We Can't Get Enough Of The Global Test!

In his debate, John Kerry baffled us all when he explained his thinking about pre-emptive war - the US had the right to act alone, as long as it was able to pass the "global test". Now the blogosphere is alive with savants trying to figure out just what that might mean.

And move over Scrappleface! A brilliant new comedic talent has emerged, as Juan Cole mocks Kerry's supporters with a parody of an attempt to parse Kerry's words and find true meaning. I hate to step on his punchline, but the bit where we learn that "global" means "domestic" is priceless.

Mr. Cole is also witty enough to present a slightly longer debate excerpt. Let's look at this:

KERRY: ...Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

I can remember when the word of a Presidential candidate was good enough for me, too. But are we really going to take the word of a Kennedy-lover on a story like this? Trust, but verify!

Kerry's fun litle Kennedy-boosting, Bush-bashing story is apochryphal now, according to the fellow who was there:

As a source of information, overhead photography has always won high marks," concluded the late Sherman Kent, a senior CIA officer who accompanied former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to France during the crisis to brief French President Charles de Gaulle on the U.S. evidence.

Kennedy administration officials voiced concern that allies might balk at the "credibility of photographic evidence," Kent recalled. "It was the only solid evidence there was."

But government leaders in Britain, France, Germany and Canada uniformly accepted the proof, including de Gaulle, a legendary skeptic.

"Not once in the course of my briefing was there any hint of incredulity on the part of the general," Kent later wrote. "If he was not perfectly satisfied that the pictures were scenes from Cuba and the weapons those which I asserted them to be, he gave me no inkling of doubt."

And torn from the pages of Moscow's answer to the NY Times, we find a similar account:

Sherman Kent recorded in detail how the U-2 photographs were brought to some American allies, and what their reactions were...

...General de Gaulle accepted President Kennedy's word initially on faith, though later he inspected the photographs in great detail, and was impressed with the quality of them.

And what was De Gaulle going to say, anyway - "We have no spy planes or relevant expertise in our government, but we doubt you regardless?" Just wondering.

We applaud Mr. Cole for introducing this story into the discussion, since we note that President Kennedy was seeking allied support prior to taking US action. This confounds the attempt by some to explain that Kerry simply intends to take the Global Test after he graduates, or gets his driver's license, or whatever it is the darn test applies to.

We only have a few days until the Kerry Clarification, in which Kerry "re-explains" the "Global Test", and we start hooting that he was for the Global Test until he was against it, so I want to get this other cheap shot in while there is still time.

Wesley Clark was (as those with long memories can attest) a one-time candidate for President and is currently touted by the WaPo as a candidate for Secretary of Defense in a Kerry Administration. Consequently, his thoughts on pre-emption might be valuable in guessing what this "Global Test" might look like.

Fortunately, he wrote a long Washington Monthly article outlining the process he would have recommended in going after Afghanistan following 9/11. A more bellicose Andrew Sullivan was unimpressed; a younger "MinuteMan" was equally skeptical and less kind (the unkindness consisted of excerpting the General).

So, as an example of how a leader preps for the Global Test, the General may provide a helpful guide into the thinking of a Kerry Administration. Run, you fools!

UPDATE: Hmm, I might be wrong about Juan Cole. Not the "comedic" bit, though...

UPDATE 2: The quips keep coming! Various lefties have hit upon the theme that, if you simply strike "prove" and "test" from his statement, Kerry is echoing the Declaration of Independence! Bravo! And if I strike Bush's six months of diplomacy, starting with his September UN speech and ending with his appearance in the Azores, then I can conclude that he made no attempt to inform the world of his motives and intentions.

Sorry, gents, Juan Cole was funnier.

We all agree that seeking domestic and international support is sensible. Still unanswered from the Kerry side - what does a president do if he thinks his presentation will fail the global test?

Also unanswered - is it wise to have a President who is this opaque on a critical topic, or will his confusing rhetoric prompt miscalculation by our enemies?

End the mixed messages.

MORE: (We are also opposed to mexed missages. Our position on Mexican missilage is under review).

UPDATE 3: When the intellectual well runs dry, throw some of the mud on the bottom - Jesse Taylor informs me that this post is stupid.

