The British backlash over President Obama and the BP crisis

[Jason]

You're serious?? You're hopeless. If not delusional.

I notice you never respond to the many substantive points I raise to challenge your entrenched and monochromatic position, but stand steadfastly in the same spot. I notice for example you didn't respond to the many reasons I gave for the share price dropping, none of which had anything to do with Obama, all of which were to do with BP's greed, callousness, and incompetence. I would ask you why you think the price was nosediving before Obama made his hateful comments, but you probably wouldn't anwer that either.

You really are hopeless. If not delusional.

I am amazed. and bored. and done.

It is a fundamental of civilised debate that all debate the issues and don't resort to name calling. I find your post offensive.

 

[TomCat84]

It is a fundamental of civilised debate that all debate the issues and don't resort to name calling. I find your post offensive.

Who cares if you find his post offensive? You weren't debating the points in his post.

 

[freyasworld]

Who cares if you find his post offensive? You weren't debating the points in his post.

now then children, go get a room!

There seems to be a misunderstanding....lost in translation, nobody is saying the oil spill is not catastrophic, what the issue is likening BP or as Obama likes to call it British Petroleum, to Osama bin Laden a bunch of terrorists who set out to destroy the gulf of mexico. That is certainly not the case, it is an environmental disaster caused by accident. BP has admitted responsibility and they will pay for the cleanup.

The rhetoric is frustrating but if we use the same rhetoric that is in the press and media and coming from the White House, it’s like saying the airlines were responsible for 9/11, if they had the foresight, insight and performed a thorough risk assessment, then they would have realised that putting locks on the cockpit doors may have stopped the planes from getting hi-jacked, but the airlines cut corners to save money. So are they responsible? Oh and it is the Brits that caused this!

Can BP fix it, maybe, they are drilling 2 new wells that won’t be ready before September, what if something goes wrong, what if there’s a storm, what if the well’s don’t relieve the pressure, just too many variables, this company and the whole oil industry are the only ones that can fix it, if it is ever going to be possible, nobody has said if it is possible yet.

But trying to talk down a company’s stock value, trying to bankrupt a company is like having a tantrum and smashing your favourite train set!

The US needs BP and it’s 40% owned by the US anyway. The US currently uses 25% of the world’s oil, but having just 5% of the population, how can that change over night? This is the problem, how can each successive government ensure adequate supply of oil, wars, we’ve had them, so the alternatives is to drill in the Arctic and Antarctic and deep water drilling.

Then there will always be accidents incidents and oil spills, we have to deal with it as and when it happens but be assured it will happen again!

 

[B_talltpaguy]

That's where I got papers.

Anyway, it's drilled to a depth of 35,000 ft. or six miles, but the wellhead is approx. a mile below the surface on the ocean floor.

[Edit to your edit: Yeah, I saw that page too. I'm not sure about 4,130' to the wellhead. All the reports I've heard put it close to 5,000'. Whatever . . . . )

Radio One isn't a paper dude, lol. And it isn't where I've been getting my info on this crisis.

The independent experts were ones interviewed by BBC Radio One. The presenter was reporting what they had said (one was an environmentalist, one an engineer of drill parts for various companies such as BP - and I can't remember who the other one was).

Check the first paragraph from Transocean's webpage on the Deepwater Horizon site:

Transocean Ltd. (NYSE: RIG) announced that its ultra-deepwater semisubmersible rig Deepwater Horizon recently drilled the deepest oil and gas well ever while working for BP and its co-owners on the Tiber well in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Working with BP, the Transocean crews on the Deepwater Horizon drilled the well to 35,050 vertical depth and 35,055 feet measured depth (MD), or more than six miles, while operating in 4,130 feet of water.

You are both mixing up different wells that the Deepwater Horizon rig has drilled (it has drilled many)

The Deepwater Horizon rig drilled a well to a total depth of 35,000ft (of which 4,100ft was water) in an oilfield called 'Tiber' in September of 2009...

