Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

How Many Racists Does It Take To Change A Presidency

I might as well start with some humor, one that's apropos to the vast number of people who are very upset after this election.
Question: How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? 
Answer: None. The light bulb has to want to change!
One of the reasons given why Trump won the election is that racists propelled him to victory. So I was curious about just how many racists there are in the United States and tried a variety of google searches including "how many racists in america." The results are surprisingly unspecific and I'm finding them uninterpretable (so far).

I've been pulled down lots of dead ends in trying to quantify this. For example, I learned that about half of Hispanics in the U.S. (52%) say they have experienced discrimination or have been treated unfairly because of their race or ethnicity. Sounds really bad, right? But then, 43 percent of Americans told researchers that discrimination against whites has become as large a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minority groups. While those two things aren't necessarily contradictory, it seems that either everybody's discriminating against everybody else, or lotsa folks are making mountains outta molehills.

And then discrimination and racism are different things. As I try to get my daughters into good colleges I find that in the name of racial diversity, some spots are reserved for others of different races. Since I think that's a load of BS and since blue-eyed, blonde, Senator Elizabeth Warren got away with claiming native american ancestry, I've told my daughter to just check the "African-American" box on the applications (I figure we're at least 1 part in a trillion black), but unfortunately, she's uncomfortable doing that (maybe I would be too). But the folks reserving spots aren't necessarily racist, just discriminatory. And unfortunately for me, discriminatory against my family.

And then there are degrees of racism. Is it racist to be attracted for mating purposes to only people of your own race or is it merely discriminatory? I claim that it's mild racism and that indeed, since that applies to me, I'm mildly racist. But statistically, given that most married people in the United States are married to someone of the same race, that would basically mean that nearly everyone is mildly racist. In which case, yes, most people who voted for Trump are (mildly) racist. But so are most of those that voted for Clinton!

I went on to consider people who are clearly extremely racist: those belonging to white supremacy groups. For that, at least, one can get a hard number - people who belong to such a group. Percentage-wise, there aren't all that many:
Levin estimated fewer than 50,000 people are members of white supremacist groups...
That's slightly more than one in ten-thousand people and really not enough to have affected the election outcome. That's a lower bound, of course, but it's one of the few hard numbers I could find on the topic.

The last bit of evidence I found intriguing is the number of predominantly white counties that voted for Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016. In other words, white folks who, when they had the chance to vote for a black person, did so. I find it hard to interpret that voting pattern as racist against blacks. And it seems that these particular voters were extremely important in putting Trump over the top.

In conclusion, I think it's really hard to find hard evidence that Trump won because of racism. Perhaps he did, especially depending on how you define racism, but I think that, at best, the focus on racism detracts from other factors that are likely more important.


Clovis e Adri said...

Well, just to be clear, I am consistent enough to think that afirmative action is a form of racism too.

And even though racism was, most probably, not the reason he won, the general 'I don't care' attitude many of his supporters have (just as some of our bloggers here), coupled with the hysterical sensitivity of PC culture, are likely to make race a continuous source of more distraction.

Bret said...


Who do you think it'll distract? I don't think the 'I don't care' folks will, well, care. I don't think Trump will care. Republicans in Congress, maybe? Who else?

Clovis e Adri said...

The same people already distracted, including you, Bret. You did take time to read, research and write this piece, didn't you?

Bret said...

Good point. Well, I'll stop being distracted by thinking about the racism thing and get back to my job of running the country. Oh, wait! I don't have a job running the country to get distracted from. :-)

Clovis e Adri said...

Heh, only in jokes it is so simple.

I predict you are going to witness the four more divisive years of your civic life. A whole lot of distractions, care you or not for them, are in store.

We check it in a couple of years.

erp said...

All the divisiveness is being funded by federal agencies and Soros et al. Take away all the free goodies and watch divisiveness fade away.

Hey Skipper said...

[Clovis:] I predict you are going to witness the four more divisive years of your civic life.

Yes, but from where?

Read this. It's from a progressive who hates Trump.

And, while you are at it, you might want to revisit And even though racism was, most probably, not the reason he won, the general 'I don't care' attitude many of his supporters have (just as some of our bloggers here) ...

