German court: circumcising a child is bodily harm

If your cultural/religious ritual can be used as an excuse to cause unnecessary harm to someone without their informed consent, then it's a bad ritual. Our cultural practices are constantly evolving, extinguishing a single ritual doesn't necessarily create some sort of irreparable cultural vacuum. If outlawing circumcision saves the life of 1 in 10,000 infants then I call it a fair trade.

Granted I'm an atheist living in a country that's less than 150 years old so I don't have as many strong cultural ties as some people, but I don't see why "it's part of our culture" is a valid reason to preserve something. Culture isn't (and shouldn't be) static. Keep the good parts, and get rid of the bad parts. If people want to remember the old ways they can read about them in a history book.

muttonchop:

I agree. What I don't agree with is that you or others who are similarly uninvested should be the ones who are enforcing this change. That constitutes a conflict of interest - you're inherently inclined to want to abolish the rituals and concepts with which you disagree; you should not be regarded as a suitable judge for their preservation or removal.

A similar situation for you would be, what if something you vehemently disagree with were to be enforced by the force of law? Would you not find that repugnant?

You are not a stakeholder in this policy decision, and arguably, you're hostile to their interests. It would be remiss to put you in a position of power over them.

CheezePavilion:

Medical necessity plays a much larger role when you are exercising someone else's rights on their behalf than when you're exercising your own. The degree to which the surgery is reversible and is time sensitive also plays a much larger role. Whether a defect (something that came up earlier) is being remedied or not plays a bigger role too. For some more on the topic:

There is a certain amount of timeliness with circumcision. The time at which it's generally performed is not a matter of throwing the dart on a randomized dartboard. Given that the AAP is neutral on the issue currently, the medical community has essentially said, "Ask the parents," which they explicitly state on the Taskforce report.

Rezzy:

Preventing Parents from causing harm to their children is the prerogative of a modern society.
Here's a question I'd like answered:
Should the children of Jewish and Muslim guardians automatically be given less rights than other citizens?
Should Germany create a sub-class of citizens with restricted rights for those citizens born to minority traditions so that the guardians of the child may impose their will upon his or her body without the consequences that would normally be incurred?

Arguably, interfering with parenting and the integrity of the family unit for various reasons has been in effect for a long time; it's not particularly modern as far as I can see it. "For the good of the children," has been used for all manner of things for a while now. It's not particularly modern or even all that inspired.

As for your questions:

1. No. All parents would have the prerogative to perform such rituals; the Jewish and Muslim children and guardians would not be special in this regard.
2. All societies today regard children as a subclass of citizen with restricted powers. I do not believe that this is restricted to those born to minority traditions. We ought to be more conscientious in these matters so as not to practice religious persecution.

LarryC wrote:

muttonchop:

I agree. What I don't agree with is that you or others who are similarly uninvested should be the ones who are enforcing this change. That constitutes a conflict of interest - you're inherently inclined to want to abolish the rituals and concepts with which you disagree; you should not be regarded as a suitable judge for their preservation or removal.

A similar situation for you would be, what if something you vehemently disagree with were to be enforced by the force of law? Would you not find that repugnant?

You are not a stakeholder in this policy decision, and arguably, you're hostile to their interests. It would be remiss to put you in a position of power over them.

I am of the opposing viewpoint, where sometimes it requires an unbiased third party to point out the barbaric nature of a culture. See the Civil Rights movement and the marriage equality movement as examples.

Your turn the tables question has a real life example, btw. Corporal punishment is only selectively banned, and many parts of our culture are viciously fighting for the right to beat their kids. So it shouldn't be surprising when minority groups fight to preserve their violent and barbaric culture, but that doesn't make them morally equal to those pushing for an end to violence against children.

I don't think dismissing the concern people have for needless pain being inflicted on infants is appropriate, btw. At what point is someone not a stakeholder in the well being of children? Isn't that why the Think Of The Children rhetoric is so easily abused in the first place?

LarryC wrote:

CheezePavilion:

Medical necessity plays a much larger role when you are exercising someone else's rights on their behalf than when you're exercising your own. The degree to which the surgery is reversible and is time sensitive also plays a much larger role. Whether a defect (something that came up earlier) is being remedied or not plays a bigger role too. For some more on the topic:

There is a certain amount of timeliness with circumcision. The time at which it's generally performed is not a matter of throwing the dart on a randomized dartboard. Given that the AAP is neutral on the issue currently, the medical community has essentially said, "Ask the parents," which they explicitly state on the Taskforce report.