This well that is leaking now is in an oilfield called the 'Macondo Prospect', and was drilled to a total depth of 23,000 (of which 5,000ft is water), starting in February of 2010.
Deepwater Horizon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[D_Harvey Schmeckel]

I would like to know if any particular media outlets are especially focused on whipping up British public opinion in an anti-Obama, anti-US direction. I'm reminded of the period in late 2002 and early 2003 when the US public was being whipped into a xenophobic frenzy against the French and the Germans. (But not for some reason the Canadians and Mexicans who also advised against the disastrous misadventure in Iraq.) The number one culprit in encouraging the US public to be very stupid, nationalistic, and anti-Europe was the media empire of Rupert Murdoch. And it continues to be a very strong negative force in US discourse. Is Murdoch connected to the current rise of Obama-bashing in Britain?

 

[B_talltpaguy]

This is dire. Presumably BP struggle on this week, and maybe a change of tone from Obama can still save the situation. Likening the catstrophe to 9/11 seems to have done the damage. I assume Obama is actively seeking the demise of BP.

This is absolute 100% trolling rubbish.

Obama's rhetoric, whatever it is or is not, has N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with BP's business situation.

What is causing BP's eroding business situation is several things...

Such as BP's own bad behavior which caused this in the first place (investors are now wondering, does BP do this all of the time, or just this one time? and with BP's long track record of accidents in various business operations, most investors are probably figuring, they have been doing this frequently, so there may be more disasters at other wells yet to come)...

BP's own reluctance to get all of the bad news out in the open for investors to absorb (Such as the flow rate, that they didn't know how to stop the flow, etc. This is called 'opacity' and investors HATE it. When in doubt, they will assume the worst until evidence proves otherwise)...

Their own inability to solve the actual leak, thereby amplifying investor concerns on a daily basis.(every day that passes, is tens of millions more in expenses and fines for BP, and another day of ruining the brand name. Investors have to account for this too)

Frankly, If BP had been honest and up front about such things as the well's flow rate, their own inability to stop the flow and so on, it wouldn't matter a whit what Obama said, because investors would actually have in their possession the information necessary to make a sound investment decision. Since BP has failed to provide this for investors, that is why investors are scared shitless to invest in BP and loan money to BP. Analysts don't downgrade a stock because some politician uses colorful adjectives, they downgrade them because their future business prospects are murky.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

I would like to know if any particular media outlets are especially focused on whipping up British public opinion in an anti-Obama, anti-US direction.

Absolutely... Just like the Times.UK article posted yesterday that was full of anti-American rubbish.

Controversy means ratings and ratings mean profits... if the media can get Brits whipped up into a frenzy, about anything really, they make more money. Angling to blame the US/Obama for the perilous situation thousands of BP stock investors now find themselves in is a script that writes itself. It's precisely the sort of complicated situation where scapegoating and jingoism are easy to craft and sell to a public eager to hear anything that pins the blame on anyone but BP (thereby giving the false sense of hope that those who have lost so much money on BP's stock might yet get it back).

 

[mitchymo]

Absolutely... Just like the Times.UK article posted yesterday that was full of anti-American rubbish.

Controversy means ratings and ratings mean profits... if the media can get Brits whipped up into a frenzy, about anything really, they make more money. Angling to blame the US/Obama for the perilous situation thousands of BP stock investors now find themselves in is a script that writes itself. It's precisely the sort of complicated situation where scapegoating and jingoism are easy to craft and sell to a public eager to hear anything that pins the blame on anyone but BP (thereby giving the false sense of hope that those who have lost so much money on BP's stock might yet get it back).

In reverse too. I saw a guy wearing a 'f u' Bp t-shirt with the 'ck' part of the world replaced by the BP logo. Why would anyone be making t-shirts about this? Its about money and about blackening BP.
However poorly BP has behaved in the aftermath or negligence beforehand, they are not alone but are being scapegoated.
Fuck the mainstream media, their bosses have probably bought cheap BP stock ready to make a killing when the fiasco is over.

 

[B_nyvin]

We need the financial brains to put a cap on the maximum BP will be paying out, and we need ageement that BP will pay a dividend. And we need a clear statement of support from Obama for BP.

Why would we do any of that?! BP should be responsible for 100% of the cost regardless of their amount. It was BP who licensed the workers for the drilling, it was BP who overall owned the rig and BP by all means was in full control of situation. The president rightfully said that "BP is responsible for the spill" and that they will pay for the damages.

