I’ve been at the Festival of Ideas in Adelaide and I’m very impressed, both by the quality of the speakers and presentations and by the turnout. Quite a few of the events I’ve attended have been full houses, with lots of people being turned away. That’s with four events going in parallel, two of them in large (Elder and Bonython) halls. Among people I haven’t heard of previously, I’ve been particularly impressed by P Sainath and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
It’s also great to meet people like Jack Mundey whom I’ve admired for many years, but never met in person.
Brisbane has a similar event next March, at which I’ll be speaking.
I’m talking today on Blogs and Wikis in the Art Gallery Auditorium at 1:45 and then as a late ring-in for the final session “What is to be done?” at 5pm in the Elder Hall.
John Quiggin 
From the Adelaide festival of ideas welcome page:
Leaving aside the tortured prose, the sentiments expressed by this passage are simply offensive.
Our moral compass is awry? We lack a vision of how to be good?
Speak for yourselves.
Looks to me like yet another bunch of taxpayer-funded, self-appointed elites congregating together to tell the rest of us who pay their salaries how we should live. And hardly surprising that you could easily find a large number of similarly employed members of the public to attend.
x-anon, we know (because you’ve told us so many times) that you’re an expert on all subjects, and morally and intellectually superior to everyone else in the universe. To make life easier for the rest of us, please take all statements involving doubt of any kind as including the implicit clause “except for x-anon, who knows all”.
jquiggin, I have never claimed to be morally and culturally superior, although if sarcasm is your best response then in your case I may be forced to make an exception.
My position is pretty simple: the left want to impose their cultural values on the rest of society, while by-and-large being funded by the rest of us. From its own literature, and the list of attendees, the Adelaide Festival of Ideas looks to be a quintessential example of this.
Your “orgy of fripperies” is my life. And I like it. If you don’t, then live a different life. But don’t tell _me_ what to do, especially when it is my taxes that pay your salary.
Maybe next Festival of “Ideas” could include members of the business community, entrepreneurs, and representatives of the (much larger) segment of the community that enjoy their “fripperies”.
“Our moral compass is awry: it lacks a magnetic pole, and we lack a vision of how to be good.”
At last — the left confronts its central failings! Er, these people are talking about themselves, aren’t they? By “we”, surely they don’t presume to speak for the rest of us?
John
I’d been hoping to come down to the Art Gallery Auditorium to hear you speak as I am interested in the topic.
But I’ve just finished my Senate job with its 7.30am to 11.30 pm hours and I’m kinda unwinding and learning to relax before I start my new job. I have little energy.
So all the best.
I’ve posted here and here.
The comments by the above do highlight a problem–the ethics of the political left—but the sneering, polemical tone is very reminiscent of Tim Blair’s responses to the Adelaide Festival of Ideas in 2003. (links can be found here)
I would have thought the righties would also have a problem with ethics given their tendency to reduce the bad to evil and ethics to politics.
“especially when it is my taxes that pay your salary”
This is a typically stupid argument by formerly anon. For one thing, academics and public servants also pay taxes, so there is no sense in which formerly anon funds JQ’s salary more than JQ does. In fact, JQ probably has a higher salary than formerly anon, and so pays more taxes.
In any case, only 13 of the 39 key note speakers have their salaries funded by the Australian tax payer, about the same proportion as the country as a whole, so the argument fails on the most basic facts.
“Maybe next Festival of “Ideasâ€? could include members of the business community”
This Festival of Ideas has Greg Bourne, former CEO of BP. I think he qualifies as a member of the business community.
Here’s a little free tip for formerly anon. Get your facts straight, matey, the next time you try to engage your brain.
I’m not much taken with statements such as “we lack a vision of how to be good” (I do have a vision, thanks very much – it’s the frequency with which I fail to live up to it that worries me), but I don’t understand why some people find them so threatening. Care to elucidate, former-anon?
David Ricardo:
Thanks for the economics lesson. John Quiggin or any public servant could not be paid unless people create wealth, which is then taxed. The fact that John Quiggin and company pay tax only means that they don’t get to keep the gross.
A public servant could not receive a salary unless a wealth creating person is taxed. You have a problem with understanding that or is it too difficult?
