Jim Webb needs to stuff it

[bigtree]

from Time:

Presidential Hopeful Jim Webb Defends Confederate Soldiers

Webb called on Americans to remember honorable Civil War soldiers, "including slave holders in the Union Army"

Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb said on Wednesday that the Confederate flag has been wrongly used as a racist symbol, but stopped short of condemning the flag outright. He also added that Americans should remember “honorable” Civil War veterans, “including slave holders in the Union Army.”

“The Confederate Battle Flag has wrongly been used for racist and other purposes in recent decades. It should not be used in any way as a political symbol that divides us,” said Webb in a statement emailed to TIME in response to questions about whether the Confederate flag should be removed from Virginia license plates in the wake of the Charleston shooting.

“But we should also remember that honorable Americans fought on both sides in the Civil War, including slave holders in the Union Army from states such as Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, and that many non-slave holders fought for the South,” said Webb.


read: http://time.com/3934237/

...those who fought for the confederacy dishonored their states and our nation. Those fighting to preserve slavery don't deserve the word 'honorable' beside their names.

related:

The Last Candidate to Weigh In on the Confederate Flag Just Broke His Silence
But Jim Webb's stance on whether it should remain on South Carolina capitol grounds is anything but clear.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/jim-webb-confederate-flag-south-carolina

[DURHAM D]

1. Wow. He sounds just like a Republican. nt

[MiniMe]

4. He was

He switched to Dem and ended up ridding us of George Macaca Allen. Webb was in Ray-gun's cabinet.

[DURHAM D]

5. I know.

I should of added this

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

49. Yup yup, it's over for Little Jimmy before he even got started. Stick a fork inim, he's done. Say hello to President Sanders.

[randys1]

2. Treasonous traitors whose descendants want to fight the war again...

[Jefferson23]

3. Since he believes this garbage best to know it now..voters beware...shameful. n/t

[edhopper]

6. You know

I don't honor German soldiers or Japanese soldiers.
I don't care what they believed, they fought for horrible causes.

[Spazito]

7. What a load of crap...

The confederate flag was used for racist purposes during the Civil War. It symbolized racism then AND now, imo.

Webb throws in his "honorable Americans" to avoid answering the questions posed to him about the confederate battle flag.

[malthaussen]

8. I'll have to disagree.

The politicians who decided to seceed from the U.S. to preserve slavery may be said to have dishonored their state (but hardly our nation). As for the men who fought -- most of them believed loyalty to their State was superior to loyalty to the U.S. I don't consider that dishonorable, especially in the context of the time when the idea of the indivisible union was hardly universal. The most successful and thoughtful leaders on the U.S. side also did not think the action dishonorable, just mistaken.

You really have to be careful here. One could just as well argue that any soldiers who turn out to be fighting for a dishonorable cause are dishonorable... and that would apply to just about everyone who has fought in the U.S. army since Vietnam inclusive.

-- Mal

[Jefferson23]

24. In Viet Nam a hefty percent were lied to, and if you had enough money and connections you could

remove yourself from service. There were others who left for Canada as well. There was no lie
or misunderstanding about what the south was fighting for.

[malthaussen]

28. No confusion about what the governments were fighting for.

But in the words of one Confederate soldier, when a Northern boy asked him why he was fighting, it was because "You're down here."

-- Mal

[Jefferson23]

30. Well then, Webb could have said many things, but to express their service as honorable is

pretty screwed up..why he went there is shameful. They served a cause and that cause was not
only racist in nature it was about OWNING people. Crimes against humanity should not be flowered
up with language like..honorable.

[malthaussen]

46. The cause was dishonorable.

Many of the men whom the politicians used to further that cause were not. I think that is a reasonable distinction. It isn't the one Mr Webb is making, but my post is about calling the soldiers dishonorable, not about whether Mr Webb's opinions are worth a spent piss.

It would be a fine world if people were not conned into fighting for dishonorable causes. But there are few examples of history where enough people could not be scraped up to advance an unworthy cause. After all, 'twasn't so long ago that we were invading Iraq -- a cause many of us knew to be dishonorable and indefensible. But our government went ahead with it anyway. Does that mean that all the veterans of this century -- volunteers all, I would add -- are dishonorable? No, it means they were conned. The problem is that the racists who drone about their ancestors in the CSA are dishonorable, for they know full well the cause they are defending. But their ancestors were just doing what they thought they had to do.