I like how you latched on to the one consideration and pretended the other ones did not exist.

LarryC wrote:

I agree. What I don't agree with is that you or others who are similarly uninvested should be the ones who are enforcing this change. That constitutes a conflict of interest - you're inherently inclined to want to abolish the rituals and concepts with which you disagree; you should not be regarded as a suitable judge for their preservation or removal.

People who are univested are the best people to look at it and make the decision, because they are uninvested. They will not care about tradition or anything, they can look at the facts (as they exist). People who are anti-ritual will automatically be against it and will see it as bad by default. People who are part of the culture in question will automatically see it as good.

LarryC wrote:

I think that the court in this case isn't creating a boundary; there already was before that, since no one in Germany has any authority to torture children regardless of relation. In this case, it's moving that boundary towards more state control, and less parental control; with a specific mind towards also stepping on a very particular religious ritual.

Sorry, I am late to the party.

What Larry mentioned here is the key aspect I have really been missing from the whole discussion: there was no new legislation created.

What really changes is, that doctors have been operating in a gray area so far, kinda like the plausible deniability concept. That's at least what the ruling of the NRW state court is based on, that though they think the procedure was not ok to be performed, the doctor gets a free pass on this one, because he was not aware of the illegal nature of the procedure.
Now this "excuse" can no longer be considered valid, i.e. all doctor's can now be made liable for this if brought to the authorities attention.

So in retrospect, this procedure is and has been illegal based on existing german laws. It is just, that so far nobody has put the existing laws into context with this specific topic. Abstract law has been applied to a specific situation by a court. That's all the "news".

I think the real discussion will start now, as german society now has caugth attention to this. We (as a in we the people) have to decide now what we value more: the religious or the human rights aspect.

Merkel says it's a right.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-euro...

Makes me think about the position - as advocated by Nosferatu - that the German legal shouldn't step in if the judgement is against Jewish tradition. Now we have the head of the state stepping in support of the tradition.

No citizen is obiged to agree with their government's policies. And legitimacy of policy is, rightly, questioned often. But this seems a more complex case.

Sad, but not surprising.

Children are still property, it seems.

Bah, that's a real shame. It's the sort of thing that if upheld, could have got the ball rolling across Europe, if not the rest of the West. But yeah, not really all that surprising, governments tend to have no teeth when it comes to religion.

I actually consider this a maintenance of a good thing - freedom of religious expression and culture. Aggressive persecution of religious groups is something I thought was a thing of the past.

Rezzy wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

But.. but... There are indisputable health-related benefits to cutting off one's years! One, this reduces a chance to every receive an ear frostbite down to absolute zero!

Also the women-folk find a smooth head ultra-sexy, while having those flappy skin-things repulses almost everyone.

I counter that. I can find you legions of gay men that love men with a "bishop in a turtleneck".

EDIT: crap. Just realized that I'm quoting something from the second page of the thread and is no longer as timely as I thought it to be. SORRY!

LarryC wrote:

I actually consider this a maintenance of a good thing - freedom of religious expression and culture. Aggressive persecution of religious groups is something I thought was a thing of the past.

This is frightening logic. By that rationale any crime should be ignored as long as the practice has religious or cultural roots.

Amusing no one but myself:

Spoiler:

I'm sorry sir, but you'll just have to endure the screams.
I know they can be quite disturbing, but this is how their culture deals with disobedience.
Yes sir, we've stopped by and chatted with them on many occasions, but until he allows her to renounce her upbringing we cannot intervene in his freedom of cultural expression on her body.
Yes. Yes, we know about their boy. 'Demon possessed' is the official cause of death.
No, we cannot remove the body. Their shaman must first extricate the heart and the carcass must rot for at least a fortnight so the evil spirits can...
yes sir, evil spirits. As I was saying the carcass forms a protective totem for the other members of the family. Traditionally the body must rest until 'life is born again.'
Yes sir, I am told that means the first wave of insect larvae nourished by the body must 'hatch.'
Yes, I know that it is December. Their shamans assure us that a fortnight will 'send the message.'
Sir! Their culture carries many time-honored traditions and we, as a modern and progressive society would not dream of imposing our own laws upon such a rich source of diversity within our jurisdiction. Now I'll have to ask you to tone down your rhetoric or I shall be forced to charge you with a hate-crime! Honestly, I expected better from a Christian.
Yes sir, we have everyone's affiliations and backgrounds here in our computer. How else would we know when an actual crime was being committed?
Well sir, I will take that under advisement. Good Day!

