Via email, I just got a request to sign this petition opposing a new INS rule allowing the INS to issue 30-day tourist visas (instead of the usual 6-month tourist visas).

Personally, I think that restricting tourist visas from foreign countries is completely reasonable during this time of crisis. Yes, I know that many people find it convenient to come to the US for six months, and, ordinarily, I think that’s great. In general, I am all for unrestricted tourism; there’s plenty of room, and, as long as visitors don’t become a public charge, I think it’s great that they come and spend money.

This isn’t, however, a time for “in general.” In February 1993, and again on September 11, 2001, it became blindingly obvious that there is a well-organized, dangerous group of people out there who are TRYING TO KILL US. All of us. Any of us. Whichever of us they can get. Letting almost everyone in on a six-month visa makes it easier for terrorists to come here, plan an attack, and carry it out.

Some would say that there is a case to be made for the complete elimination of tourist visas until the threat from foreign terrorists continues. Limiting tourist visa durations to one month is a compromise. If tourist visa durations are shortened, and enforcement procedures are improved to make visitors check in every month, then perhaps it will be harder for the next batch of terrorists to successfully organize the next terrorist attack. People who want to stay longer will probably have to check in with the INS every month. In a worst-likely-case-scenario, potential tourists will have to visit Canada or Mexico once a month. The INS will still be able to grant 6-month or longer tourist visas, if necessary. And, of course, this new 30-day rule will have no effect on student, work or business visas, or on legal immigration.

The petition organizers point out that the 30-day rule may invite retaliation from other governments. To me, that putative willingness of other governments to restrict US citizens is a feedback mechanism that will reduce the chance that the INS will apply the 30-day rule to everyone or in an unreasonable manner. The existence of such a feedback mechanism is another argument to adopt the 30-day rule.

Maybe it’ll work. Maybe it won’t. If it has a reasonable chance of preventing another terrorist attack, then it’s worth a try.

Should INS officials have the discretion to decide who gets a 1-month visa and who gets a 6-month visa? Given the abysmal record of the INS in keeping terrorists out, the answer seems to be a clear “no.” There’s just one problem: there’s nobody else to do it. So, by default, the INS gets the job.


The petition for the repeal of the 30-day rule points out that the new rule affects tourists from all over the world. The September 11 terrorists did not come to the US directly from Saudi Arabia, but from various countries in Europe. Lest someone think that there are no longer any potential terrorists in Europe, I present this picture FROM BERLIN:




Someone IN BERLIN dressed up the little girl as a weapon. Someone IN BERLIN thought it was a good idea to portray that child as nothing more than an expendable dynamite holder, destined to be reduced to little shreds of cooling meat after completing her terrorist mission. Allowing that person into the US for six full months is madness, even though that person is in Europe.

There are no rights, constitutional or otherwise, diminished by this new rule. Based on my review of the petition website, and a scan of some of the comments, the organizers and signatories make no argument that the 30-day rule would hinder or would not affect the war on terrorism. The tradeoff opposed by the petition organizers seems to be simply this: the US government is demanding that some non-citizens on pleasure trips get less bang for their travel buck, so that thousands of US citizens are less likely to be horribly slaughtered. I am shocked and saddened that so many people are unwilling to at least give that tradeoff a try.

UPDATE:
Holy smokes. According to this LA Times article, the INS has cited airlines 6,000 times for not ensuring that people who entered the US with NO visa actually left the country. Seems that the INS has a lot of fronts to cover.

Via the perfesser, I just read something that upset me just a little bit here. In particular, I disagree with the combination of this line:

"I don't think the United States should allow dual-citizenship at all. Not ever. Not with Australia, not with Canada, not with Israel, not with Mexico. Not with anyone."

With the absence, even of acknowledgement, of this line:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." (US constitution, Amendment XIV, 1868)

And this one:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." (Amendment X 1791)


Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s perfectly valid to think that the United States should not allow dual citizenship. It’s just that such a concept breaks into two parts: (1) not allowing native-born citizens, or those already citizens, to pick up another citizenship, and (2) requiring foreign-born persons who seek naturalization to give up their birth citizenship.