Tough to rebut a well-crafted argument like that. I'll keep "Yeah, well when Bush starts up the draft, your momma's gonna be wearing Army boots" in my backpocket, and go with a more easily understood "Is Not!".

And why the mental exhaustion at Pandagon? Jesse has been knocking himself out with breakthrough coverage of the "Did Kerry cheat at the debate" story. Let's see, one, two, three, four posts, each making the point that anyone who follows the cheating story seriously is silly and easily distracted. I would say by the fourth post, he is arguing by example.

I should also note that Bill at INDC, who broke this, kept better perspective.

Comments

[Slartibartfast]

Italics off?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"he inspected the photographs in great detail, and was impressed with the quality of them."

Yes, and I remember the scene in the made for TV movie circa 1975 in which it was re-enacted. De Gaulle looks at the pictures and says, "Amazing."

[old maltese]

My question: did 'former Secretary of State Dean Acheson' realize that he was '[President Kennedy's] secretary of state'?

[TM]

Dean Acheson was Sec of Sate from 1949 to 1953, so by 1962 he was a "former"; Dean Rusk Was kennedy's Sec of State.

Why so many college administrators, I cannot tell you; what was your question?

[abb1]

Saletan has a good line in Slate:

"If I were to ever say, 'This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place,' the troops would wonder, 'How can I follow this guy?' "

Exactly, Mr. President. If you were ever to give them the correct assessment, they would ask the correct question.

Right on. Enough of this "it's unpatriotic to point out to my mistakes" crap.

Read the while column, folks, it's good.

[Slartibartfast]

Odd. Cole shows three meanings for "global", and then evidently picks none of them for what Kerry meant. Maybe going outside of commonplace definitions is a sign of nuance.

On the off-chance that Cole's going with the mathematical sense of "global", he's dead wrong. If he's thinking just countrymen, the mathematical analogue to that would be "local", or over some limited region. Sans supporting context, the assertion that "global", in this particular instance, meant just US citizens, is completely unsupported.

This is nearly as bad as one of his earlier flubs.

[Slartibartfast]

And, incidentally, if by "global" Kerry did in fact mean just us'ns, the global test was passed. In the form of Congress empowering the President to go to war.

[Brian]

"Now the blogosphere is alive with savants trying to figure out just what that might mean."

Most people have a general idea of what he means.

"A brilliant new comedic talent has emerged, as Juan Cole mocks Kerry's supporters with a parody of an attempt to parse Kerry's words and find true meaning."

He has a little bit more experience in this stuff, to say the last, than any of us have.

" hate to step on his punchline, but the bit where we learn that "global" means 'domestic' is priceless."

He said no such thing. What he said was that if you cannot convince the citizens of your own country about going to war, you aren't going to convince any other countries, and thus, you won't be able to have an effective coalition.

"This confounds the attempt by some to explain that Kerry simply intends to take the Global Test after he graduates, or gets his driver's license, or whatever it is the darn test applies to."

I feel like you are making a point here, but I am just not sure what it is.

"We only have a few days until the Kerry Clarification, in which Kerry "re-explains" the "Global Test", and we start hooting that he was for the Global Test until he was against it, so I want to get this other cheap shot in while there is still time."

Well, at least you admitted that you are making a cheap shot.

"...is currently touted by the WaPo as a candidate for Secretary of Defense in a Kerry Administration."

I'm appalled that The Washington Post doesn't realize that Clark cannot be Secretary of Defense, since he hasn't been out of the military for at least ten years.

"A more bellicose Andrew Sullivan was unimpressed; a younger "MinuteMan" was equally skeptical and less kind (the unkindness consisted of excerpting the General)."

[Scoffs.] While both you and Andrew Sullivan have undoubtedly deep expertise in military science , I'm willing to give General Clark the benefit of a doubt here.

"...Kerry is echoing the Declaration of Independence! Bravo!...Sorry, gents, Juan Cole was funnier."

I don't think anybody presented the signers as serious arguments. I surely didn't. I was just kidding. (By the way, if any of my detractors out there are going to say, "Well, good, because you are saying is scary, Brian, as it always is," save it.)

"We all agree that seeking domestic and international support is sensible. Still unanswered from the Kerry side - what does a president do if he thinks his presentation will fail the global test?"