And John Quiggin>
First time on your site. I previously noticed you have thrown people off before for rudness etc. Why does that only apply to right wing posters. Take a look at Ricardo’s comments. Would the last sentence qualify as rudness? Oh , I get it, he is licks your boots right? So that’s ok.
One last thing David Ricardo. Taking your argument to absurdity, it would be quite ok for the Australian economy if we all became public servants right? Wealth is just created out of thin air. Seriously, you are telling others to go and get a brain message?
I think arguments about who pays whom’s salaries are somewhat perverse given we in the West all live in mixed economies. How much of Boeing’s revenues, for example, come directly from the public purse (in the form of defence contracts) or indirectly as a result of public-sector decisions (in the form of FAA flight permissions for new aircraft)? There would be no Boeing if these contracts and decisions were awarded or taken differently. The same is true of large companies in most industrial and commercial sectors.
Dwight Eisenhower, not otherwise known for the brilliance of his intellect, had it correct in directing attention to the military-industrial complex, an ecosystem in which both private-sector and public-sector organizations depend on and require each other to prosper.
And in response to the final question of Another Anon: Ownership of the means of production is a separate issue from the end-purposes of that production. We could ALL be employed by the state, and yet still generate wealth as a society. As proof, look at the great pre-capitalist civilizations of the past — Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, Mexico, etc — all of which generated great wealth with hardly a capitalist in sight.
I’m the person responsible for the tortured prose, not John. The speakers are not asked to endorse the welcome and it is stupid to attribute it to them by association. Would Tiny Tim draw the same conclusion in respect of Theodore Dalrymple? Theodore has been writing for ages in The Spectator, and spoke at the Festival, about the failings of unemployed and criminals to accept responsibility for their position in life – hardly a left line.
A few simple points to respond to the substance, such as it is, of X-Anon:
1. Yes, many of the speakers were, like John, academics. But, as any fool knows, universities in Australia these days get only half their income in government recurrent funding.
2. About half the speakers were not in any way taxpayer funded. They include journalists, businessmen, consultants and lawyers. Go to the link on John’s article, read the bios and form your own judgement.
3. Most of the Festival takes place on the weekend. There were queues extending 500 metres out of Bonython Hall along North Terrace for most of the sessions. Would X-Anon deny taxpayer funded employees the chance to determine how they want to spend their own leisure time? Maybe he/she can come along in 2007 and see why Adelaide folk come out in it droves for the occasion.
I think the idea is, taxpayer funded employees have no moral right to anything; public service is a contradiction in terms, being a mere expression of an oppressive machine.
That wasn’t actually sarcasm. In the abstract, it is actually true. But, in dealing with the world as it is, there are at least currently necessary evils of our own making that we are too trapped to unmake, and the individuals who tread us down are themselves inheritors of the mess. So, rather than not being morally entitled (which is true but irrelevant), it is better to think of them as people equally trapped in the mess. “To err is dysfunctional, to forgive codependent.”
If you want to explore that abstract view, try some of the more sensible anarchist sites, like Kevin Carson’s (he also has a blog you can find there).
I see the final session “What is to be done” takes its title from Lenin’s revolutionary primer of 1905. Tells us a great deal about the sentiments of the organisers, but it suggests delusions of grandeur don’t you think?
Let’s see if I’ve got it staright, former anon.
A private school which funds the salaries of its teachers with fees and government money generates wealth.
A government which funds the salaries of its teachers by government money does not generate wealth, even though it does exactly the same thing, which is to educate children, as the private school.
Qantas, now that it is privately owned, generates wealth. When it was owned by the government, it did not generate wealth, even though it did exactly what it does now, which is to fly passengers from point A to point B.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. You really do have a superior intellect, matey.
Craig, I took the opportunity to point my problems with Leninism, both in its traditional form and in the market-Leninism of the 80s and 90s.
I was away from internet for the last day-and-a-half, hence just saw these posts.
As far as facts go, I checked out the speakers and it seems at least 26 of the 39 are publically funded, or formerly publically funded (retired). I counted anyone for whom their backing was not immediately obvious as private.
And my point was never that we should not fund certain activities with public funds. I am a strong defender of public funding for health and education, if done correctly with appropriate incentives and oversight (in my opinion, public funding of education in Australia currently has problems but at least at the primary and secondary school level is pretty good despite those problems).
