. I guess they are the "chickens".

Do Your Job or Quit.

There is a legal battle going on in Illinois over whether health professionals can be forced to provide services that go against their religious or moral beliefs. I think it started with doctors and nurses objecting to being forced to provide abortions.

I can understand that unless you work in the emergency room and then you help anyone that comes through the door. The most recent battle is over two pharmacists who object to dispensing emergency contraceptives. In particular, I think they object to dispensing the morning after pill.

Give me a break. If they succeed, what is next? Doctors and nurses who refuse to treat drug addicts when they overdose because doing so just "enables" them.

Pharmacists who won't fill prescriptions for any contraceptives.

The checkout person who won't ring up condoms because their religion thinks contraceptives are a sin. Or sell lottery tickets. Or beer. Do you think the sales person should lose their job?

I respect people who are willing to honor their convictions when it might otherwise not be in their self-interests. But it is not honorable to abandon people who you have pledged to serve.

A pharmacist that refuses to dispense a legal medication should find another line of work.

President Obama's Poll Numbers Rise

Tonight on the news I saw a poll asking who you would blame if the government is shut down?

The numbers seemed to be confuse some of the pundits.

Who would voters blame?

Republicans: 37%
Democrats: 20%
President Obama: 20%

So it looks like Democrats would bear the brunt of voter anger, 40% to 37%.

But more than 20% of voters think President Obama is a muslim, not a citizen, a socialist, hates America, etc. Democrats should be happy that the President's numbers are so good. Only 20% would blame him for the shut down!

What Is Important To You?

Republicans hate government. Keep that in mind as you listen to their solutions to problems. The Republican approach to financing government is to cut taxes then figure out what services to cut to live within that new number. How about a different approach?

What if we tried to agree on what is important to us and then figured out the most cost effective way to make it happen?

For example, what if we said that it is a national goal that all senior citizens are able to live out their final years with dignity, access to health care, housing and nutrition? We could then talk about what levels of assistance meet these goals, who qualifies and how we pay or provide this assistance.

Money is the easiest way to transfer value from one person to another, but there are other ways. We might help offset some costs by requiring two years of community service from all young adults. One of the options would be for some these young people to help take care of the elderly. Or build and repair houses. Or cook and deliver food. Or staff a community home. This would decrease taxes and offset the lost revenue with labor.

Anyone might be able to opt of paying taxes to support elderly and instead meet their obligation by working some number of days each year. I'm sure there are other, much better ideas. The point is instead of generating n dollars of revenue and then deciding how we divide that pool of money, why not decide what is important to us and then figure out how to make it happen?

As a country, how about discussing what is important to us?

Look For Alternatives

Mark Halperin was on Hardball with Chris Matthews tonight. He wanted to give Representative Ryan credit for a plan to cut Medicare because if we don't cut it, costs will balloon and bankrupt the country.

Wait a minute. He has bought the Republican line. Medicare may need to be changed, but why isn't the possibility of adding revenue to the system an option? Couldn't there be parts of Medicare that are so valuable we might consider ways to increase funding to save them rather than cut service?

The Republicans only have two ways to solve a problem. Cut services or cut taxes. We probably will have to cut something, but there may be alternatives if we look for them.

Shared Pain

Representative Ryan has released his budget plan.

It cuts -
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Taxes for business
Taxes for the rich

Give him credit. He makes sure everyone takes their share of cuts.

What would you pay for?

In the current debate over the deficit and budgets, Republics want to take any tax increase off the table. Their current framing is, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. That is, cut spending; do not raise taxes.

It is clear that Republics and Democrats have a different philosophy about the purpose of government and how to pay it. In general, Republics believe that less government is always better (at least that is what they say, if not always what they do). Government is the problem, not the solution. Republics want to decide how much they are willing to spend on government (which is always less than what we spend today) and then determine how to distribute that money. Preference is always given to the generators of wealth.

In general, Democrats believe that government is about creating a civil society. Democrats would rather first decide what is important to do and then decide how to pay for it (sometimes). Preference is given to the less fortunate. The Democratic position is obviously harder to sell.

While Democrats have certainly authorized new spending without determining how the additional expenditures would be paid for, they managed to live under the PAYGO rules of the 1990's. Had these rules been extended, the budget busting 2003 tax cut, the Medicare prescription program and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might have had to have been paid for instead of just adding to the debt.

The two Bush era tax cuts added significantly to our debt. Let me state again, tax cuts when you are already running a deficit without the same dollar cuts in spending add to the long term debt! Republics constantly berate Democrats about spending more than we have revenue to pay far and passing that debt on to future generations. Fair enough. But cutting taxes without cutting spending has the same affect and is just as destructive. The math is simple. Revenue minus expenses equals surplus or debt. When you are already running a deficit, increasing spending without increasing revenue will increase the debt. Likewise, decreasing revenue without decreasing spending will increase the debt.

Contrary to popular belief, the Republics have actually been winning the deficit/debt debate. "Starve the Beast" has been Republic dogma since Ronald Reagan. This is the policy of always cutting taxes without concomitant cuts in spending in the belief that the eventual fiscal crisis will force drastic decreases in the size of government.