First, it's necessary to stop trying to distort what he said.

"is it wise to have a President who is this opaque on a critical topic, or will his confusing rhetoric prompt miscalculation by our enemies?"

My response to this empty question: "Is it wise to have a president who cannot defend his bold new foreign venture with little more than tired campaign slogans?"

[abb1]

So, what do you, folks, think about that "let me finish" thing - earpiece? I think it was an earpiece, definitely.

He needs a little more training. Memorizing a stump speech is good, good, but to repeat what a voice in the earpiece says is a bit trickier.

[J Mann]

The global test is pretty funny.

Still, viewed most generously to Kerry, what he meant was probably that the US can explain its darned good reason for intervention to the world, and that Bush didn't have a good enough reason. He didn't say that the world has to approve, just that the President has to be able "to prove to the world that you're doing it for the right reasons." (Why the lefties are resting on this, more reasonable, defense of Kerry, I don't know).

Presumably, some examples of how this test would apply:

- Iraq didn't pass a "global test" because the inspectors 'needed more time to finish their work' - if only Bush had waited a few more months (and maybe had a "summit," then France, Russia and China would have gone along.

- Kosovo did pass a "global test" even though the Russians and the UN opposed US intervention (together with our coerced and bribed coalition, of course), because even if the world didn't agree, we were able to explain our reasons to the world, and they were right.

[buzz harsher]

Earpiece/"let me finish"

Why would GWB say, "Let me finish" to someone talking to him via earpiece? We would have to imagine that the puppet-master told GWB, "Okay, stop now," and GWB wanted to continue, with his _own_ thoughts, despite the fact that he was parrotting his audio feed...

Here's a much more plausible explanation:

GWB paused during his speech, and Lehrer turned towards Kerry for Kerry's "turn." We don't see this, because the cameras were looking at GWB. GWB said, _to_Lehrer_, "Let me finish," indicating that the pause did not mean he was done with his point.

[timshel]

Try though I might, I don't understand why the Right chooses to embrace ignorance as their rallying point. What Kerry meant was plain. You have to be willfully ignorant to read the transcript and be 'confused' about what he meant when he said 'global test'. Yet, the Right says 'haha! Kerry said something more complicated than Tax cuts good! Terrorism bad! We have a second-grade comprehension level! See how stupid we are!'

Really, I just don't get it.

[Rocketeer]

Really, I just don't get it.

The Left, in a nutshell.

[Jim in Chicago]

Oy. The fever swamp lefties have invaded. Up is down, black is white.

/LLL on

Actualy it wasn't an earpiece at all. I reviewed the tape with Josh Marshall, Atrios and Kos and noticed that Bush had little suture marks just at the base of his hairline. Guess what folks, before the debate Karl Rove's brain was transplanted into Bush's head. You heard it here first!

/LLL off

Seriously tho:

abb1's quote from Saletan is even funnier than Cole's twisting. So . . . Saletan knows more about the situation in Iraq than the soldiers fighting in Iraq? Priceless.

If only the troops knew the truith. Bush lied and Iraqis a quagmire. The AP's Batthists stringers, the fat cat WP and NYT journos hanging at their green zone hotel bar with their former MofInfo minders, and Saletan have spoken.

[Matt]

I know this is complicated, but it seems to me like "passing the global test" might mean "not doing something that would piss of nearly everyone else on the globe."

Snark all you want (France! Germany! Fake Turk...oh that's our line...), but we do share* the globe and we probably ought to take others' opinions into account before we go blowing up parts of it.

Baffling for some, I know.

*considering our disproportionate consumption of resources, we don't exactly "share," but you know what I mean.

[Steven Streight aka Vaspers the Grate]

Kerry says "a real coalition" that we supposedly did not have going into Iraq, then Al Queda contradicts his mincy words by public proclaiming Jihad war against a whole slew of nations they see as supporting the U.S. "crusade" against radical homicidal Mohammedism.

Kerry says "a global test" for multi-lateral action in Iraq, but then says "unilateral" summit with North Korea and the U.S., leaving out China.

Bush: attack Kerry's voting record and contradictory tactics.

Kerry's message = "Vote for Me. I stand on all sides of every issue."