What should have been apparent before, and especially after reading the link, is that the accusations of Trump's racism have been first fueled by willfully (or stupidly, hard to tell with the media) misunderstanding what he said, then endlessly repeating the misunderstanding. I can't count the number of articles in the NYT, including since the election, that state what Trump said without actually providing readers with exactly what he said.

I don't know why this is so prevalent among the left -- Harry has provided us many examples -- but it provided the lever that separated them from reality.

Which is where your "I don't care" missed the boat. I didn't care about his assumed racism, because I found the assumption itself to smug and arrogant to care about.

Clovis e Adri said...


Yes, but from where?

As far as I can see, from you, Erp, Bret, Harry, and almost every other American I've been talking too lately.

I may be wrong, or too impressed by the moment, but the bonds of civility look to be broken in some deeper way.

It reminds me of something written circa 1925, that turned out to be so prescient:

"Genuine communion, " said Demian, "is a beautiful thing. But what we see nourishing everywhere is nothing of the kind. The real spirit will come from the knowledge
that separate individuals have of one another and for a time it will transform the world. The community spirit at present is only a manifestation of the herd instinct. Men fly into each other's arms because they are afraid of each other--the owners are for themselves, the workers for themselves, the scholars for themselves! And why are they afraid? You are only afraid if you are not in harmony with yourself. People are fraid because they have never owned up to themselves. A whole society composed of men afraid of the unknown within them! They all sense that the rules they live by are no longer valid, that they live according to archaic laws--neither their religion nor their morality is in any way suited to the needs of the present. For a hundred years or more Europe has done nothing but study and build factories! They know exactly how many ounces of powder it takes to kill a man but they don't know how to pray to God, they don't even know how to be happy for a single contented hour. Just take a look at a student dive! Or a resort where the rich congregate. It's hopeless. Dear Sinclair, nothing good can come of all of this. These people who huddle together in fear are filled with dread and malice, no one trusts the other. They hanker after ideals that are ideals no longer but they will hound the man to death who sets up a new one. I can feel the approaching conflict. It's coming, believe me, and soon. Of course it will not 'improve' the world. Whether the workers kill the manufacturers or whether Germany makes war on Russia will merely mean a change of ownership. But it won't have been entirely in vain. It will reveal the bankruptcy of present-day ideals, there will be a sweeping away of Stone Age gods. The world, as it is now, wants to die, wants to perish--and it will. "
From "Demian", Herman Hesse.

erp said...

Clovis, I care desperately, and I suspect so does Bret.

I've been thinking a lot about Trump who's a carnival barker first and foremost, so perhaps he is the right one to appeal to the masses who are used to being manipulated by the puppet masters who twist and turn public opinion to conform with their fantasies.

This isn't the forum for dissecting Hesse and the rest of the intellectuals who stupidly put their faith in Marx and destroyed the literal baby with the figurative bathwater bringing us to that pinnacle of perfection, Hillary, the ideal woman, as fine a grifter as is humanly possibly and our best and brightest college students, male and female, blowing bubbles and playing with play doh in our most prestigious universities with the encouragement and blessings of their learnèd faculty.

Luckily out in the hinterlands where many people actually occupy their time with useful pursuits, there were pockets of people not willing to give up their freedom for a cell phone and an EBT card.

Soros et al. will fight very hard to keep their leadership position and keep fomenting unrest to undermine Trump's efforts. We'll just have to see how it works out.

One thing is certain. Don't believe anything you see or read about the new kids in town that doesn't come from a trusted source and that excludes practically all the media which is why they are all so bent out of shape by a << blogger >> being put in charge of them.

For that caper alone I can forgive Trump a lot of trash talk in a men's locker room.

Hey Skipper said...

[Clovis:] As far as I can see, from you, Erp, Bret, Harry, and almost every other American I've been talking too lately.

I may be wrong, or too impressed by the moment, but the bonds of civility look to be broken in some deeper way.

I think they are, but the blame is not symmetrical. It isn't the right who is asserting their dominion over what others may say.. It isn't the right who is rioting over the outcome of a fair and free election. It isn't the right who relentlessly tells whatever lie is required to push the narrative. It isn't the right who is yanking people out of their cars and beating them because of their race and the way they voted.

The article I linked to is clear on that: major media outlets were epically corrupt in their dealings with the Hillary! campaign, and just as woefully inept at reporting all the facts that mattered.