My point is that it is galling that 50c in every extra dollar I earn goes in part to pay the salaries of tenured and semi-tenured people who then turn around and tell me that my “moral compass is awry”, that I lack a “vision for how to be good”, and that the life I quite enjoy is “an orgy of fripperies”. Mark Culley, if the welcome message is not a statement of the tone of the festival, what is?
If this was an isolated case I wouldn’t care. But it is not. It is a trait of the left to dismiss and disparage the lifestyle of the mainstream, from their secure, publically funded positions.
And just in case my comments are misinterpreted again: it is public funding _plus_ disparagement of mainstream society _plus_ the fact that it is an almost universal trait of the left. Take any one of those three things away and I would be far less concerned.
Well, former anon, you did say that the public sector produces no wealth.
But – and don’t take this as a suck up – in a way, I kind of agree with you. Theodore Dalrymple aside, there is a pretty clear left wing ideological line running through most of the speakers. Which is not to say that the organisers should have put Keith Windschuttle on the stage. But I’m sure they could have invited a respectable conservative economic historian like Niall Ferguson, who would have challenged the prejudices of most of the audience.
I do not care much how the festival was funded. However, I agree with TCFKAA on the inadequacy of the welcome message. The message reads like a statement of fact, and I could hardly agree with it, unless I were extremely conservative or a leftist defeated one too many times.
I enjoyed your talk yesterday John. If you are going to give the talk again, may I suggest that you add a bit about the incipient stirrings to constrain blogging and commenting during elections. I think it is a good indication of the increasing weight and power of the blogosphere. I was trying to ask you a leading question to this effect as I thought your audience would have been interested.
I thoroughly enjoyed the weekend. As usual, the programme was nicely balanced between providing a diverse range of topics as well as having several motifs that you could follow if one so chose. Also, the general atmosphere was, as always, very convivial. Even the questions were, in the main, questions, rather than mini-lectures as is often the case. There was also a high degree of organization.
So well done Mark Cully et al.
I thought Germaine Greer is a accomplished and powerful speaker, with a nice line in self-deprecation. And fresh and interesting. Her true version of Clive James’s anecdote about Germaine wanting his virginity, as recounted on Denton the previous Monday, was a great laugh. And so apposite in a session entitled “Mind Games”.
David Chalmers and Susan Greenfield were also very good.
And I agree with you that P Sainath was very impressive. I saw him speak on the depredations of the “Washington Consensus” in his home Indian State and on the policies global institutions like the WTO, World Bank, IMF. Quoted Stiglitz with much approval and gave very telling examples. Pace Mr Sainath, “Wohlfenstein or Wolfwitz”, it’s still a wolf at your door….”
On the other hand, Theodore Dalrymple was a big disappointment as a speaker.
Dave Ricardo,
Actually, that was “another Anon”, not me, and even then I don’t think he/she said that the public sector does not create wealth.
But I agree with your other points. If we’re going to have festivals of “Ideas”, then lets make it a real debate and invite both sides. If invited, I promise to show up wearing ski mask and voice disguiser.
“Actually, that was “another Anonâ€? ”
My mistake. I have the feeling that “another Anon” might be that character who was here a few weeks ago – I forget his name – and entertained us with his support for Pinochet, amongst other delights. He had some useful things to say about financial derivatives.
To take up the balance of ideas idea at the Festival of Ideas, the organisers really should do more than just have a token right winger – this time, Dalrymple, last time David Brooks (I think). By all means keep out people like Windschuttle, who are nothing but cultural jihadists with nothing to contribute, but if it’s just wall to wall Eva Coxes, well, it’s kinda boring, no?
“In fact, JQ probably has a higher salary than formerly anon, and so pays more taxes.”
Is funding from Federation Fellowships taxed? Someone sent me an email the other day suggesting it wasn’t, which would be surprising if true.
Dave, the final panel I was on included Nigel Rapport who’s a big Popper fan and denounced multiculturalism, identity politics and so on, and Imam Feisal who said (not surprisingly I guess) that God was a necessary part of the solution. So, although Eva Cox did go on a bit over time, it wasn’t wall to wall Eva by any means.
I’d be interested in your suggestions for local speakers who would fit the bill (i.e. not lefties but not cultural jihadists either) They’ve had Hendo already, and I guess Michael Duffy would be a good choice, but Windschuttle is more typical of what’s on offer, I think.