[Red Stater]

I'm sorry, but I guess I fail to understand what you're making lots of noise about? I reread the transcript and the meaning is fairly plain:
there is some objective point where a country goes from "protecting itself and its interests" and "asinine unilateralism". If you can't even make a good showing at convincing the world community that they're right, then perhaps you're wrong. In the preceding sentences, Kerry made it fairly clear (as much as at any other time) that he wouldn't cede the power to do it regardless.

The fact that you've pounced on two words in a fairly lengthy answer makes you a tool.

I hate the blogosphere for this. You're worse sometimes than the liberal media. Let's stay on target here folks.

[Steven Streight aka Vaspers the Grate]

"stay on target"?

Okay, try this for your target: the world community sucks because there is genocide and religious/political persecution all over the globe, and look how fast anything is done about it.

Convince the world that your desire to defend yourself is right?

When does any other country try to get a global consensus for anything?

What is global consensus doing about the Sudan? or North Korea? or Iran? or Syria? or anything?

As usual, the U.S. has to go straightening things out, because the European Union and others don't want to spend the money and troops to do it. They want us to collapse in exhaustion so they can take over.

[Red Stater]

Ummm... the world consensus is that what is happening in Sudan, North Korea, and Iran are bad things. They fail the world test. That was easy.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Quit trying to change the argument.

From Kerry's statement, the only thing that makes sense is that actions are accountable. And again, in no part of his answer does he deny the right to do it despite world objections. I think action in Afghanistan is pretty classic example of that.

[Red Stater]

Afghanistan is an example of doing things correctly, that is.

Not of taking action against world wishes.

[Harry]

So, Red Stater, exactly who will administer the Global Test and give us our grade? To whom must the U.S. apply for permission before we act, and why? And will other countries be held to the same standard? If not, why?

[bill]

Juan Cole is unintentionally parodying himself and all Kerry supporters. It would be just like Kerry supporters to believe that Kerry's using the THIRD meaning in the dictionary, rather than a more immediatley understandable word like "complete," or "thorough" was to Kerry's credit, instead of making him seem again like the ambiguity ridden intellectual elitist he is. Or is the ambiguity in "global" intentional?

[Cecil Turner]

"From Kerry's statement, the only thing that makes sense is that actions are accountable. "

I'm glad somebody knows what he meant, maybe now you can explain it to me. Are national defense decisions dependent on "world" opinion? And if so, to what degree? For example: if everyone else in the world thinks Iran ought to be able to have its own nuclear arsenal, are we required to abide by their decison? More on point: if the UN passes a resolution stating Iran can't have its own nuclear arsenal but then refuse to enforce it are we obliged to sit on our hands until they attack someone?

[Leland]

The "Let me finish" part... At the beginning of the debate, Lehrer explained the functions of the lights on the candidates' podiums. Bush's warning light went on just prior to him saying "Let me finish".

Bush's stump speech is far better than his debate performance. If he was listening to an earpiece, I'm sure someone would have asked him to quit repeating:
"It's hard work. I know it's hard work."

[TM]

Well, Kerry somewhat undermines Cole's "global means domestic" argument by citing Powell's presentation to the UN, and Kennedy's presentation to DeGaulle.

Both of those examples also undermine the present tense / past tense argument.

But I am sure Mr. Cole knew that.

So, do any of Kerry's supporters care to help me out - what does Kerry do if his presentation fails the global test? Seems like an easy question.

[Slartibartfast]

The best face that could be put on this is that Kerry said "global" when he really meant "local".

[Tman]

How about this for a global test?

We get attacked by a rogue group of Islamic terrorists, resulting in the wirst domestic attack in the nations history.

The "global test" is passed for Afghanistan, as the world agrees with us that Osama and al-qaeda should be either given up or killed. So we go after him. Afghanistan gets liberated, Osama and his buddies scram, many of whom head to IRaq, where they previously had much support.

Powell and Bush go to the UN, and other international summits claiming that Saddam is harboring these very same Islamic terrorists and reconstituting his WMD programs. We state this is unacceptable. The UN tells the insepctors to go back in, Saddam lies as usual and give the ultimatum.

Saddam calls our bluff, we liberate the country and behold!- find all kinds of Islamic terrorists and their plans to attack the US.