I live in pensacola FL and I personally know people who are making claims to get BP to pay for losses their personal companies may encounter due to losses in bussiness from tourism. The fed government wants BP to set up a "major reserve" account for handling all these claims for payments and even BP said the cost will be long running and severe for the clean up itself.

Sorry but when you screw up this badly...yes it will cost your company big time. I feel that it is 100% justified...you don't have to see the beaches you live at polluted like this.

 

[sbat]

I think the answer might lie somewhere between what jason says and what talltpaguy says.

Right, the situation was created by BP, so in a cosmic sense, they set of the chain that may result in their own bankrupcy. At the same time, part of the speculation on the credit risk of BP is the extent to which liability will be capped by the US Government. If Obama said tomorrow that the maximum liability that BP had would be irreversibly capped at say $1B and that there would be no further inquiries or lawsuits, that would have an impact on the company's valuation as well as credit risk (probably a bottoming out of the stock price at a certain level).

If he says he wants every single person who was negatively impacted to receive fair compensation from BP (that the true value of liability would not be defined until all court cases are decided) that adds a layer of uncertainty to BP's ability to pay off its loans and further depresses its credit rating.

So perhaps exaggerated, but not 100% rubbish.

This is absolute 100% trolling rubbish.

Obama's rhetoric, whatever it is or is not, has N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with BP's business situation.

What is causing BP's eroding business situation is several things...

Such as BP's own bad behavior which caused this in the first place (investors are now wondering, does BP do this all of the time, or just this one time? and with BP's long track record of accidents in various business operations, most investors are probably figuring, they have been doing this frequently, so there may be more disasters at other wells yet to come)...

BP's own reluctance to get all of the bad news out in the open for investors to absorb (Such as the flow rate, that they didn't know how to stop the flow, etc. This is called 'opacity' and investors HATE it)...

Their own inability to solve the actual leak, thereby amplifying investor concerns on a daily basis.(every day that passes, is tens of millions more in expenses and fines for BP, and another day of ruining the brand name. Investors have to account for this too)

Frankly, If BP had been honest and up front about such things as the well's flow rate, their own inability to stop the flow and so on, it wouldn't matter a whit what Obama said, because investors would actually have in their possession the information necessary to make a sound investment decision. Since BP has failed to provide this for investors, that is why investors are scared shitless to invest in BP and loan money to BP. Analysts don't downgrade a stock because some politicians uses colorful adjectives, they downgrade them because their future business prospects are murky.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

In reverse too. I saw a guy wearing a 'f u' Bp t-shirt with the 'ck' part of the world replaced by the BP logo. Why would anyone be making t-shirts about this? Its about money and about blackening BP.
However poorly BP has behaved in the aftermath or negligence beforehand, they are not alone but are being scapegoated.
Fuck the mainstream media, their bosses have probably bought cheap BP stock ready to make a killing when the fiasco is over.

I agree with you there... We have no need for crap like that either.

 

[Jason]

I would like to know if any particular media outlets are especially focused on whipping up British public opinion in an anti-Obama, anti-US direction. I'm reminded of the period in late 2002 and early 2003 when the US public was being whipped into a xenophobic frenzy against the French and the Germans. (But not for some reason the Canadians and Mexicans who also advised against the disastrous misadventure in Iraq.) The number one culprit in encouraging the US public to be very stupid, nationalistic, and anti-Europe was the media empire of Rupert Murdoch. And it continues to be a very strong negative force in US discourse. Is Murdoch connected to the current rise of Obama-bashing in Britain?

The UK backlash goes across most or even all of the newspapers. It is also coming from all three main political parties. It includes some criticism of Obama which is most severe of the sort usually reserved for nut-job overseas leaders. While this extreme criticism is exceptional it nonetheless exists.

Looking at the European press there is also much criticism there of Obama. For example "Le Figaro" yesterday has an article which balances views both ways but nonetheless manages to say "Certains de ses détracteurs vont jusqu'à le comparer à Jimmy Carter pendant la crise des otages en Iran ou à George W. Bush pendant l'ouragan Katrina. Cette catastrophe amène à s'interroger sur «la compétence et la capacité à diriger» de Barack Obama ..." - "Some of his critics go as far as to compare him with Jimmy Carter during the hostage crisis in Iran or to George W Bush during Hurricane Katrina. This catastrophe is leading them to ask about the "competance and capacity to lead" of Barack Obama..." The same article points out that his personal ratings have remained steady during the crisis.