Any argument regarding not allowing native-born citizens, or those already citizens, to pick up another citizenship should, in my mind, address the right of the government to remove the citizenship of one who is already a citizen. The constitution does not authorize this; hence, the government cannot do this. The Supreme Court is on my side on this one; check out Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967). Another interesting, relevant case is Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133 (1952).

It is clear to me that the government does not have the right to remove a person’s citizenship, and certainly not for obtaining another citizenship. The US government is created by the people, aka "We the people of the United States ...." (preamble, US constitution). What the people choose to believe, and particularly to whom the people choose to bear allegiance, is not for the federal government to decide or punish. I was born with US citizenship, and that citizenship is mine to do with as I will. It wasn’t given to me by the government; it is part of who I am, simply because I was born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If I choose to obtain another citizenship, there is nothing the government can do about it; the power to remove my citizenship is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. If the government could simply remove American citizenship, then it would be much easier to quash dissent or disagreement.

That said, I perceive that there may be a good argument to be made regarding requiring foreign-born persons who seek naturalization to give up their birth citizenship. It seems that some people , including myself, believe that there is a brewing problem with some people who have American citizenship, but who never really became “Americans.”

I believe that there is one attribute that differentiates Americans from the population of every other country on earth: the love of freedom over all else. Though many have colonized this continent, the norms of our nation were established by people who, in their own minds at least, were willing to risk their lives for the freedom to worship as they pleased. Our independence of Kings was established by a decade of slow, tortuous, uncertain battles, before the advent of antibiotics or nylon, by people who preferred to fight in freezing, wet, deadly conditions rather than consign their children to subjecthood. One of our great national quotes, aimed at the American population that didn’t wish to fight, and that would soon become Canadian or English, speaks to that very concept:

“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." (Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776)

If you don’t have that love of freedom, you are not what I would call an American. If you are willing to trade your freedom for money, or security, or anything else, you are not an American. If you already have American citizenship, there’s nothing to be done about that, but, like Sam Adams, I sincerely wish that you would go away.

Fortunately, however, at least a plurality who are raised here do believe in freedom. I think that there is a cultural meme here that is passed down from generation to generation, regardless of one's ancestry. It is likely that there are also genetic components to the desire for freedom, but the culture itself seems to be enough to ensure that there is a plurality of Americans who believe in freedom. I wish it were more, but, again, there’s nothing I, or anyone else, can do about it. And that’s as it should be.

It’s clear to me, however, that the people of other nations, raised in different cultures, don’t feel the same way as often as do native-born-and-raised Americans. Canadians, similar to Americans in so many other ways, have traditionally been much less likely to riot, protest, fight, or kill for their freedom. I think it’s because their country was descended from the forbears to whom Samuel Adams spoke. Throughout their history, Mexicans have tolerated repressive, thuggish governments that are exactly what Americans have not tolerated. Yes, I know that there’s an uprising in Chiapas, and I believe that the Zapatistas are trying, in their own way, to fight for freedom, but they get precious little support from the general population of Mexicans. I mention Canada and Mexico simply because they are so close to the US; to the best of my knowledge, there is not one other country on earth in which ordinary people have so often been willing to lay down their work, pick up weapons, and fight, kill, and risk death for what they (sometimes incorrectly) perceive as freedom. Rather than an appeal to king, country, rodina, or god, a (sometimes bogus) appeal to freedom is what motivates us to fight. From the American Revolution to both sides of the American Civil war, from the Lincoln Brigades to today’s militia movement, Americans fight for perceived freedom far more frequently than the people of any other land. Unfortunately, another way to say exactly the same thing is that the people of other countries are generally less interested in fighting for freedom than are Americans. And therein lies the reason to ask newly naturalized citizens to give up their citizenship to the mother country.

In a perfect world, I would like citizenship to be available only to those who believe in freedom. I think that’s the motivation underlying the offering of political asylum in the US; if you’ve fought for freedom hard enough to attract the unwelcome attention of the authorities, then you’re our kind of person. However, I think that asking people to give up their allegiance to their homeland in exchange for American citizenship is another reasonable sorting mechanism. If your home is less free than the US, and you are not willing to renounce that less-free country, then you really shouldn’t be a citizen here. You obviously value something more than freedom. If you come from a country that is more free than the United States (I don’t believe such a country exists; if I thought it did, I would go there tomorrow), then you clearly are willing to give up freedom to come here, and, again, you are the kind of person who really should not be a citizen here.