I'm not a journalist — perhaps because I'm insufficiently stupid — but there is a fundamental tenet that should, but does not, define objective journalism: searching for, and reporting, all the facts relevant to a given level of detail. And the reporting must be reporting, not editorializing. Any story that states what Trump said without providing exactly what Trump said is editorializing. But that is exactly what happened: endlessly repeating the journalists (stupid, logic challenged) opinion of what Trump said, rather than what Trump actually said.

Unfortunately, those damn chickens are doing what chickens do. Coming home to roost.

Had the MSM reported, instead of editorialized, on the Trump campaign, then the backlash we are seeing would not have happened.

But they didn't, because their higher calling was to an outcome, not reality. They made themselves hostages to fortune.

Amazingly, having done so and lost, you'd think they'd quit. But no. The endless harping upon 'Murican racism serves merely to hand the cudgel to their opponents.

In two years, there are going to be midterm elections. Two GOP senators are defending seats in states that went to Hillary! Eight Democrat senators are in states that went to Trump. It is within the realm of possibility that Trump turns out to be not so awful in the awful ways that the MSM just knew he was going to be awful.

The internet never forgets.

Bret said...

Clovis wrote: "...the bonds of civility look to be broken in some deeper way."

There's the understatement of the year! However, I find you unbelievably perceptive of American issues given that you live far away in a vast country with its own set of problems. Next election, I'm gonna nominate Clovis for President! (There is that minor issue of the foreign born thang, but we can figure that out later).

Unlike Hey Skipper, who, in my opinion, is a little (or lot) too quick to blame the "other," I'm well aware that the destruction of the bonds of civility (and civilization!) start with me and that which is inherently, in my opinion, human.

There are two things about me that make it so I don't really fit in this world, and certainly not in the world envisioned by progressives: I'm very tribal and the narrative by which I live is extremely important to me. I'm not particularly proud of either of those things, but that's who I am.

By tribal, I simply mean I care much, much more about people close to me (i.e. those in my "tribes") than distant strangers. I would sacrifice the world for my daughters. Racism or discrimination directed at my tribes, for example the college admissions thing I mentioned above which hurts my daughters, I care about a LOT. Racism directed at others outside my tribes? Not so much. Institutional racism? Yes, because that could easily be redirected against my tribes. Personal racism? Not really. Calling me racist? I'm not racist against anyone in any of my tribes so the insult is nearly meaningless to me.

After food, clothing and shelter, the next most important thing is to me is narrative. For some, that might be religion. Mine is not and is too complicated to rehash here. But the progressive narrative clashes mightily with my narrative to the point that it often feels like I'm being kicked in the face by progressives. I fully realize intellectually that nobody is kicking me in the face, that I have a privileged life, etc., but it doesn't matter because that's still what it feels like. And that feeling has pretty much made it so the bonds of civility are nearly non-existent for me.

Progressives do have the tide of demographics on their side. This election is the last time non-progressives will be able to breathe before, to paraphrase Orwell, "if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a [conservative] face — forever."

It's hard to be excited to be to civil or even supportive or civilization. If it weren't for daughters, family, and tribes, I wouldn't even try.

Bret said...

This is a much more detailed version of what I attempted to post here.

Hey Skipper said...

[Bret:] Unlike Hey Skipper, who, in my opinion, is a little (or lot) too quick to blame the "other,"...

That is only true if I am selectively blind. SFAIK, the overwhelming majority of pure foulness (e.g. Samantha Bee), and violence (too many cases to count), Maoist admiration of free speech (Dan Shapiro, De Paul University and many others), and respect for the outcome of elections (Trump, 2016; Wisconsin, Walker) come from the left.

What am I missing from the right?

This is a much more detailed version of what I attempted to post here.

It seems my linking efforts are wasted on you.

Bret said...

Yes, you caught me. I don't necessarily read every single link you post. :-)

Clovis e Adri said...


I don't see how you would classify Hesse as a Marxist, or even close to being one. He was a Nietzche's follower, but with far more soul and bit less madness :-)

Luckily out in the hinterlands where many people actually occupy their time with useful pursuits, there were pockets of people not willing to give up their freedom for a cell phone and an EBT card.

I think you misread the times if you see your political divide mainly as doers versus takers.