Tim, your correspondent is in error. Federation Fellowship salaries are taxed, and don’t offer much in the way of opportunites for “effective tax planning” or whatever the current euphemism may be (at least I assume they don’t – I haven’t gone into the subject in any depth). So I pay a fair whack.
“local speakers who would fit the bill (i.e. not lefties but not cultural jihadists either)”
John, you’ve set me a difficult assignment. Here’s a few names or institutions.
Martin Krygier would be good; there’s got to some free market economists associated with the CIS who would be OK; Peter Saunders; Fred Hilmer – businessman, academic and father of national competition policy – is certainly no leftwinger; Greg Craven; Paddy McGuinness (just kidding); Stephen Schwartz; there are quite a few barristers who specialise in representing employer interests in IR cases; there are probably some thoughtful people who work at the Business Council; there may be someone from the AMA who could talk about health care funding; someone from BHP Billiton on uranium mining; the principal of a prominent private school on school education.
I thought of both Craven and Saunders. Krygier would be good also, but (like Craven for that matter), is as often found on the left as on the right these days.
Craven is solidly on the right. He is critical of Howard’s centralising power grab, but it’s a poor show if he is labelled a left winger just for being a federalist.
Krygier is more difficult to pigeon hole, because he has been critical of Howard on refugees. But his anti-communist, pro human liberty, credentials are pristine. More to the point, he has interesting, thoughtful things to say on topical issues. Isn’t that what you want at a festival of ideas?
JQ — I’d assumed so. Appreciate the confirmation.
I’d certainly like to hear both Krygier and Craven. If there are any other suggestions, I’d be glad to pass them on to the organising committee for the next festival.
A few further comments on this thread.
Over the three days of the Festival, there were 35000 attendances, 5000 up from last time and a record for the event. Dave might think the roll call of speakers is boring, but the people of Adelaide don’t seem to concur.
John – I think in your last two comments you are buying in to the argument that there is an insufficient diversity of voices at the Festival.
The left/right distinction which pervades this blog (and many others) is so restricting and narrow. It does an injustice to the breadth of speakers – their achievements, intellects, and ideals in all their nuance – which made the Festival such a terrific celebration of people coming together (on their weekends!) to talk about things they are interested in. Read the bios, and rue the fact that you were not there if you missed out. Come next time!
The argument that X out of Y speakers is publicly funded is just facile. It’s what they have to say that matters. Thank goodness John has a Federation Fellowship – as do also Graeme Hugo and David Chalmers, both speakers at the Festival and neither of them renowned lefties as far as I know.
X-Anon – yes, the welcome does help to set the tone, although I suspect most people overlook it and just look at who’s coming. Yes, it is certainly arguable, and if you want to be a Pangloss then that’s fine by me, but I reckon lots of people, whatever their politics, don’t share your complacency. Lastly, I am neither tenured, nor semi-tenured; and I volunteer my time to make this Festival happen.
Mark,
Congratulations on the success of the festival. I didn’t say that the speakers were all bores. I wish I had been there to hear some of them. I said that wall to wall Eva Coxes would be boring, and I defy anyone to disagree.
You might find the left/right distinction restrictive and narrow, but disagreements about values and world views are what public debate is all about. In Harvey Keitel’s felicitous phrase from Pulp Fiction, if everybody at this festival was just “sucking each other’s dicks”, then it’s a lot less interesting than it could be.
(It was bloody hard checking that quote without finding a porn site, I’ll give you the tip.)
This was the first time that I have attended the festival and, if anything, I was impressed by the diversity. It certainly wasn’t wall-to-wall Eva Coxes! Furthermore, I think the topics that were chosen were not necessarily topics where there was a clear left-right distinction. For example, the discussion on whether Einstein is over-rated as a scientific genius is hardly an issue where there is a left or right position, and likewise the interesting discussion on the ‘brain drain’ of Adelaide academics (which John participated in) wasn’t really a matter where people would toe the ‘party line’. So whilst it may be true that many of the speakers were perhaps of the ‘left’, I think that this was perhaps compensated for by the broad and diverse range of topics where there is no definitive left or right position.
I was also impressed by the calibre of speaker. Contrary to what someone has written earlier on this thread, I thought Theodore Dalrymple was absolutely outstanding and as witty in speech as he is in prose. His heated discussion with Germaine Greer was priceless.