Trachalio wrote:
Rezzy wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

But.. but... There are indisputable health-related benefits to cutting off one's years! One, this reduces a chance to every receive an ear frostbite down to absolute zero!

Also the women-folk find a smooth head ultra-sexy, while having those flappy skin-things repulses almost everyone.

I counter that. I can find you legions of gay men that love men with a "bishop in a turtleneck".

EDIT: crap. Just realized that I'm quoting something from the second page of the thread and is no longer as timely as I thought it to be. SORRY!

Indeed. Not just gay men either - I've never had a negative reaction to my own be-turtle-necked clergyman. In fact, it's been a boon - in my limited experience on this side of the water, it's gets bonus points for novelty. I've even had a woman ask if she can watch me get head so she can see how it works.

Rezzy wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I actually consider this a maintenance of a good thing - freedom of religious expression and culture. Aggressive persecution of religious groups is something I thought was a thing of the past.

This is frightening logic. By that rationale any crime should be ignored as long as the practice has religious or cultural roots.

I concurr entirely. I assume LarryC is just fine with female circumcision for religious reasons too, and maybe a touch of human sacrifice as long as it's done in God's name.

Frankly, I disagree with the reading that this is religious persecution, and certainly not 'aggressive'. Circumcision is not only practiced by religious folk.

Jonman:

You don't need to assume. I already said as much earlier; and I also explained the rationale. I may or may not personally agree with certain practices done by peoples within their cultural milieu, but it is not right to hold myself morally supreme and then judge and persecute others based on my moral perspective. That's the kind of reasoning that brings conversion via sword.

Rezzy:

"Crime" itself is a statement of social contract. It is an agreement made by parties to the social order that certain behaviors are beyond the ken for the society in question. Actions that were not crimes in the past are crimes now, and certain actions that were crimes in the past now are not. It is a changeable agreement.

What is questionable is the unilateral imposition of "crime" to a party which was not represented in reaching social consensus. This is equivalent to me declaring that your name is a crime and that I will jail you for it, unless you choose to change it. It is ultimately arbitrary, but it gains power through social contract; but to be arbitrary and then to impose it on others; that is something that I am confident you would not want done on your own person based on assumptions you do not believe or agree with.

Why is it acceptable to ban the beliefs of others without their consent, but not your own?

LarryC wrote:

Jonman:

You don't need to assume. I already said as much earlier; and I also explained the rationale. I may or may not personally agree with certain practices done by peoples within their cultural milieu, but it is not right to hold myself morally supreme and then judge and persecute others based on my moral perspective. That's the kind of reasoning that brings conversion via sword.

No, it isn't. It's exactly the opposite.

The point is to prevent persecution of others, regardless of whether it's done for religious reasons or not. The point is to prevent conversion by the sword. Or scalpel, in this case.

Claiming that a practice is religiously motivated is not a free-pass to contravene laws, cultural norms or accepted best-practice. Unless we're talking about countries that are explicitly religious i.e. with a state religion, in which case the conflict never arises anyway.

LarryC wrote:

I may or may not personally agree with certain practices done by peoples within their cultural milieu, but it is not right to hold myself morally supreme and then judge and persecute others based on my moral perspective. That's the kind of reasoning that brings conversion via sword.

So you're fine with what the Spaniards did to the Philippines? I mean, they were only following one of their religious traditions.

LarryC wrote:

That's the kind of reasoning that brings conversion via sword.