Maybe, because you grew up in times where a telephone was a possession, you greatly overestimate now what an Obamaphone means.

It means nothing. You can go to your nearest Walmart and buy a cellphone for what, $10?

I thank Bret for his honest and clear views about himself, mainly this one:

"After food, clothing and shelter, the next most important thing is to me is narrative. For some, that might be religion. Mine is not and is too complicated to rehash here. But the progressive narrative clashes mightily with my narrative to the point that it often feels like I'm being kicked in the face by progressives. "

Guess what? That's true for more people now, in mightly rich post-scarcity America, than ever before. Every progressive out there is feeling worse than kicked by Trump's election. It doesn't really matter if Trump is not the racist they picture him to be, what it does matter is how they feel about it, and it hurts deeply.

And that's what your divide is about for too many people. Narrative as substitute for sense of purpose in life.

Maybe it was easier back when it was a material, doers X takers thing.

Bret said...

Clovis wrote: "Narrative as substitute for sense of purpose in life."

Are narrative and sense of purpose different? I thought they were one and the same.

Clovis e Adri said...


Maybe I should have written "political narrative".

It was usual to find people living by narratives that were less dependent on politics. Religion is notoriously more self-sufficient, for example.

erp said...

Clovis, it is totally workers vs shirkers and if you don't pay for something, i.e., exchange something of yours, like a $10 bill you got from the sweat of your brow, of equal value for something else, it has little value and without a source of income, even 10 cents is a large sum.

Cell phones are distributed to rally the troops to the location of the buses which will take them to the next "spontaneous" demonstration. You misread the motives of the progs. They are super-inflated with their righteousness and blinded by their brilliance, but don't soil their hands with any useful work.

The arrogance of song and dance men lecturing from the stage is breathtaking. Don't these fools know that during an earlier period rich white people like those in audience went to see black-face performers in theaters. Do they think that because they no-longer need to use makeup, their audience now respects them as philosophers. As we have seen over and over, the farther left, the more racist and self-important the person.

I'm wondering if Trump really is able to upend our "long nightmare" with lefty ideas, it might not be a good idea for us to do a Mao gambit and send all these cretinous creatures into the fields and mines to see just what it takes to make enough money to buy a $10 phone.

FYI Comrade Google demurs: Herman Hesse

erp said...

Silvio still making sense. Only character I liked from The Sopranos.

Clovis e Adri said...


The problem of arguing by Google is, it often doesn't mean what you wanted to. Try yourself to click on the links on Hesse you offered, please.

I understand $10 is less than you can make flipping burgers at a McDonalds for one hour. In exchange for that one hour, you can get a phone with free access to Whatsapp and Facebook, and very cheap access to that vast reservoir of knowledge called the Internet.

That same Internet tells me $10 dollars of 2016 is the equivalent of $1 dollar in 1950. Did you ever get your hands on $1 back in the fifties? How hard was that? Once you collected that vast amount of money, what could you do with it?

All those 'arrogant' actors lecturing Pence - how many Obamaphones are they getting? Do you really think that's the reason for their views?

They have a religion, one where Pence has the place of a Dark Spirit, and they reacted accordingly. I tell you, if this was about money it would be way easier...

erp said...

Clovis, I didn't say this is about money, but as in all things, "follow the money," is a good rule of thumb. You may not be aware, but tickets to that show are almost $1,000/seat. My daughter paid $6,000 for four seats last spring, so the compassionates aren't making their wares available for the downtrodden. Quel surprise.

Hesse, couldn't decide on which crazy cult he wanted to follow, but if you notice, none of them featured freedom and rule of law.

In 1950, girls weren't supposed to make a dollar or anything else, however, I did do something unheard of at the time, I quit college to work at a job that was supposed to be only for the summer between freshman and sophomore years because I was offered an unheard of amount of money to stay on and organize the office of a well-known (at the time) real estate office in Manhattan. By 1956 when I got married, I had quite a nest egg and we bought the first of our dozen or so houses. That was the only one on which we had to have a mortgage, but since I wasn't a male, my salary wasn't taken into to account and as my husband-to-be was still in school and penniless, his father had to co-sign the loan.