-- Mal

[Coventina]

48. Thank you for injecting a little bit of sanity into this dialogue. n/t

[Jefferson23]

55. Iraq, like Viet Nam there were lies, there were no lies perpetuated by those who advocated

for a civil war for slavery. You are going to give them a pass because of their loyalty to their states rights?

They all knew first hand about the brutality of owning people, what percent did not know
and not participate in it? I don't see how you separate it or even need to try, the word
honorable does not apply to ancestors who believed they were doing what they thought they
had to do.

Thank you for the respectful discussion..I think we see this word honorable applied very differently.

[malthaussen]

57. Give them a pass how?

In 1860, the issue of slavery was not so cut-and-dried as it is now. And the issue of white supremacy even less. I seriously doubt whether any but a miniscule fraction at the time doubted the "reality" of white supremacy. It was "supported" by all sorts of scientific "fact" and "logical demonstration." Yeah, I'm using quotes a lot because in the light of hindsight, it was pure bullshit. But it is ahistorical to attribute modern sensibilities to long-ago times. If we do so, then we must come to the extreme position that no one was honorable until about five minutes ago, and our descendents may consider us dishonorable by their own lights.

-- Mal

[Jefferson23]

61. Our descendents would be just to view us such in many cases. There are many words to describe

what they knowingly took part in, honorable is not one of them. It is a disservice to those,
however small the percent, who recognized it for what it was..criminal.

[malthaussen]

65. Fair enough, but then there is no point to the discussion.

I cannot, off the top of my head, think of a single articulate individual at the time who would have argued that white supremacy was criminal, and I have done a modicum of reading in the period. Slavery, yes, but the underlying principle of white supremacy, no.

-- Mal

[Jefferson23]

66. That would be required because you believe it to be relevant. Applying honorable to a point in

time would be then, should not be now. I understand why they believed their service was honorable
for them at the time..they believed in the cause. There is no good reason to continue that reckless
use of the word now...as Webb has done.

Those opposed to slavery at the time of the war needed to articulate that it should also have been because
white supremacy was a criminal act or it doesn't fit into the equation? I don't think so, you honor dissent
and resistance.

[malthaussen]

67. Once again, fair enough.

But I think you'd have to demonstrate that opposition to the fact of slavery is sufficient to be worthy of honor, regardless on how one views the enslaved race.

However, if I interpret your argument correctly, ultimately you are saying that we should not honor them now, regardless of the context of the times. I find that a somewhat sticky argument, for that generation of people. It is of course wholly reasonable to say so about the present generation.

-- Mal

[Jefferson23]

68. That generation of people began a process of detaching themselves from their own humanity.

There was no other way for them to justify it and fight a war to keep it alive. It meant that much
to them they risked their own lives. I do not agree honorable is appropriate/accurate when
speaking of their service..and I'll leave it there.

[bigtree]

69. Frederick Douglass, 1849

"The white man’s happiness cannot be purchased by the black man’s misery. Virtue cannot prevail among the white people, by its destruction among the black people, who form a part of the whole community. It is evident that the white and black "must fall or flourish together." In the light of this great truth, laws ought to be enacted, and institutions established--all distinctions, founded on complexion, ought to be repealed, repudiated, and for ever abolished--and every right, privilege, and immunity, now enjoyed by the white man, ought to be as freely granted to the man of color."

[malthaussen]

70. There ya go.

Figured there would be somebody who could see farther than his nose.

-- Mal

[Boomerproud]

71. Thank you for reminding us of a larger-than-life man.

He was a perfect example of an agent of change. What a giant of history.

[appal_jack]

60. You make excellent points, malthausen

I'm rec'ing this thread in part for your discussion, but also because Webb is an idiot for phrasing his statement as he did. Unfortunately, this level of nuance (honorable individual soldiers, even if the cause is dishonest or dishonorable) cannot be fit into a sound bite.

Webb's candidacy is essentially toast before it was even bread...

-app

[FSogol]

9. Could anyone run a worse campaign?

Congrats Sen Webb, you came in Worst Place!

[madfloridian]

10. All Confederate soldiers were NOT dishonorable.

So go ahead and call me racist or whatever.....but you simply cannot judge a whole section of the country like that.