I don't think the UK outrage can be linked with one political party or one media tycoon. And while countries on the European continent are less directly affected they are also critical.

Some of the UK media is making a contrast between UK support for predominantly US military operations - Iraq and Afghanistan - and the US being willing to go out of its way to damage the UK's economy in order to shore up the PR of Obama. Obama is seen as damaging the office of president of the USA.

 

[maxcok]

It is a fundamental of civilised debate that all debate the issues and don't resort to name calling. I find your post offensive.

I find your failure to respond to any of the points I have raised in direct response to you offensive, and not in keeping with the fundamentals of civilized debate.

I find your stubborn denial of every opinion and every bit of factual information presented to you by myself and numerous others utterly moronic.

I find your accusation of name calling hypersensitive, deflective diversionary, and inaccurate.

Please show me where I have resorted to name calling.

 

[maxcok]

now then children, go get a room!

Now that sounds like name calling.

There seems to be a misunderstanding....lost in translation, nobody is saying the oil spill is not catastrophic, . . . .

Actually, some have. One example: "the leak has apparently now slowed to a trickle . . ." I'm not linking to it, because I don't want to embarrass the poster. However, I think it illustrates the reality gap in what I can only assume is being fed to you by the British press.

. . . the issue is likening BP or as Obama likes to call it British Petroleum, to Osama bin Laden a bunch of terrorists who set out to destroy the gulf of mexico.

He didn't say anything of the sort. Vince gave you the direct quote, and even taken out of context, for you or anyone else to mischaracterize his statement that way is inflammatory and absurd. Are you people incapable of rational critical thinking?

However poorly BP has behaved in the aftermath or negligence beforehand, they are not alone but are being scapegoated.

How are they being "scapegoated"? A scapegoat is an innocent party made to bear the blame for the guilty.
BP is not only guilty in spades, I continue to maintain, and would be happy to wager a large sum, that when
the investigation is complete, they will be proven to bear the guilt overwhelmingly.

Fuck the mainstream media, their bosses have probably bought cheap BP stock ready to make a killing when the fiasco is over.

You're probably right about that, or at least bumping their viewership/readership. I've suggested that several times.

I would like to know if any particular media outlets are especially focused on whipping up British public opinion in an anti-Obama, anti-US direction. . . .

Yes, I have asked this too several times in the course of the discussion. "Is there a British equivalent of Fox "news"? etc. I have yet to receive a response. Though it would seem according to Jason at least, they are all on board with the same message. Incredible, if true. Incredible and sadly disappointing if a majority of the British public believes it without question.


Wasn't George Orwell British?

 

[dandelion]

It is beyond my understanding why they think that a company should not be held responsible for its irresponsible actions.

Well as a point of general principle, I think some might look to recent examples of major companies doing something exceedingly foolish and then being bailed out because it is not in the national interest that they go bust.

Some jackass like that one above (superbot) and this one below:

In the same way the US invasion of Iraq (million death toll, vast cost, vast areas of oil pollution) was not anti Iraqi. Just unfortunate collateral damage which was unimportant compared to US main goal. (er, what was that, exactly? seizing that oil?)

I mean, what is the connection there? Seriously, it doesn't even make any logical sense as a response.

I forget precisely what the original context was but the connection is obvious. The only reason thus far put forward which makes any real sense of why the US invaded Iraq was because they needed the oil. It was an impossible situation for the US: their only weapon against Iraq was to forbid them to sell oil. But the US desperately wanted that oil. Thus they went to war to get it. In this current situation the gulf oil will be drilled and will be used. Nothing will be allowed to stand in the way of this. It will be done in a 'commercial' way. That is, whatever company does it will do so in the cheapest way it thinks it can get away with. Safety is a low low priority. How much weight did the US government place on safety issues when letting the contracts? Er, virtually none?

I think we all agree on some things - that the spill has been devastating for the Gulf region,

Today there was a doctor on TV who was doing voluntary plastic surgery in Africa. He said, if he was back in the uk he would be getting complaints from people about tiny tiny problems but here he was helping people whose whole faces had been ripped to pieces. People back home just had no idea of the real world. Reminds me of the situation in the US about this oil. Now, when is union carbide going to sort out the mess they made in bhopal? Will the US president stand on the neck of the company until they do?