As for ratio of costs to income, in 1963, we moved from working class Queens to an upper middle class Connecticut town -- we were both under 30. Our income was about $12,000/year. We had three kids, a new Country Squire station wagon and an old VW Beetle and were completely debt-free and very very comfortable. That was before the craze to regulate everything so we spent our money how we wanted and I am a very good manager. Our only bennie was health insurance which covered 80% of approved costs. We paid 20% out-of-pocket. Our only bread-winner was a CPA working for a medium-sized local accounting firm.

According to your numbers, a comparable life would need an income of $120,000/year, but I very much doubt such an income would provide the same level of comfort. BTW - our current annual income is less than the cost of our two-year old's day care in San Francisco.

erp said...

... err, that's out two-year old granddaughter.

erp said...

... err2 - our, not out

Bret said...


When I used narrative I meant more than "political narrative," more like all encompassing description of the universe and how one fits in that. I think both the progressive and conservative narratives are WAY beyond just political narratives and the libertarian political narrative is that there should be much of such a thing.

And the progressive and conservative narratives (and there are many, many subnarratives), especially beyond politics, are in total conflict in a large number of important respects.

I don't think they can ever really coexist.

Clovis e Adri said...


Actually, 120K/year would give today, in far too many ways, a life more comfortable than you had back in the 50s.

Multiple better cars (any car is better now than then), bigger and better homes, among a number of other things, make the young Erp today "better" than you, materially speaking, 60 years ago.

The same is true for the guy flipping burgers. Or the actors who delivered that speech to Pence.

Speaking of which, I can't help but notice how you look exasperated by their behavior, to the point of wishing to turn them back into slaves in Maoist fields.

I wonder, were you to try and be a consistent thinker, how would you square that with the Erp of a few days ago, defending the right of people to speak their minds to those apes in heels that now occupy the White House.

But you don't need to be consistent. No religion ever is.

erp said...

Free speech is our constitutional right, but that doesn't preclude objecting to inappropriate venues like a captured audience at the theatrical performance and please read what was said about the ape in heels. The comment was she looks like a ..., not that she is a ... . and although I wouldn't have phrased the criticism that way, the author had a perfect right to do so without being labeled racist, apparently the only word in the left's lexicon these days.

Mao's cultural revolution was directed intellectual poseurs, not performers with over-inflated egos.

I am perfectly consistent, but you are hearing only what you are predisposed to hear.

Harry Eagar said...

Does it strike anyone as odd -- even diagnostic -- that the 50,000 (or whatever) out-and-out nazis have publicly rallied to Trump? They did not do so for Romney or McCain.

It is not difficult to find people who voted Republican who think that their Obamacare will be preserved.

I, for one, repeatedly admonished my lefty friends who could not imagine a Trump victory that they were likely to be surprised because I never underestimate the power of racism. Maybe I overestimate it, but recall that Trump's original core support came from the tea party and the TP is 100% racist, as it proved over and over.

A little story: When I was a sports reporter, we used to cover the luncheon meetings of the sports booster clubs. In our city, they often asked Ace Parker (look him up) to warm up the crowd. Ace was an out-an-out racist and his idea of a warmup was a string of coon jokes.

The membership of the clubs was entirely white. One club was going to honor a number of high school coaches and one of those was black.

Nobody thought this through and as Ace finished his jokes he asked the honorees to stand as he called their names. The black guy was first on the list.

I can report that almost all of the hundreds of men in the room were mortified. But that doesn't mean they were not racists, every one.

erp said...

Harry, I read that anecdote, but a with a different narrator. 50,000 Nazi's? Do you mean the DNC? I believe they were with Hillary.

Bret said...

Harry wrote: "50,000 ... nazis"

I think not, there's maybe several hundred.

Harry wrote: "...the TP is 100% racist..."

Really? 100%? Not even a single non-racist? Even the black tea party members were racist? I don't think so.

Harry wrote: "...never underestimate the power of racism..."

So how do you explain those hundreds of counties who voted for Obama (he's black in case you forgot) then switched to Trump when there were no blacks to vote for.

It's possibly just a limit of my imagination, but given there were only white candidates, it's hard for me to figure out how racism figures much into the outcome.

Harry Eagar said...

I explain in terms of my story about the racists who were embarrassed. Out and out racism is not socially acceptable -- or wasn't till Trump came along -- the way it was when I was young.

People today even say they are not racist when their actions plainly are racist. It's like Catholics screaming about abortion but getting abortions themselves. It's called cognitive dissonance.