[Jefferson23]

13. They served for a cause that was dishonorable..do you feel Webb is trying to walk a fine line

to try and not offend? That is how I see it and I find it shameful.

[jwirr]

39. Yes, the did but they were fed a load of bull about states rights. They still cling to that to this

day. That is not to say that I think their cause was honorable. The issue of slavery did not come up suddenly - it had been an issue for years before that. In my family tree many of my husband's family were Quakers who left the state because of slavery. So I suspect no one was ignorant that the issue of states rights came down to slavery or no slavery.

[Jefferson23]

40. Exactly, thank you. n/t

[malthaussen]

47. In fact, the Society of Friends split on the issue.

See the book by Jean Soderlund, Quakers and Slavery. (Should be available in any decent university library)

-- Mal

[jwirr]

56. I know but my family did not want slavery.

[bigtree]

14. well, I think their decision to take up arms to fight the Union was dishonorable

...an unjust cause.

The first shot fired in the Civil War, in fact, was said to have come from S.C. which made their case for resisting the union forces in a similar fashion to most southern states; among other less consequential reasons, resisting the abolition of slavery and any order by the federal government to end the ownership of slaves in their states.

I'm curious about what 'honorable' reason you believe confederate soldiers fought against Union forces.

[madfloridian]

16. Conscripted?

You are in effect calling my ancestors dishonorable.

They were NOT.

[bigtree]

18. I'd be willing to accept that soldiers who actually opposed the war and were conscripted

...deserve some consideration.

Still, the cause they were, presumably, forced to take up arms to defend was a dishonorable one which was described by the leaders of the secession movement as resistance of forced equality with their black slaves.

[madfloridian]

20. 3rd gr grandfather was a surgeon in the war.

I have much information on him.

He was not conscripted far as I can tell, but he was NOT dishonorable.

He was an educated man, later an ordained Methodist minister. He saved lives during that horrible war.

[bigtree]

25. no one, including me, would say a surgeon served dishonorably

...and it's likely dubious to say that conscripts, who reportedly accounted for one-fourth to one-third of the confederate armies bear responsibility for the aims of their leaders, and therefore, served dishonorably.

In the case of Webb, though, he's argued that fighting for secession was different then fighting for slavery. The stated aims of secessionists and official statements of cause from most of the southern states express clearly that they were fighting to preserve the inequality in their system and society between whites and blacks and resisting the federal government's efforts to outlaw vestiges of that inequality, including slavery. There's nothing honorable in that.

[malthaussen]

38. To answer the question

In defense of their homes and families. You cannot equate the reasons the politicians started the war with the reasons the soldiers fought it. Certainly many of the Confederate troops had dishonorable reasons for fighting (but if it comes to it, so did a few of the U.S. troops). But the majority fought for the same reason most soldiers fight: because their leaders tell them to.

Wars are rarely started by soldiers and just about never by enlisted men. A casual reading of memoirs and diaries from the men actually on the ground will show that they were not consciously fighting to keep slaves down. A number of Northern abolitionists did emphasise, however, that they were fighting to free the slaves, but let's not forget that abolitionists were only a fraction of the U.S. armies, and most of the generals (Grant and Sherman, for two of many random examples) were moderate Democrats who were not out to free the slaves except as it helped bring about the end of the war.

In fact, one of the curiosities of the war was that the most rabid Abolitionist generals were also among the most inept and incapable of all the leaders in the North.

There was plenty of propaganda in the South to the effect that the Union was conducting a war of aggression and the states were just minding their own business and forced to defend themselves. This is not modern revisionism, politicians were just as apt to use whatever mouth-drool they found expedient to advance their agendas in 1860 as they are in 2015. Is it reasonable to expect a largely dirt-poor populace that was semi-literate at best, living in a society which emphasized deference and stratification, would be able to dispassionately analyze the mouthings of demagogues and fully understand their lies? Especially when their "sacred soil" was being invaded by hordes of blue bellies? It is ahisorical to think that what a century and a half of analysis has come to decide was equally self-evident at the time of the events. Even now, people of more-or-less good will are divided on many issues that seem patently obvious, and will probably appear so in the light of history (providing we survive long enough to have a history). Things are a lot murkier when you're in the middle of them than when viewed through the lens of reflection, for both good and ill.