As opposed to the situation of taking away the citizenship of native-born Americans, putting conditions on naturalization is perfectly constitutional. The US Constitution, article 1, section 8, states that “The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization,” and that pretty much gives Congress the right to do whatever it wants in this area.

Just a few other quick points: while I would like to see citizenship more tightly restricted than it is now, I also believe in open borders with no welfare. I believe anyone should be able to come here, participate in our economy, and succeed or fail based on their own efforts. They just shouldn’t be allowed to vote without evidence that they love liberty greater than wealth. And, for me, having open borders does not imply that we keep them open to everyone in times of conflict, i.e. I think it would be perfectly rational to evict all non-citizen male muslim arabs between the ages of 18 to 34, until the end of the current war on terror. But those are blogs for another day.

Yeah, so maybe some officers and employees of Andersen shredded some documents. Maybe they did engage in some criminal activity. But to indict the entire company? Did congress indict the entire Marine Corps after Ollie North lied to them and authorized document shredding? Was anyone indicted after Hillary Clinton ordered the shredding of Vince Foster's documents in the Rose Law Firm, and of Health Care Task Force documents that were the target of a court probe? If obstuction of justice is the issue, was the FBI indicted after the Branch Davidian's door "disappeared?" It's pretty clear that the Justice Department is applying a different standard to private organizations than the one they have applied to govenmental organizations.

The market, all by itself, has already punished all of Andersen Accounting. There is already an incentive for officers of private organizations to be their "brother's keepers." Why add criminal prosecution of people who were't connected to the shredding? Particularly when government officials in similar circumstances face neither market retaliation nor criminal charges?

Because they can, that's why.

OK, I’ve had it for now with writing about the police state. Don’t think that I didn’t notice the fact that the feds are too concerned with exerting their authority over us to bother pulling the visas of foreigners who (1) are dead and (2) have flown planes into the WTC. That story has been covered to death; I really don’t have anything to add.

So, today’s blog is about a cool aircraft concept: the zero-roll gyrocopter. There are two companies that have been working on this concept: CarterCopters and the Groen Brothers. The CarterCopter achieves zero-roll liftoff by (1) spinning up the main rotor on the ground, while cancelling out the tortsional forces with the landing gear of the grounded aircraft, (2) storing the rotational energy in the rotor with the aid of rotor weights which turn the rotor into a gyroscopic energy storage device and (3) lifting off and achieving autorotation before the energy stored in the rotor dissipates. The Groen Brothers plan to achieve zero-roll takeoff by (1) turning the rotor with ramjets at takeoff then (2) lifting off and achieving autorotation before turning off the ramjets.

From what I can tell, the CarterCopter seems like a much more elegant design. No ramjets on the rotor means no fuel supply to pump into the spinning rotor, no need for ramjet maintenance, and no ramjet noise. Further, the CarterCopter team has already achieved reproducible zero-roll takeoff.

The other cool concept of the CarterCopter team, which the Groen Brothers don’t seem to be replicating, is the concept of slowing rotor speed in flight and generating lift with fixed wings. Current rotor wing aircraft have a limit on forward speed because the spinning rotor tip travels through the air faster on one side (the advancing edge) than on the other side (the retreating edge). At relatively low speeds, this leads to asymmetrical lift; the faster part of the rotor generates more lift than the slower part of the rotor, and steps must be taken to prevent the craft from tipping over. At high speeds, the advancing tip speed relative to the fuselage, plus the airspeed of the entire craft relative to the air, add up to a rotor tip speed that is much faster than the craft is traveling through the air. This exposes the advancing tip to more turbulence, even, in the extreme case, to mach buffeting. If the CarterCopter team can slow the rotor rotational speed enough, then this problem shouldn’t show up until much higher speeds, and so the aircraft can travel faster.

So all this adds up to a zero-roll, fast, efficient aircraft. Think you’d want one of those? I know I would. And I bet a lot of other people would too. I therefore nominate the improved gyrocopter, from whatever source, as my pick for the technology most likely to get us the Jetson’s-style flying car.