We will never reach consensus on this point, so I'll simply share with you the reasoning behind my beliefs:
Society needs to evolve. That means culture, laws, human interactions, beliefs. We NEED to evolve ourselves to a point where we can successfully interact and inhabit an enclosed space for many generations. If we do not, then we will either kill each other in space or die with this planet. The only way this species gets to continue existing is if it can evolve itself into a space-faring culture. The only way towards this is if we all put on our grown-up pants and leave some old superstitions in the past. We need a logical set of rules that apply to everyone with no exceptions. Rules that say things like: You cannot cut on someone unless it is medically necessary. You cannot beat someone to the point where they require medical attention. If someone upsets you you are not entitled to do them violence. You may speak your mind, but you will be judged by your words. If your mind contains impulses that endanger any members of this group, including yourself, we will treat you to the best of our ability. Teach children about the old world, but prepare them to live in the new.

LarryC wrote:

Jonman:

That would make more sense if we were protecting people who didn't want their children circumcised from religiously motivated Muslims and Jews from imposing it on them and their families. However, in the case here, the reverse is happening. They are being prevented from practicing their beliefs within their families and communities by an external power with an unsympathetic and unrepresentative agenda.

That counts the other way. It's essentially conversion via gun/sword, though it's only a little ways here because it's only an important religious tradition, not a vital cultural touchstone.

Equivalently, if Japan were to take over your country, they might argue that Japanese is the "neutral" language and forbid you from teaching your children any other language. They can choose to learn English when they grow up. Of course, you'll never be able to convince them that Japanese isn't neutral and sensible and universal.

I would like to see this argument that Japanese is the "neutral" language that cannot be distinguished from banning all circumcision of minors, as I didn't know foreskin removal was necessary to learn English. No wonder all those Europeans talk funny.

Jonman:

That would make more sense if we were protecting people who didn't want their children circumcised from religiously motivated Muslims and Jews from imposing it on them and their families. However, in the case here, the reverse is happening. They are being prevented from practicing their beliefs within their families and communities by an external power with an unsympathetic and unrepresentative agenda.

That counts the other way. It's essentially conversion via gun/sword, though it's only a little ways here because it's only an important religious tradition, not a vital cultural touchstone.

Equivalently, if Japan were to take over your country, they might argue that Japanese is the "neutral" language and forbid you from teaching your children any other language. They can choose to learn English when they grow up. Of course, you'll never be able to convince them that Japanese isn't neutral and sensible and universal.

Stengah:

So you're fine with what the Spaniards did to the Philippines? I mean, they were only following one of their religious traditions.

No. See above. It's a matter of representation and consensus.

"Religious" here is a confusing (not to me) buzzword because many here think that just being religious is itself an indictment, or at least not a valid rationale for cultural practices. A practice based on a secular belief for whatever reason is, however, culturally equivalent.

What the Spanish did in the Philippines is what the German court is doing here, and I stand against it. I hope that's clear.

Rezzy:

I live in a culture where we have to live in very close proximity to others for pretty much our entire lives. I assure you that consensus and tolerance is key. What the German court is doing here runs counter to those principles.

There are some essentials that need to be addressed. Optional minor surgery and parental authority actually argue for my point being carried here, per personal experience living in very close proximity to others. If the parent across the street chooses to have her child circumcised, you keep your mouth shut because it's none of your business, unless you're purely acting on altruistic motivations. In that case, you can voice objections while you help them deal with the complications.

At no point should you hie yourself over, point a gun and force them to do what you want. That rarely leads to anything good.

LarryC wrote:

"Religious" here is a confusing (not to me) buzzword because many here think that just being religious is itself an indictment, or at least not a valid rationale for cultural practices. A practice based on a secular belief for whatever reason is, however, culturally equivalent.

You've got this exactly backwards. The practice is not being indicted for its religious or cultural basis.

The questions that should be asked are the following:

-Is there a clear, necessary benefit to making this practice a standard medical practice to be performed without the consent of the patient?
-If not, what is the motivation to perform said non-consensual procedure, and are those motivations sufficiently drastic to permit this non-consensual procedure?

The answer to the first is: No. There are medical necessities only in cases when medical conditions exist (e.g. phimosis). There are hygienic advantages only in the sense that it's easier to clean, but no less necessary. There are demonstrable harms that come from the practice that, while not provably universal, are scientifically sound.

There are multiple answers to the second question:

-Cultural. This amounts to cosmetic surgery being performed on infants. This cosmesis was established by the very idea that the practice should be standard in the first place. Making someone look "normal" because we changed the standard of "normal" somewhere along the way is insufficient justification. If the individual in question can't stand to be different, let him make that decision at an age where he can. This is an unjustifiable motivation.