None of which is to say that Mr Webb is not full of horseshit, simply to differ with the extreme position that all the combatants on the C.S. side were dishonorable scoundrels. For some, the enemy will always be dishonorable (as has been stated in this thread in relation to other enemies we have had occasion to oppose). I cannot and do not agree with that assertion, and would suggest that it is a sort of exceptionalism that we should be wary of, lest we be led by deceit over and over.

-- Mal

[madfloridian]

50. Thoughtful post. Thanks for that.

[malthaussen]

52. Mind you, my ancestors fought in the Army of the Potomac.

But not an abolitionist among them, so far as I am aware.

-- Mal

[bigtree]

53. perhaps they were ignorant of the reasons for secession

...but I find it hard to believe that the majority of them didn't know they were fighting to defend their way of life which was dependent on the subjugation of blacks.

It's always been a question to me when someone claims they were just defending their homes against invasion, why they didn't see fit to oppose their own state government who was perpetrating that invasion with their resistance - with force, if necessary? It's hard to believe the majority didn't know the reasons behind that resistance by the ones urging them to take up arms.

[malthaussen]

58. As I say upthread

(Looks like I'm conducting this discussion in stereo)

I think we have to take the slavery issue in context when determining honor or dishonor. Few will doubt today, and no one honorable will doubt, that slavery and racial bigotry are dishonorable. If we apply the mores of our own time to those of 1860, then we will come to the conclusion that there was scarcely an honorable man in the world, maybe a Buddhist or two. Because whatever the stance on slavery, the stance on white supremacy was pretty much universal, even among the people of the best will in the country. Truly, it is an evident subtext throughout the primary sources, regardless of state or country of origin, and was even a principle accepted by many blacks. Pro-slavery and pro-supremacy propaganda was pervasive. It had quantities of religious, moral, social, political, and scientific "evidence" to support it. Is it reasonable to expect that an individual, even with the best will in the world, was going to oppose what was taken as self-evident truth by his ministers, his political leaders, his friends and colleagues, and his family? If it is so, then there were no honorable men at all in the Civil War, and thus it is bootless to argue about whether Confederate or Union was honorable.

-- Mal

[bigtree]

64. I'm unconvinced of the argument that ignorance of many Americans then should render their actions

...as honorable in our view today.

We are talking about right and wrong when making such judgments; not merely whether someone in 1860 believed their cause was just. We can credibly make judgments about the inequity of treatment of blacks and their subjugation by whites, as we can make judgments today about whether blacks were, in fact, inferior.

Concluding that blacks were not inferior; reasoning that their subjugation was unjust, how can we then make the judgment today that those actions taken in support of such injustices were 'honorable?'

[malthaussen]

72. There's the rub.

"Honorable in our view today." What can I say? Science is only as accurate as the devices that we use for measure, and morality is rarely absolute. Stipulate, per arguenda, that it was suddenly discovered that blacks were "inferior," (not so far-fetched, there are such arguments still, and there are plenty of scientists who will argue against global warming) would that reverse the argument and make the men of 1860 moral, and those of the present day fanciful? Mind you, I am content to agree that it is a very deep swamp, belief in objective morality and subjective morality both have pitfalls. It's probably a lot easier for people who claim religion and are content to have their morality defined for them by others, but then that is precisely part of the problem here, isn't it?

Ultimately, I think the answer to your final question is "because they were operating under the values of the time." And there is a further question of more-or-less, not either/or, which we haven't even touched on. Stipulating that subjugation and superiority based on race are immoral and dishonorable regardless of context, are they the only determinants of honor? Must an individual have no flaws, make no poor judgements, always act according to honor, and not just honor as it is viewed in context, but honor as it may be viewed after he is dead, or else be deemed dishonorable? I think few could live up to such a measure. I don't suggest that is being argued, but it is something to consider. We can probably agree that courage, for example, however evil the cause, is courage still: can we also decide that it is honorable? Faithfulness, determination, charity, and any of the other virtues you care to name: is an individual to be deemed dishonorable if he displays only some, and not all? (Note, by the way, that there are those who would argue that virtue displayed in an evil cause is no virtue at all, a position I cannot endorse)

I find it a very interesting topic, not least because we should think about it when those who wish to manipulate us invoke honor.

-- Mal

[bigtree]

74. 'values of their time'

...are we going to apply that to every form of discrimination?