Next (probably tomorrow): the cheap, high-capacity AN2. Costs $50,000 to buy and $160/hour to run, holds up to 14 passengers and 2 crew, needs 492 feet to take off, and is barred by the FAA from any useful task in the US (damn, my hatred of the feds slips in again).

Horrible updates to March 5ths post

Yes, I know that this blog has a predictable side. You can rely on me to come down on the anti-police-state side of any police state story. And I was going to write about something different today, namely Cartercopters and innovative aircraft in general. You can still check out cartercopters by looking at the link on the left.

And then I read this website: man arrested for “public drunkenness.” He was at home drinking a beer; police knocked on his door, he answered the door, and then was arrested for being drunk in public. Read the web site. I have no idea what is true and what is false on that web site, but, if true, it’s pretty damning.

placeholder

Megan McArdle still doesn’t have any multivariate regressions on her site, but she does have a clear description of how moral hazard can lead to economically inefficient investment decisions. She relates this to the social security privatization debate.

For me, the bottom line is that current social security goes to fund government, which is just about the least economically efficient use possible. Even so, I am willing to grant, for the sake of argument, that the government can offer a “return” of 1.25% on social security money. That’s 25% of the lowball estimate of US equity returns. Moral hazard would have to decrease average equity returns by 75% before a privatized social security system became a worse deal than the current system.

Apropos of a discussion I had with a cousin of mine this afternoon, I want to pose the question: when does an organization go bad? It seems to me that there is a continuum between organizations that are so bad that just joining makes you morally suspect, and those that are so good that one is compelled to give its members the benefit of the doubt beyond what you would give others.

The Nazi party, al-Qaeda, and the KKK would be organizations on one end of the continuum. If you know that someone has joined those organizations, you are justified in surmising that the person is more evil than average.

Contrawise, joining any fire department implies that one is, if not actually on a higher moral plane, at least entitled to more of the benefit of the doubt than average. I personally feel the same way about Salvation Army officers. Those organizations have a reputation of doing good, for few rewards, and (especially for firemen) at great personal risk. Therefore, it’s a safe bet that anyone who joins is likely to be more selfless and giving, and perhaps even good, than the general public.

So this is what I’m thinking about: where are the borders between one type of organization and another? In particular, when does an organization stop being morally neutral and become so bad that joining it implies some sort of moral failing? It seems that there are two influential and important organizations which are drifting into just such immorality as we watch. Ironically, membership in both those organizations has been thought of as “good” in the past, but is rapidly becoming an indication of evil.

Those two groups are the Catholic Bishopric and the FBI. I’m going to write about the FBI first, because I might not have time to address both, and I’m more concerned with the FBI, since I have to pay for it even as it degenerates into a modern version of the SS.

In recent years, the FBI has been responsible for almost every type of crime which past generations might have expected it to fight:

Mass murder. Try mass incineration of men, women and children, live on international TV, at Waco, followed by a multi-year coverup of same.

Home assault. Look at Ruby Ridge. (An aside: While I'm on the topic of home assault and incineration, I also suggest that you look up the death of James Beck, who was burned to death in his home as homes on either side of him were doused with water. The embers were bulldozed within 48 hours. The ATF, but not the FBI, was involved).

Espionage on behalf of the Russians (before and after the fall of the evil empire). Done by FBI special agent Robert Hansen.

Perjury, false imprisonment, and knowing protection of murderers. All done in the case of Joseph Salvati, set up by the FBI, and imprisoned for 30 years for a murder he didn’t commit, so that the FBI could protect Joseph "the Animal" Barboza. Barboza, now thought to be the real killer, was one of the FBI’s informants, and Salvati spent 30 years in jail to cover up the FBI’s connection with him.

Random street violence. There’s an example of that on this very blog, just a few posts down.

False imprisonment and perjury (if Wen Ho Lee was innocent) or setting free communist spies (if Wen Ho Lee was guilty). Check.

The FBI was too busy committing all these crimes to stop terrorists, even those they knew about, from getting into the United States. The FBI was even too busy to pay attention to pleas from a Minnesota flight school to check out Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the flight school’s students.