-Religious. Should the religious be permitted to perform such an act on a party unable to give consent? If the religion does not require it (Judaism does not), then no. It's become a religious tradition, and traditions are established, not mandated. In coexisting with a mixed society, which does not subscribe to the beliefs of any one minority on the whole, including the minority enacting the practice, the minority must be prepared to further assimilate to that society. Here's where we run into some problems, but they're not as difficult to resolve as you might think. Religious Freedom is a civil right in many "free" societies ("free" is in quotes because there may not be an easily-agreed-upon definition of a "free" society, so I'm trying to avoid that particular irrelevant semantic battle). How do you reconcile the promise to permit free religious practice, but limit what that religion can do? There are many precedents for such limitations, and each case can be shown to have eliminated an unjustifiable imposition on the personal freedom of the individual. The most obvious cases in the United States deal with the civil rights of minorities. Among those are the elimination of slavery, the fight for civil rights between blacks and whites, and the most recent fights, the fight for marriage equality, and gender identity rights, the latter probably being the single most difficult fight to win, because it's so terribly and oftentimes tragically, misunderstood. Slavery is the most basically obvious religiously-sanctioned, or at least, religiously-justifiable, example. It was within the purview of Christians to own slaves. That is no longer the case, because civil liberties were more important than religious freedom. If a simple tradition can stand in the way of an individual's right to decide whether or not he should be subjected to cosmetic surgery, that is far more dangerous than ending a religious practice. This, too, is an unjustifiable motivation.

LarryC wrote:

Stengah:

So you're fine with what the Spaniards did to the Philippines? I mean, they were only following one of their religious traditions.

No. See above. It's a matter of representation and consensus.

I'm sure you realize by now that your argument has fallen apart and are just posting out of an all-too-familiar desire to internet-fight, but just in case, I would like to point out the specific part where you lost the heart of the discussion. It's that part I bolded, up there. You see, the baby boys with their foreskins intact and facing mutilation are the Filipinos in this analogy, and their parents are the Spaniards.

Although I would say the analogy is not nearly extreme enough. The Filipinos could fight back.

I think if it were a neighboring country looking to set this precedent, say Belgium or the Netherlands, this might have gotten further. But let's be honest, at this point Germany still has a bit too much cultural baggage to be a world leader on legally forcing minority populations to move away from core cultural practices.

I admire the reasoning (as a Jewish person also) but I really wish a different country had tried to get the ball rolling on this one. Now I fear it may have actually set the timeline back on phasing this out because now they have to backpedal and fall all over themselves explaining that it really is about human rights and not some subversive mainstreaming agenda.

LarryC wrote:

If the parent across the street chooses to have her child circumcised, you keep your mouth shut because it's none of your business, unless you're purely acting on altruistic motivations. In that case, you can voice objections while you help them deal with the complications.

At no point should you hie yourself over, point a gun and force them to do what you want. That rarely leads to anything good.

I don't want to live in your world.

Thanks to NSMike for covering the slavery angle much clearer than the two or three false starts I typed up before refreshing the page.

I live in a culture where we have to live in very close proximity to others for pretty much our entire lives. I assure you that consensus and tolerance is key. What the German court is doing here runs counter to those principles.

Having lived on many continents of this planet, I came to observe that everywhere, every cultural majority always tends to considers itself tolerant, hospitable, and forgiving. Except for clearly out-of-line cases when those damn minorities must be reminded to know their place, of course.

NSMike:

The answer to the first is: No. There are medical necessities only in cases when medical conditions exist (e.g. phimosis). There are hygienic advantages only in the sense that it's easier to clean, but no less necessary. There are demonstrable harms that come from the practice that, while not provably universal, are scientifically sound.

That is not quite what the Taskforce says. I'm willing to accept their expert word on it at face value.

Even medical procedures that have undeniable benefits cannot be performed without consent. That principle holds true unless conditions are dire and life is immediately in danger. In the case of circumcision, the Taskforce was content to refer to current practice: to refer to the parents to exercise right of consent.

Cultural. This amounts to cosmetic surgery being performed on infants. This cosmesis was established by the very idea that the practice should be standard in the first place. Making someone look "normal" because we changed the standard of "normal" somewhere along the way is insufficient justification. If the individual in question can't stand to be different, let him make that decision at an age where he can. This is an unjustifiable motivation.