Trump gave them permission to unleash their real feelings and so they did.

Bret said...

Harry wrote: "I explain in terms of my story about the racists who were embarrassed."

How does embarrassment cause people to vote for Obama in the secrecy of a voting booth?

Harry wrote: "People today even say they are not racist when their actions plainly are racist."

Here we need a little more detail. For example, I find white women more attractive on average than black women and I ended up marrying a white woman. That makes me racist. So if that's the sort of thing you're talking about, then yes, racism abounds. How that sort of thing matters in choosing between TWO WHITE CANDIDATES is simply beyond me. Especially when there was a black candidate, they chose him.

Harry wrote: "Trump gave them permission to unleash their real feelings and so they did."

Actually, I think Obama did that. With all the identity and group politics, whites may well have been compelled to form a group because of that. More likely they felt their group was non-urban non-elites and that contained a LOT of non-whites too. Remember, Trump did better than Romney with blacks and hispanics.

Bret said...

Harry wrote: "What are they to conclude when they interview a voter who says he/she is attracted by Trump's plainspokenness, hten also tells the reporter that he/she depends on Obamacare."

Apparently, they're directed to conclude the narrative set forth by the editors.

After a person is reasonably sure of eating, having minimal clothing, and minimal shelter, the next most important thing is belief. Not obamacare, not race, etc., but their narrative/worldview/perspective. Trump resonated with their narratives, a narrative which the Times reporters were told not to understand or investigate.

You call that unreasonable, but that narrative is what makes life worth living.

And you know what? You, Harry, follow your narrative more strongly than anyone I've ever interacted with.

Harry wrote: "I recall you making that point and trying to prove it by finding sports scores online."

Since I (almost) never watch sports and don't follow sports and don't recall that, I'm guessing you're mistaking me for someone else.

But since I don't believe what the papers say anyway, if they all went away I couldn't care less.

erp said...

Actually, if you want to go with pop psychology, it's projection and your cohort is doing it in spades!!! Trump is just a master showman Harry, you're making him into a bogeyman.

Enough "racist" language for ya???

One thing you are right about, supporting people because they're black is just as racist as not supporting them because they're black.

Bret is right about the NYT and all the other MSM. I don't believe a single thing they say and find your reference to NPR risible. I hope Trump will immediately stop using my tax dollars to fund fake news aka leftwing propaganda from all media.

Harry Eagar said...

'Apparently, they're directed to conclude the narrative set forth by the editors.'

You need to read more Mencken. Mencken did not believe in the sensibleness of the American voter. Liberals (me excluded) have a touching faith in it.

RtO is starting a series called "Pray you do not get sick, Deplorables." I predict it will be prophetic.

erp said...

Since your cohort destroyed our health care system, we all need to pray we don't get sick, except of course, the rich lefties who can afford pay the exorbitant costs of concierge physicians and clinics.

First thing Trump should do is sign an EO undoing Kennedy's EO and ousting all unions from the public sector, including the public schools. Then get the feds out of health insurance and leave all health related matters to the public sector which will quickly sort things out. We waste more money on bureaucracy than we spend on actual health related matters.

Bret said...

Harry wrote: "Pray you do not get sick, Deplorables."

Does anybody not pray they don't get sick? Personally I hate being sick, I even hate having a minor cold. So yes, you're oh-so-prophetic, Harry. Not very enlightening though.

Harry Eagar said...

I don't pray at all, but you are being otiose. Or, perhaps, like Skipper and erp, you are falling for school-mamish grammar policing.

The peophecy is that when people like erp get what they want and then are expected to pay the bill, they will scream bloody murder.

And I will laugh and laugh and laugh

erp said...

Harry, you have no idea what I want even though I've said as clearly as possible. I want the government to stick to their knitting as outlined by our FF and get their sticky fingers out of our lives. We have always paid our own way and continue to do so, but because our needs are very modest, we have a comfortable extra due to prudent preparation for retirement to help those in need and hope that in the future, others will "pass it forward" and so the earth turns.

Health care costs are contrived and exorbitant mostly due to bureaucracy. Talk to some physicians and find out the nonsense with which they must contend (doncha love schoolmarmish grammar, I do) -- in fact, one might almost say, they are nugatory. ;-[