It is perfectly clear that the FBI has already sullied its reputation to the point that honest citizens should question anything they say. When, however, is the organization bad enough to sully the reputation of everyone who joins it? This goes back to the conversation I was having with my cousin, described at the top of this post. The cousin is thinking about joining the FBI.

While I love my cousin, and I know he is a decent, honest, gentle young man, I would loose respect for him if he was to knowingly join an evil organization. Again, I refer to the top of this post: if my cousin joined the Nazi party, I would know that there was something wrong with him. If he joined any fire department (something he’s talked about as an alternative to the FBI), I would know that he was a better person than I give him credit for, and certainly a better person than I am. So what about the FBI?

My cousin says, perfectly reasonably, that he thinks the FBI has made mistakes, but that it’s basically committed to good, and that he wants to make it better from the inside. I know that he believes what he is saying, and that makes me think that most of the young people who join the FBI this year can also believe the same thing. However, at some point, it must become clear to any observer that the FBI is beyond redemption, and making it “better” from the inside is likely to be as effective as trying to make a traveling minstrel show out of the 1940’s einsatzgruppen. When it’s that obvious, then anyone who joins can safely be said to be evil.

So when does that time come? How many crimes and coverups does an organization have to commit before it’s obvious that there’s a problem? More difficult to answer: how many crimes have to be committed before it must be obvious to the 22 year old young people who make up the junior ranks, and hence an indictment of the character of those who do join? I know from personal experience that 22 year old men are pretty clueless; I look back on my 22nd year, and count myself lucky to have survived at all. A lot of the kids who join any organization, honest or corrupt, don’t really know what they are getting into. But, again, at some point, it must become obvious, even to 22 year olds, that there’s a problem. Mustn’t it?

I suggested to my cousin that, if he wants to become a peace officer (note that I did NOT say law enforcement officer) that he move to Texas, join a Texas agency, and work on becoming a Texas Ranger. They seem squeaky-clean.

Well, if you have any thoughts on this topic, please comment. Like the blog says, I’m trying to make sense, and maybe others are as well.

I finally put a comment system on this blog. Yes, I probably should have done this earlier, but this is a work-in-progress, and I'm learning as I go. I want to encourage anyone who wants to comment to do so. Thank you.

I’ve never been to Zimbabwe, or, indeed, to any of sub-sahran Africa. What I know about Africa is scant; it’s certainly less than what I don’t know about the continent.

Even so, however, something struck me as wrong with this article from the LA Times today, Resettled and Happy in Zimbabwe. The title portrays the spirit of this piece on the day of Zimbabwean national elections.

Somehow, the LA Times seems to have glossed over points made in this story U.S. Assails Zimbabwe Ruling Party ....On the eve of elections in Zimbabwe, the State Department accused the country's ruling party of resorting to violence, intimidation and manipulation to ensure President Robert Mugabe's re-election.. Then there's Thousands Can't Vote in Zimbabwe. Let's not forget this, HUNGER BECOMES THE GRIM REALITY FOR MANY, and Mugabe facing unrest over food shortages, probably caused by this:Zimbabwe farmers flee, start over. Then there's this: Blair calls behavior of Zimbabwe's leader outrageous .

I could go on for pages, but the point is made. I think. Based strictly on the sheer volume and variety of stories about how Zimbabwe is descending into a violent, hungry dictatorship, I have serious doubts about the LA Times version. That leads me to wonder: why is the LA Times propping up the US image of a brutal dictator? What could they possibly have to gain? Does anyone out there know?

Update: LittleGreenFootballs has an interesting post on further LA Times perfidy.

Surprise, surprise, the most horrible example of prosecutorial misconduct comes from the fair city of Chicago. William Heirens, then a bright high school student, and since the first prisoner in Illinois to get a college degree behind bars, was charged with triple murder in 1946. He was injected with sodium pentothal, and, WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE PENTOTHAL made a “confession” that eventually led to his conviction. There were “inconsistencies” in the physical evidence presented, and prosecutors admitted that they would have had a hard time convicting him without the “confessions.” Though another man had already confessed to the murders, Heirens is still in prison, now 78 years old.