Republics have succeeded. The public believes we have a fiscal crisis generated by too much spending not a problem generated by a weak economy, tax cuts and spending. The discussion is how do we cut taxes, expenditures and the size of the government. Why aren't we also discussing what functions of government are worth paying taxes to support and how do we generate the revenue to pay for them?

Save My Marriage, Vote For Obama

Recently, to explain his infidelity and the failure of two previous marriages, Newt Gingrich basically said that his patriotism and love for this country caused him to work too hard for his country and not hard enough at maintaining his marriages.

What a novel explanation. What he is basically saying is, I'm so patriotic I was willing to sacrifice my marriages for the good of the country.

If Newt should win the Republican presidential nomination for 2012, do you think the current Mrs. Gingrich will vote for Newt or vote for President Obama and possibly save her marriage?

Chameleon Gingrich

Newt Gingrich has been making conflicting statements about Libya. He was emphatically for a no-fly zone before President Obama decided to support the UN resolution. Once President Obama expressed support for a non-fly zone, Newt was suddenly emphatically against it.

The argument's he uses to defend his flip-flop are tortuous. It is obvious his opinions are purely driven by a simple logic - I don't agree with Obama. A tactic he fully developed years ago when it was - I don't agree with Clinton. He should change his name from Newt to Chameleon. His opinions quickly change to match the current Republican political landscape.

Japan: 50Hz and 60Hz

I heard that Japan has lost 20% of its electrical generating capacity. This would be devastating in any country, but it is even worse in Japan. In the U.S., the electricity in our homes is standardized at 60Hz AC. That is, the polarity of the electricity alternates 60 times every second.

In Japan they use two different systems. In the south/west they use 60Hz. In the north/east (where the failed reactors are located) they use 50Hz. While 60Hz can be converted to 50Hz, Japan has a limited capacity to do this. So surplus energy in the south/west cannot easily be diverted to the north/east.

I've heard predictions that it will be months, possibly years, before full power is restored to Japan. It is sad that such bad public policy will make Japan's disaster even more painful.

There are some lessons to be learned from Japan's disaster that may be very important for the U.S.. There may be some things we should be doing right now to prevent large scale, long term power failures in the United States.

More later.

You didn't know that Japan has such an irrational power system? You aren't listening to National Public Radio! NPR is a national treasure. Don't let politicians damage it.

Why Libya?

I must admit that I wasn't watching the run-up to what seems to be a U.S. led military action against Libya. I think this was partly because the no-fly zone was being pushed by Great Britain and France. The U.S. seemed to be much less interested. China and Russia seemed ready to block any action in the UN. I thought enforcement of a no-fly zone, if it happened, would be led and possibly staffed primarily by other countries. I was surprised when the UN authorized the no fly zone and the U.S. took the lead.

I don't believe it is in the best interests of the U.S. to be participating in such a significant way in Libya. I'm surprised President Obama has allowed us to be drawn in and took the initial lead. I'm disappointed that he hasn't done a better job of explaining why he took these actions and I don't see indications that a successful outcome is likely.

I've always scoffed when opponents of military actions insist about a prediction of how it will end before we start. That's impossible. It is also a political stunt for opponents to insist on some clear statement of exactly why we shouldn't intervene in Bahrain or Syria since we have attacked Libya. Every situation is different.

It would be nice to hear the principles that guided President Obama's decision. I think they've given some: humanitarian support, the Libyan government was threatening mass reprisals against citizens, a chance to get rid of dictator who has caused problems around the world, there was support for action from other governments in the region, there was significant internal dissent and armed resistance, there was military assistance offered by other countries from within the region and outside, international bodies supported intervention and it was militarily feasible with acceptable risks.

I would like to hear, and probably won't, that the analysis for success is high, that there are groups and institutions in Libya ready to form a civil society, that whatever government comes after military success has a reasonable chance to be much better than the current government, that there is a chance for some form of democracy, that human rights and living conditions in the country will eventually improve and that the country will not be destabilizing in the region.

And, why is it in our national interests to remove Khadafi?

I think the President could have done a better job keeping us informed, but the fact is, he has made a decision and he will be responsible for the consequences.

Don't Listen

This morning Fox News Sunday had an interview with Margie Phelps, a member of and attorney for the Westboro Baptist Church. This is the small group that stages those obnoxious demonstrations near the funerals of American service men and women killed in action.

She recently won a Supreme Court case that affirmed the First Amendment rights of the Westboro Baptist Church to express opinions that most people find to be disgusting.

I agree with the Supreme Court, but Ms. Phelps has given us the antidote to her groups hateful speech. She said that the Supreme Court put a megaphone to the mouth of her tiny church. She is wrong. They didn't do that. They only said that governments could not silence them. Her group has a megaphone only if the news media gives them coverage and we listen.

The answer is to not give these people the attention they crave. They are irrational and delusional. Reason is not going to change them and attention only reinforces their delusions. If no one listens, if no one stages counter protests, if we all change the channel when they are given news coverage, then news organizations will stop covering them . This won't mute their hate or cure their ignorance or diminish their delusional view that they speak for God. They just go back to being a nameless group of kooks no one pays any attention to.

The beauty of our system is that our Constitution prevents governments from deciding which speech should be heard and which should be suppressed. It leaves it to people to listen or not listen and make our own decisions.

I've heard what the members of the Westboro Baptist Church believe and totally reject those ideas. From now on I choose not to listen.