, and that the incessant venting against BP could hamper their ability to complete the clean-up, and pay full compensation - and also that destabilising them in the markets could backfire not only on the UK, but also the US economically.

This seems to the point. Everyone is shouting (not just here) because there is no end yet. It is pointless making so much fuss until there is an end. We still have no idea if this a big or small problem.

What you don't know is I was raised in a family of naturalists and conservationists..... I have the tiniest carbon footprint imaginable compared to the majority of Americans....So don't tell me I "gave the licenses to drill".

well max, sounds like you are not a typical american and can not in any way speak for them.

I posted a link to an investigative report based on internal BP documents in another thread, maybe I'll move the post here. You will find, I think, as the government hearings move forward, that among the rogues gallery of contractors and subcontractors involved in this operation BP was the worst player,

Well i wait to see whether I will. Of relevance is just what any other oil company might have done instead. It may just be that BP is uniquely bad at hiding what it is doing.But mostly BP was more or less following the rules of the game which all the others are following just as well, which the government set and the people approved. (most of them, that is)

Jason seems more concerned with BP's stock price than with the environmental damage caused by their negligence. Says something about his morals and ethics me thinks.

I usually disagree with jason about everything. But I cant let you get away with that. In the world we live in, money is morality. You and I have a comfy lifestyle which allows us to lie back and argue like this over the internet. Dont some people wish they lived in a country with our troubles.....

Why would we allow them to drill there if they didn't have an adequate back up plan? Saw on The Rachel Maddow show that BP's response plan listed wildlife potentially affected that don't even exist in the region- like walruses.

Because we value money more than, er, walruses. Well we do. So much fuss right now but its pure hypocrisy, and someone grousing his holiday plans have had to be changed. (sorry, dont mean to take it out on you but its just an example of how we really view the environment) BP spent exactly as much on safety measures as the US government asked them to.

The whole oil industry will be looking very closely at what the US Government does and they will reassess their risk assessments, maybe it won't even be worth their while to extract in your territory. Certainly no multi national would be well advised to hold any assets n the US.
Now who's being hyperbolic?

He's not. Havnt you noticed companies from the US moving elsewhere? Its not just oil. The US car industry is moribund.

 

[maxcok]

I forget precisely what the original context was but the connection is obvious.

You forgot what the original context was? Yet the connection is obvious? How can that be? I quoted my statement and your response in full. You even requoted both of our statements in your response. It came directly from your post. If you forgot what you said or required further clarification all you had to do is click back to the full post. I'm not going to even dignify the rest of your deflective, repetitive rambling with a response. You're ridiculous.

You are both mixing up different wells that the Deepwater Horizon rig has drilled (it has drilled many)

The Deepwater Horizon rig drilled a well to a total depth of 35,000ft (of which 4,100ft was water) in an oilfield called 'Tiber' in September of 2009...

This well that is leaking now is in an oilfield called the 'Macondo Prospect', and was drilled to a total depth of 23,000 (of which 5,000ft is water), starting in February of 2010.
Deepwater Horizon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not mixed up. I said from the beginning the wellhead was close to one mile below the surface, i.e. around 5,000 feet. Those other numbers came from Joll. Vindication would be sweet, except that it was tangential to the media misinformation debate, and I really don't give a crap.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

I'm just helping out by making sure no one else gets confused.

 

[maxcok]

^ You be the truth and bullshit police, and I appreciate that. I think you have your hands full in this thread.

Just be careful you don't catch me in your net along with the guilty, K? .;-)

 

[dandelion]

I have honestly seen very little of that concern coming from the Brit side of the pond here, and I've briefly commented on it a few times in my posts.

What I've seen is a lot of dismissiveness and downplaying the devastation that is just beginning to be seen. What I've also seen is an attitude from some that implies maybe we deserve it for having lax oversight or being such mega consumers. What I've also seen is comments like, "oh, you don't like it when it's in your back garden, do you?" That really doesn't sound like concern to me.