Global test passed. Kerry sounds foolish.

[Adam]

To anyone who was actually watching the debate, it's obvious that the idea Kerry was grasping for when he spat out "global test" was that of a "universal test." (And actually, if you look in a dictionary, they mean the same thing.) I would have thought critics would have found it endearing that Kerry could believe that there was some ultimate good or evil answer to every question. Kind of a "what would Jesus do?" sort of thing.

More

[Matt]

I'm not sure the terrorists had started heading into Iraq until after we started bombing. We've become the best recruiting tool Al Qaeda ever had. Seems like an "F" to me.

[Fred]

"considering our disproportionate consumption of resources, we don't exactly "share," "

America consumes more resources because we generate far more goods & services than anyone else in the world. Leftists conveniently forget this fact. Judging our energy consumption solely by population is asinine.

[Slartibartfast]

We've become the best recruiting tool Al Qaeda ever had.

Really? By what percentage has Al Qaeda recruiting increased since we went into Iraq?

[Slartibartfast]

So, to Adam Kerry's words obviously meant one thing, while to Juan Cole they obviously meant something quite different.

John Kerry: Making All Things To All People A Reality!

[Rob W]

This is all a straw man argument put forth by BC '04 because they have nothing but a failed presidency to lean on. Kerry was very clear--he would never put the decision to go to war in the hands of another country. He said it at the debates, and he said in his acceptance speech. You can spend all of the time parsing out the comment as you like, but Kerry has been more than clear on the subject.

When you take away the endless series of straw man arguments against Kerry, there's nothing left. Playing childish word games won't win you the election. When I saw the whole "global test" argument on the BC '04 website, I realized they were out of ammo over there.

p.s. Please no more B.S. about "what Kerry really means" is. He's been clear as day about this.

[Rocketeer]

p.s. Please no more B.S. about "what Kerry really means" is. He's been clear as day about this.

I'm pretty sure you mean "clear as mud."

Saying it's so doesn't mean it's so, and no matter how hard you may wish it, Kerry has failed to make clear a single thing.

[Slartibartfast]

but Kerry has been more than clear on the subject.

Which neatly explains why Kerry supporters cannot agree on what he meant.

So...clearly ambiguous?

[John]

"The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control." - Kerry

Ummm... am I the only one who realizes how utterly wrong this is?

John

[rhodeymark]

Kerry's Global Test™ - from the fine folks that brought you Oil-for-Food™

[Birkel]

Occam's Razor-- lost on the left.

Some of what the leftist posters have written is bizarre.

Conflation of issues has become an art form.

Wow!

[Ernest Brown]

Matt,

Yea, that's why the very first enemy casualty in Gulf War II was a high-level terrorist planner.

God, these jackasses really want us to lose to the terrorists. They nominate a filthbag who IS everything they accuse Bush of being, while ignoring the truth about islamic terrorism. The leftists and "progressives" who are actual natives of Africa and Iraq have no such illusions about Islamo-fascism's consistent history of cultural imperialism, which is why leftist racists here patronizingly ignore their cries for help. (cf. Wole Soyinka and Ousmane Sembene)

[Bill Peschel]

The above discussion proves that Kerry can't put forth a clear statement understandable to those of the meanest understanding.

I suggest that's his plan, his usual equivication that prevents him from being judged on his positions.

Here's what I mean: If, at the end of the above "global test" statement, he said, "And if the world doesn't agree with our valid, correct position, we'll tell 'em to piss up a rope and do what we have to do," we wouldn't be having this discussion here today. We'd know that, if pressed to the wall, say, by a U.N. Security Council in which France and Russia were bought off (by, say, Saddam's oil contracts, as they were), we'd know that he'd be willing to take the political risk associated with going to war.

We may not know at what point that would happen, or how long he would take, but at least WE WOULD KNOW THIS MUCH.

Instead, we don't. Kerry has failed to make it clear that he will do what he feels is the morally right act, knowing that he would be criticized for it.

Like Lincoln did when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

Like Roosevelt did when he used the Lend-Lease Act to aid Britain against Germany.

Like Nixon did when he agreed to open relations with China.