For those of you who haven’t seen someone injected with sodium pentothal, let me try to explain the problem here. Sodium pentothal, aka “truth serum” makes people tell the truth only in the comic book world. Here in the real world, it does NOT make people tell the truth. In low doses, sodium pentothal can make people babble incoherently, and frequently repeat whatever they are told (an event called "echolalia"). Imagine being bone-tired, drunk, and stoned, all at once. What someone says under the influence of sodium pentothal has as much relation to the truth as what you would expect to come out of the mouth of someone who’s been awake for 48 hours, just finished with a fifth of scotch, and on his tenth doobie.

To convict someone on the basis of a “confession” extracted under sodium pentothal is something that I would have associated with the Spanish inquisition, or the Salem witch courts, had they known about barbiturates back then. Even though I grew up in Chicago, it still surprises me that the Chicago PD and district attorney was, and continues to be, so depraved.


UPDATE:
Oh no. This sort of thing is still going on. I don't know what drugs Charles Thomas Sell is going to be put on, but whatever drug it is an "antipsychotic" in just about the same way sodium penothal is a "truth serum." Another name for most classes of antipsychotic drugs is "major depressants." These drugs basically slow you down. Yes, some people function better when they are slowed down, but to pretend that injecting criminial defendants with these drugs won't have an effect on their ability to defend themselves .... well, history will be the judge, I suppose.

UPDATE 2: It's worse. Dr. Sell isn't being medicated because he's a danger to self or others, but because he's "delusional." The court below held that Dr. Sell was “delusional” because he:
(i) thought there was a government plot to cover up illegal behavior by corrupt individuals to spread HIV worldwide;
(ii) thought there was a government effort to cover up defendant’s knowledge of the government’s culpability in the Waco deaths, where defendant was summoned to serve at that time as an Army Reservist; and
(iii) thought he should go to Bosnia, and that if he was prevented from going there then somebody wanted a lot of American boys dead.

So, he's being medicated because he doesn't trust the government.

Nonuniformed FBI agent in an unmarked car stops an innocent eagle scout and shoots him in the face. FBI claims this was in the process of hunting down a bank robber who happened to be driving the same kind of car, though the FBI has yet to identify exactly what bank was robbed, what kind of car the “robber” was driving, or anything else. FBI agents on the scene don’t call for medical help, but wait for the eagle scout to die (according to a WBAL Ron Smith Show radio interview with the father of the driver of the car; can’t find a link right now); when he doesn't oblige, they finally call for help from local paramedics.

It is evident from the story that the eagle scout and his girlfriend were trapped by the FBI, and that some FBI agent felt safe enough to WALK to their car and shoot the eagle scout.

The FBI has released no information about the shooting, including any corroborative evidence concerning the existence of the “bank robber,” the name of the shooter, the reason for the shooting, the reason for not calling paramedics right away, the reason for leaving cover to approach the car with the supposed dangerous “bank robber” in it, the reason the license plate of the car was not run to determine if the car was likely involved in a bank robbery, or the disciplinary actions taken or contemplated against the shooter. A government official wounded or killed someone, and the first instinct of the FBI is to cover up for him.

At the very least, this shooting was negligent discharge of a firearm, which is a crime. It’s too early to tell, but for all we know, this might wind up being a case of murder in the first degree (yes, I know murder requires malice aforethought; the lack of information supplied by the FBI implies, to me, that such malice might have existed. And yes, I know the eagle scout is still alive; that, too, might change). Even though it is clear the FBI agent committed a crime, it is certain that no criminal prosecutions will be forthcoming against him or her.

I generally welcome emails to help me make sense of the things I write about. I don’t need any such emails about this case. We live in a police state, where our very lives are at the mercy of government officials, and it’s only through fortuitous circumstances (like the eagle scout not dying as he lay on the sidewalk without medical attention, and the responsible FBI agent hesitating to put a “throwdown” in the car) that the true nature of the police state is documented.

UPDATE:
The shooter is FBI Special Agent Christopher Braga. Agent Braga is on paid administrative leave, at his request, since the shooting March 1 of Joseph C. Schultz. Note: paid admin leave, not suspension.