I think maybe we are being boxed into corners here, especially since you have already clearly said you are not in any way a typical american. Maybe if it had been up to you this would never have happend, but left up to the average american, it surely would. When I was a lad there was this book, already a dusty antique, Charles Kingsley's 'the water babies. It featured two old women, Mrs Do as you would be done to, and Mrs be done to as you did. They behaved as their names implied. The moral question, which of these two ladies is more like the USA?

Obama said, "In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11, I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come."

"Now is the time for us to start making that transition and investing in a new way of doing business when it comes to energy."

Please explain how the above statements translates into a "war on BP"? I hope he is right and this disaster pushes the US into a new way of approaching the exploitation and consumption of energy. It's doubtful that that will happen, but one can hope.

I agree with your doubt. I think the reality is that BP will get screwed to the wall, and everything else will continue exactly as before. The policy wil start in a 'new era' way by handing out punishment, but then it will fizzle out ...because the US refuses to use less energy. Its quite simple. BP is in danger of becoming the victim here because it gave the US what it asked for. Cheap oil.

Although, imperialism and consumerism were around in the days of Rome, so the Brits merely perfected rather than invented these things.

I have a book here about the british empire. In a nutshell it says the british empire worked because the british believed they were better than everyone else, and everyone else believed it too. Faded dreams, eh? Rewrite sentence inserting US in place of British.

If Obama said tomorrow that the maximum liability that BP had would be irreversibly capped at say $1B and that there would be no further inquiries or lawsuits, that would have an impact on the company's valuation as well as credit risk (probably a bottoming out of the stock price at a certain level).

You are too optimistic. I think if he said the cap was $10billion their share price would skyrocket. If he said it was $100 billion the shares might bottom out.

I have asked this too several times in the course of the discussion. "Is there a British equivalent of Fox "news"? etc. I have yet to receive a response. Though it would seem according to Jason at least, they are all on board with the same message. Incredible, if true. Incredible and sadly disappointing if a majority of the British public believes it without question.

Believes what without question? That this accident (it was an accident) is going to be very expensive for the uk? That we have yet to hear the final outcome of investigations and choose not to jump to the conclusion that BP was exclusively to blame (it wasnt). There has been absolutely no evidence of BP trying to get out of paying for the mess. no suggestions what else could be done to better clean up.

If you explain exactly what fox news is (aside from just a news program) then maybe I could say what the equivalent is. Personally I get most of my news from BBC radio 4, which is an all talk station which brodcasts news, politics, economics, technology, history, plays, philosophy. That kind of stuff. does about 7 hours a day of news programs. Its what politicians listen to when they wake up.

 

[maxcok]

I'm pulling this forward from a previous thread. In a Congressional committee hearing today, top executives from all the major oil companies were asked what they thought of the criticisms levelled at BP in this letter addressed to CEO Tony Hayward. They unanimously agreed that the practices and shortcuts taken by BP leading up to the disaster were dangerous, negligent, and far below industry standards. The only executive on the panel who had no response and claimed not to have read the letter was from, guess where, BP.

Obama will ask Tony Hayward for his response tomorrow. Oh, to be a fly on that wall. Anyone who continues to defend BP, and does not digest the following, does not have a legitimate leg to stand on.

In a 14 page letter to CEO Hayward from the Congressional committee investigating the cause of the blowout:

“Time after time, it appears that BP made decisions that increased the risk of a blowout to save the company time or expense. If this is what happened, BP’s carelessness and complacency have inflicted a heavy toll on the Gulf, its inhabitants, and the workers on the rig.”

The 14-page letter lays out the mistakes BP made in a way that is both understandable and damning, said David Pursell, a managing director at Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. LLC, a Houston investment bank.
“There’s no question what BP did wasn’t best practices,” Pursell said. “This letter confirms what we have thought. This is on BP.”

The lawmakers described five “questionable decisions” by BP before the April 20 explosion, including the use of a less robust well design, failure to anchor the well’s casing using a process recommended under industry practices and cutting short procedures to ensure cementing was sound. The decision on testing the cement was called “horribly negligent” by an expert the committee consulted, according to the letter.
​

A detailed synopsis here: BP Cost-Cutting Added Risks at 'Nightmare' Well - Bloomberg Business Week‎

Anyone who continues to defend BP without reading this, really needs to sit down and shut up.