Right now, given what Kerry has told us, he would not have done those things. He will always take the politically safe position.

[Silver Sea Lotus]

Kerry did not mean "Global Test". He meant "Globular Test". If the globs of tanning solution on his face turn orange, he goes. If they turn purple, he doesn't.

As a snide, aside: The fact that Kerry had prostate cancer goes a long way in explaining why Teresa is so grumpy all the time . . . ouch!

[Brian Jones]

Now, now, guys.

"To anyone who was truly watching the debate..." (would have seen the thought balloon over my guy's head where his actual meaning was written.)

"Second-grade reading level..." (is insufficient to parse the response into something that makes my guy look like Mr. Sensible Yet Determined.)

"You have to be willfully ignorant..." (not to put the tortured spin on it I'm about to.)

None of this sounds much like folks who are confident of victory and their positions.

[Mike]

Mr Cole is not one of the brightest lamps in the blogosphere. That he thinks he has to go to Websters to instruct us as to what "global" means says a lot about his opinion of his readers. Who among us doesn't know what they mean by "global warming"?

The depths of his attempt to rescue his hero from that Freudian slip reminds me of Clinton's agonizing over "what the meaning of 'is' is".

[Syl]

"When you take away the endless series of straw man arguments against Kerry, there's nothing left."

True. Nothing left but the strawman himself. The ol' botoxed scarecrow. What was it that the scarecrow was searching for again?

[Brian]

"And, incidentally, if by "global" Kerry did in fact mean just us'ns, the global test was passed. In the form of Congress empowering the President to go to war."

If in your style you meant "us," as in only us, that's wrong. That's not what Kerry meant.

[Abu Qa'Qa]

Agree with it or not, everyone here knows what Bush means or stands for.

Not everyone here understands what Kerry means or stands for.

That is Occam's razor applied to this issue.

[Slartibartfast]

If in your style you meant "us," as in only us, that's wrong.

Brian: try to follow the thread. Cole attempted to make "global test" mean approval by Americans, and that's what was being discussed. Your disagreement with Juan Cole is noted, however.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

what does a president do if he thinks his presentation will fail the global test?

Under that condition, he won't be able to justify the strike. Perhaps he shouldn't make the strike then, since apparently he doesn't have enough evidence. Perhaps the president should examine the evidence and determine whether a strike is really necessary, or whether it's just something he feels like doing.

I put a link to my discussion of the global test in the earlier post, and I've updated that since then.

I've also posted How you fail the global test. Failing the global test, as shown at that post, shouldn't be a laughing matter.

[Bill]

Still unanswered from the Kerry side - what does a president do if he thinks his presentation will fail the global test?

A better one would be "what does a president do if he things the 'world community has failed the global test"

Answer. What Bush, Blair and the rest did. Ooopps. Forgot, the "Global Test" is only to be held against the US. The World gets a pass.

[Doug Macdonald]

I think people are missing the most important aspect of the Acheson meeting with de Gaulle on October 22, 1962 mentioned by John Kerry in the presidential debate last week. It is true, as Kerry stated in the debate, that de Gaulle declined to look at the evidence being offered of the missiles in Cuba because he thought it unnecessary. (He looked at it later and was reportedly impressed.) But what Kerry and others miss is that de Gaulle began the meeting by accepting US “unilateralism” on the issue:

“On 22 October 1962, Dean Acheson entered the [French] presidential office at the Elysee, followed by a colleague [Sherman Kent of the CIA] carrying several rolled-up maps and photographic documents and embarked at once on the question of Cuba. “I understand that you have not come to consult me,” said de Gaulle, “but to inform me.” “That is correct,” the visitor [i.e., Acheson] replied, and went on to in form him that irrevocable decisions had already been taken, while anxious to show de Gaulle maps and photographs proving that the US was in the right.”

[Jean Lacouture, *De Gaulle: The Ruler, 1945-1970* (New York: Norton, 1992), p. 375. This is the second volume of Lacouture’s more-or-less definitive biography of de Gaulle.]

It was at this point that de Gaulle said he did not have to see the evidence and that Kennedy’s word was good enough. This gives it a very different context, it seems to me, and there was no "global test" involved. Full disclosure: I am sending this to several other blogs also, because I think it deserves wide distribution.