The enslaving of blacks in a brutal and humane fashion is well-documented and clearly barbaric - not to mention dehumanizing in every other instance. It's impossible for me to rationalize that to come up with a way to excuse those who fought to preserve that way of life.

I'm exhausted with the defenses. They are anguishing me to the extreme. I really don't know how anyone can be so sanguine about this. I don't understand why anyone associated with willingly fighting to preserve that state of oppression deserves a moment's consideration of praise. But, here we are. America.

[malthaussen]

75. Unfortunately, it's time for me to hit the sack

I appreciate the discussion. I'd say my position comes from a feeling that most history is made on the backs of most people. But that's another discussion.

-- Mal

[JPZenger]

83. Let's remember some Confederate soldiers were fighting because their homeland was invaded

Let's not under-estimate the complexity of the Civil War conflict. Some Confederate soldiers were fighting because they saw Union forces invading their state.

[Egnever]

15. You are right as is Jim webb

Many people here cam not pit themselves outside of their immediate circumstances to understand it was a different era and that being honorable and a slave holder were not mutually exclusive at the time.

Obviously anyone who fought for that now would be completely reprehensible but this is not then.

[bigtree]

19. there was nothing 'honorable' about resistance to equality with free blacks

...which was the basis of the secession movement. Taking up arms against the Union army's defense of the federal government's insistence that system of oppression be dismantled was a dishonorable cause.

It was a dishonorable cause then, no matter what the understanding or belief of the southerners defending that oppressive system was at the time.

[madfloridian]

22. Call the cause dishonorable.

Do NOT imply that the ancestors of all of us whose families were in the south then were dishonorable.

They were NOT.

[bigtree]

29. the cause was dishonorable

...and those who defended that cause by taking up arms against the Union forces bear responsibility to show their own reasons were just. I'm not going to provide any more of a broad brush of cover for their actions than you would have me condemn the lot of them.

[madfloridian]

31. They are all dead.

I will speak for them because I know from family word of mouth, from church archives, from writings I have found by them....they were not dishonorable.

It's easy to call them all dishonorable because they are dead and can not defend themselves.

Those who know their family's background can sit back and see them called dishonorable or they can speak out.

It was a tragic time in history. It was a dishonorable cause.

I do not think you have the right to judge the character of my ancestors.

Does that make me racist? I don't think so, but go ahead and judge anyway.

[bigtree]

37. you'll have to show me where you think I called you a racist

...or am 'judging' you.

I'm expressing my view that the confederate cause was unjust, and that anyone who fought for the expressed intention to defend the confederate cause dishonored their state, their country, and the people of the country.

Jim Webb, who is the subject of this thread, believes that secession and defense of slavery can be separated. That's an incorrect defense of the confederacy and those who fought to defend it; it's historically incorrect. What he is arguing is that, because there were some folks who took up arms in defense of secession, that there is something honorable about the confederate forces which should be venerated in our history. I think that's offensive and a deflection from the unjust intentions of those who established the forces and those who initiated the cause.

I think serving as a surgeon or a medical assistant in any war is an honorable pursuit. Also, conscripted forces bear a dubious responsibility for the aims of the ones who pressed them into service. Yet, these can't be used as blanket cover for such an abominable purpose as the confederacy intended for that service. Nor should it provide cover for celebrating the 'heritage' of the confederacy.

It was a disgraceful pursuit, and pointing to those who, otherwise, didn't actually support the worst of it doesn't justify holding the confederacy up as something that should be revered in history.

[madfloridian]

42. I do NOT justify the Confederacy. I am simply tired of the blanket judgement of the people...

of that time in our history..

I am sick and tired of seeing my ancestors spoken of as being dishonorable because they were in that era.

[madfloridian]

26. AND while researching my late husband's New England ancestors...

I found slave holders, KKK members.

[bigtree]

32. I'm not sure why you believe that excuses confederate soldiers

...if that's what you're arguing. Slavery was wrong no matter where it occurred. federal government efforts to outlaw it wasn't restricted to the South.

Certainly, racism and bigotry wasn't restricted to the South. However, calling the confederate cause dishonorable isn't about indicting the South; it's an indictment of the confederacy and those who fought in defense of it to preserve the system of oppression toward blacks, to preserve slavery, and to preserve the inequality between blacks and whites.