It's more than just cosmesis, unless all cultural artifacts and practices can be devalued equally. At that point, no cultural practice should be practiced by parents on children, including the teaching of their language. It ought to be decided nationally, I suppose.

You're using "cosmetic surgery on infants," as if it were some sort of idiomatic self-explanatory negative. Cosmetic surgery itself is net-negative, incurring only risks and side-effects outside of its cultural and cosmetic values. Circumcision was not judged equivalent, as discussed.

Among those are the elimination of slavery, the fight for civil rights between blacks and whites, and the most recent fights, the fight for marriage equality, and gender identity rights, the latter probably being the single most difficult fight to win, because it's so terribly and oftentimes tragically, misunderstood. Slavery is the most basically obvious religiously-sanctioned, or at least, religiously-justifiable, example. It was within the purview of Christians to own slaves. That is no longer the case, because civil liberties were more important than religious freedom. If a simple tradition can stand in the way of an individual's right to decide whether or not he should be subjected to cosmetic surgery, that is far more dangerous than ending a religious practice. This, too, is an unjustifiable motivation.

It's not cosmetic surgery; and it's not standing in the way. You're ignoring parental prerogative here.

Seth:

It seems to me that you're implying that the Filipinos are as children and the Spanish are as parents. That sounds uncomfortably like Manifest Destiny, and that is the rationale often given.

The solution isn't to dissolve family and to give up parenting to the majority and powerful. The solution is to view both cultures as adults. Mutual respect is the foundation of tolerance.

It may be the case that your cultural peers are making more appealing and powerful-sounding arguments because they appeal to your inherent biases, whereas I am unfamiliar with idiom, and I am espousing a strange point of view.

Nevertheless, I assure you that my point stands firm and at no point has it been shaken. We differ in that I hold all cultures in respect, whereas you are more willing to judge some as inferior and feel free to stamp them out using force. It seems to me that this is the core difference in assumptions here.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
I live in a culture where we have to live in very close proximity to others for pretty much our entire lives. I assure you that consensus and tolerance is key. What the German court is doing here runs counter to those principles.

Having lived on many continents of this planet, I came to observe that everywhere, every cultural majority always tends to considers itself tolerant, hospitable, and forgiving. Except for clearly out-of-line cases when those damn minorities must be reminded to know their place, of course.

That's what's happening in this here thread, actually.

Rezzy:

I don't want to live in your world.

I confess that I couldn't make heads or tails of this comment despite thinking it over. It sounds to me like you prefer to live in a world where people shot guns at each other over cultural differences. That's the world we live in right now, so I guess we all want to be remain alive and live in it; but I would prefer a world in which we could talk about our cultural differences rather than impose on each other and shoot each other dead over minor surgery consent.

Frankly, I find that there's more than enough of the shooting and persecution going around without adding to it.

LarryC wrote:

It may be the case that your cultural peers are making more appealing and powerful-sounding arguments because they appeal to your inherent biases, whereas I am unfamiliar with idiom, and I am espousing a strange point of view.

It may be that you are incapable of understanding the appeal and power of the the arguments of his cultural peers because your own point of view is prejudiced by your negative experiences with similar sounding arguments.

CheezePavilion wrote:
LarryC wrote:

It may be the case that your cultural peers are making more appealing and powerful-sounding arguments because they appeal to your inherent biases, whereas I am unfamiliar with idiom, and I am espousing a strange point of view.

It may be that you are incapable of understanding the appeal and power of the the arguments of his cultural peers because your own point of view is prejudiced by your negative experiences with similar sounding arguments.

It might help to phrase it differently. Perhaps you could do so?

We are talking here about interfering with cultural and religious expression in the name of what is being made out to be "good" and "moral" and "decent." It won't do to convince me that these points actually ARE "good" and "moral" and "decent" because that's normally where a lot of these justifications entail. Christianity is good for your culture, blah, blah, blah. Let's stamp out your native alphabet, literature, and language; it'll be good, you'll see.

Rezzy above (and many in other posts) are essentially trying to justify how their view is objectively good and "superior," as Seth might say.

Granting that I won't hold to a single perspective as being the one authoritative position (except for the one that says this precept), have I covered it well?