Congratulations to Mark and all the organisers for putting together an excellent festival.
Mark,
You don’t need to be defensive about the “diversity of voices” at the festival.
I attended several sessions, including some second preferences as my first choices were full. While I knew more or less what to expect from some speakers the panel sessions presented a diverse range of views, including many which couldn’t easily be classfied as either left or right.
It’s a pity though, as others have pointed out, that very little of the Festival material is online. The festival program states “where possible we will also post session notes to the web site after the event”. I’ll keep watching http://www.adelaidefestivalofideas.com.au to see what eventuates.
Mark, to follow on from others who’ve commented, I certainly found plenty of diversity at the Festival. Thanks again for your part in putting on such a marvellous event.
i concur with mark cully. the festival of ideas was a brilliant event celebrating thought across a range of disciplines and leanings and the intro tone was not one i – participating as a chair – took any of the speakers to try to live up to. each spoke with their own voice and illuminated a receptive crowd.
nay sayers might be well urged to join them next time round.
(enjoyed what i heard of you, john. also, vivian hutchinson, a new zealand social activist for employment, wa struly inspiring)
Ok, it looks like I am going to eat crow on this one. It sounds like a very successful event, so congratulations to Mark Cully and all those involved.
I would have gone to some sessions myself if not so put off by what looked to me like a typical spray from the left on the welcome page, and the overwhelming majority of left-leaning speakers.
If I can make two suggestions for the next one: please leave out the rhetoric – welcome us all, regardless of the orientation of our moral compasses or the restraint we exercise over our fripperies. And please invite a broader collection of speakers from across the political spectrum.
I also enjoyed Vivian Hutchinson’s contribution very much. I quoted his point in my final session “Before asking ‘What is to be done?’ ask ‘Why are we doing it'”.
It’s an apt counterpoint to the Leninist position of demanding action, while not thinking very carefully about ultimate ends.
x-anon, apologies for my bad-tempered response to your first comment. It was an over-reaction.
Thanks jquiggin – but really no need to apologize. My post was inflammatory and I have a rhino hide anyway.
I know this thread is essentially dead, but since I am here: thinking back to Cully’s response to my remarks:
I have to confess, I needed to look it up, but wiki defines Panglossianism as “baseless optimism”. Optimism is not the same as baseless optimism, so I don’t agree with the description of my position. But I think this raises an interesting question: to what extent is the left pessimistic and the right optimistic?
I believe there is an awful lot more to be optimistic about than pessimistic. We live in the most remarkable of times. The human race is undergoing the greatest global increase in living standards ever seen. 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians are becoming first world in the space of one or two generations. We have far more leisure time, greater social security, longer lives, and shorter working lives (as a proportion of our lifespan) than at any time in history. I can watch movies in my home theater system and download the latest shows from the web. I can drive a car that almost never breaks down. I can visit nearly any nation on earth for less than a month’s average earnings. And we have only just begun to scratch the surface of what is possible through biomedical and genetic engineering. The future (and present) is very bright indeed.
And if you think that’s OTT, you should see me _after_ I’ve had my first coffee of the morning.
My gut tells me the pessimism/optimism divide is probably highly correlated with left/right – has anyone studied this?
For me, the Festival had ample variety to spice a diverse “orgy”of ideas. So certainly not fellatio all around.
It would be great, however, if the sessions could be downloaded as mp3’s given that they all seemed to have been recorded to broadcast quality. From the comments above, I’m sure I missed some very good sessions.
And it is generally better I feel to listen to a talk than to just read the transcript.
x-anon, there’s an obvious counterexample to your pessimism thesis in relation to the costs of mitigating global warming. Most economic studies suggest that these costs should be modest, but opponents (mostly on the political right) routinely assume that they will be ruinous.
Global warming is a difficult one: the debate is already so political it is very difficult to separate the politics from the science/economics.
Even your statement is somewhat loaded: proponents of mitigation only “suggest” costs are “modest” (a very measured stance) yet opponents “routinely” (hint: with little thought) assume such costs will be “ruinous” (whoa, ruinous? strong words. what kind of agenda are these right-wing nuts pushing anyway?).