[madfloridian]

33. It doesn't make it RIGHT. It makes it NATIONWIDE.

[bigtree]

41. that's someone elses argument.

...this is a discussion of confederate soldiers and the 'heritage' of the confederacy.

You can't possibly be arguing that, because there was racism in the North, that mitigates the southern states taking up arms against the Union forces. The intentions of the federal government wasn't restricted to the South; it applied to the country as a whole. However, it was the resistance of the South which those states, and those who willingly defended that cause, bear responsibility for.

[madfloridian]

43. Bigtree, you are deliberately twisting my words. Have at it.

I am backing out of this.

Think what you may.

[bigtree]

45. I'm not twisting your words, I'm trying to direct you to the point of this thread

...which is the question of the legitimacy of the confederacy and the reputation of those who fought, willingly, to defend it.

We can have a discussion of other aspects of the history of racism in the U.S., but little of that actually applies to the point of my opposition to what Webb is asserting; or applies to my contention that willing service for the cause of the confederacy was dishonorable.

[madfloridian]

35. That is true, but it will never fly here at DU.

There is no common sense right now about that time in history. It is not acknowledged that good people were on both sides.

Your statement is a good one. But it won't be accepted here.

[bigtree]

44. common sense says there were 'good people on all sides'

...but it's a distortion and a deflection to use that argument, as Webb and others do, to grant the confederacy some sort of acceptable place in our nations history. It was a disreputable cause, and those who willingly defended it were disreputable, along with it.

[HFRN]

77. the one thing almost all the world's war dead in history have in common

is that they're not the ones who started it

what almost all the ones who started it have in common, is that they sat in high end places, drinking high end drinks with each other, talking about how noble the cause was

safe far away from the fighting lines

[madfloridian]

84. Excellent observation.

[spanone]

11. hey jimmy, bullshit.

[summerschild]

12. I listened to this jerk rave over what a swell, brilliant guy

Ronald Reagan was for 15 minutes the other day. Last time I'll ever waste one minute on him. If he's a democrat, I'm a nuclear physicist.

[morningfog]

17. That should end his presidential run "hopefulness." Don't even bother Jim.

[Koinos]

21. Not a good career move as a democrat for Webb.

This puts him to the right of Walmart.

[n2doc]

23. Well kiss that presidential campaign goodbye n/t

[JI7]

27. look up the things he said about kerry and protesting war

[immoderate]

34. Shoulda stuck to song writing.

--imm

[KamaAina]

36. What size shoe does he wear?

And how big is his mouth?

[Liberal Veteran]

51. Isn't this whole discussion about 150 years past the "sell by" date?

History is written by the victors. End of story.

[haikugal]

54. Webb is a 'New Democrat' and proud of it...

I share a Scotch Irish heritage with him but beyond that we have little in common.

[deutsey]

59. Wonder what he thinks of those buried at Bitburg?

[Le Taz Hot]

62. Slap him with butter and jam.

He's toast.

[Cha]

63. Kick.. thanks for posting this, bigtree

[Bluenorthwest]

73. People keep telling me that our 'former' Republicans must be taken at their word, we must not

question their Reagan loyalty, the sources of their wealth nor the reasons they were members of a racist, homophobic anti choice Party of supply side pirates.

[still_one]

76. Actually no. You want someone to be brutally honest so you know who not to vote for.

[Jim Beard]

78. I believe the University of Texas is going to take down a statue

but for the rest of Texas, its the same old bullshit. How the Mexican Americans parading a Mexican flag celebrating the victory of the Alamo. They can also fly it when they lost, it was their way of life. That should make the bubbas head hurt.

[whathehell]

79. Buh bye Jimmy

You've no reason to be "hopeful" about the presidency now.

[Jamastiene]

80. It should not be used in any way as a political symbol that divides us,” said Webb

It doesn't get much more divided than a civil war and trying to break the country apart. kind of fairy tale land is he living in?

[herding cats]

81. Webb is not my preferred flavor

I don't, personally think we need a more conservative alternative, and using the video of Ronald Reagan praising his Marine service isn't going to work in a national election like it did in Virginia. I've wondered if he's angling for the secretary of defense, or maybe even the secretary of state position, though.

[Kalidurga]

82. Hold on...Imma gonna need a bigger fork.

pitch fork bout the right size?