But assuming there is something to be salvaged, could it just be that those on the right are more optimistic than the left about the effects of global warming, and hence see less justification for mitigation efforts?
Gaby, Radio Adelaide are broadcasting many of the sessions over the next month. They are also making MP3 files progressively available.
The link is: http://www.radio.adelaide.edu.au/festivalofideas/index.html
I also attended the biennial festival of ideas from start to finish (for the first time and sometimes with my toddler on one arm!) and there was a great atmosphere. I totally agree with the many contributors above, vivian hutchinson, the kiwi employment advocate, was inspirational, theodore dalyrymple was thought-provoking and excruciatingly witty and it was a real privilege to hear Jack Mundey. This was much better than a writer’s festival, for example, because the ‘celebrities’ were not just there to speak about their older, already published ideas but new and living ideas. And there was only quite limited merchandising!
I liked how the speakers weren’t segregated from the audience during the day, they lined up for coffee and the loos just like everyone else and mingled away merrily – how unlike Sydney where they might have been sequestered in a hotel for a hefty appearance fee. Overall, the sessions were entertaining and the high quality of the questions from the audience was evident – well done, Adelaide, you have some smarties over there and we should take more notice of that here on the sometimes smug east coast.
I would, however, like to make a more specific point, at one session, ‘the limits of multilateral institutions’, pat ranald from the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network, spoke, inter alia, about the exclusive, closed shop nature of free trade negotiations that take place between the govt and countries like china for example when we pursue FTAs. She made some legitimate points but was extremely critical about the lack of consultation in the FTA process.
By coincidence, I had to be back in Sydney for work yesterday so I could attend a free roundtable discussion with DFAT’s chief negotiator for the china fta process. I attended the ‘manufacturing’ session (there were other sessions aimed at a variety of interests including the community and NGOs). Those who attended my session included a rep from the union, big industry associations and very, very little industry plus consumer advocates. We had a fairly candid and intimate discussion where it became somewhat apparent how similar the dilemmas and fears were in regard to current and future trade with this economic locomotive.
As we all know, trade with China is expanding at a furious pace and seems likely to to do so whether we have an FTA or not. Whilst negotiating through the WTO might well be the ideal way to go, it is a terribly slow process. Bilateral agreements offer some opportunity for managing the conduct of future trade under some sort of framework as we wait for the WTO to grind into action. Another reason to bargain immediately is that in some areas that affect us China is really not meeting all its WTO obligations. It has an undeniably huge task to transform itself completely from a command economy into what it terms a socialist market economy yet in some vital areas (enforcing contracts, standards, valuation, subsidies etc) it is reaping the rewards of the WTO system by enjoying the trade concessions offered by other members yet failing to abide by its own obligations. It is in fact having it both ways.
What surprised me was that pat ranald was on the list to attend but didn’t. I don’t know her personally, but I noticed her nametag with interest when I picked up mine, yet she never arrived. Perhaps she was still in Adelaide or attended a different session afterwards or was ill, I understand that this happens, however, no doubt she reads this blog so she might like to say why she apparently missed the opportunity to drive her public point home where it matters.
Thanks Mark.
I saw that ad for Radio Adelaide broadcasts in the programme.
But it is even better that they will be able to be downloaded!
Any chance of doing this for previous Festivals?
Real conservatives have an inner certainty that all change is for the worse. The optimism thing cannot possibly relate to a true philosophical difference abstracted out as a left/right thing. Of course, neocons are just another evil thing with a holy name, as it were, not real conservatives at all.
Having been to dozens of Arts Festivals and having performed in at least 24 of them, I am a great admirer of the Festival phenomenon. The concept of bringing a large number of creative people and appreciative listeners together for a concentrated period is a wonderful one – always stimulating and always exhausting. I have never got more out of a Festival than I did as an audience member for Adelaide’s recent Festival of Ideas. It is a rare treat to be encouraged to think about some of the big questions; to be able to hear people who are really making a difference describe their thoughts and experiences; and to be surrounded by people who are all concerned and interested in exploring the big issues. The question is – What is to be done? The Festival provided some answers and plenty of food for thought about where we should go from here after the ‘one night stand’ of the event. I am writing a series of summaries for my in-house newsletter over the next few weeks, and I’m really enjoying the experience of delving further into the various websites around – such as this one! Thanks to John and Mark for your wonderful work.