So in the letter I mentioned three problems. The first is that although it may be an inconvenience to scholars, and especially perhaps to younger scholars, international scholars, look, missing one professional meeting is not going to end a scholar's life. But trying to work in a city where the average two bedroom apartment costs more than $3,200 and getting paid $15 an hour, you're not going to be able to either have a house, or feed your kids or live. The stories in the new in the LA Times, which anybody could have been reading, make it clear that workers sleep in their cars between shifts, because it's too far to go home, or they drive 200 miles a day to and from work. It's crazy the way of course, people have been pushed out of the housing market everywhere in Los Angeles, it's true in most big cities at this point. And while it's true that the conference would have a financial impact on the Association, it's also the case that the Association probably has greater resilience than those women who are working as hotel maids, who are not earning enough money to feed their families, pay their bills, and live somewhere. So I just think the first issue standing with labor is really important. Second, the APSA did a very poor job of communicating what they were doing, how they were making these decisions. It's not clear to me how they decided what to do, except, you know, organizations have this tendency to just kind of go forward with what they've decided. But if you know, to be a little critical of them, the first signs that there was going to be labor unrest this month, began to appear last April. And while it may be that by July was too late to make changes by April, it may not have been, and they could have made begun to plan ahead, do you think they would have done that they don't seem to have and as a result, they kind of sent out some announcements just at the end of July, you know, at the end of July was when I kind of became really aware that this was going to be a problem. But they and while it's true that they have moved out of the hotel, they haven't cancelled the block of less than normal priced rooms at the Marriott and some members will stay at the Marriott. So Marriott is going to do okay out of this. But I guess the real thing that annoys me about this is that the APSA is a professional organization, it's an association. It's an institution that exists in the world and conducts business in the world. And to... for them to conduct business as usual, and then let people whose convictions oppose crossing a picket line decide not to attend the meeting. Some of the junior people who have won awards who are not going to attend the meeting, are kind of sad that they're not going to get to win their work, frankly, you know, it sad to me, but it's not the worst thing that's ever going to happen in my long life. And I you know, I'll get over it. But the truth of the matter is, is that pushing responsibility down onto individual members and onto individuals to make the right decision or not, or go follow your conscience. It increasingly is happening in all organizations. Organizations don't take responsibility any longer for their place in the world. And it's a really horrifying thing that's happening in institutions, in public institutions and private institutions everywhere in our current world. And the end result of this, of course, is to create unintended consequences down the line, which are really serious, you know, when a hospital budget guy decides, hey, you know, if we stop paying there, we have so many nurses that sometimes we sometimes have nurses extra, well, let's just cut out all those extra nurses. And now we have a crisis, where there aren't enough nurses. And furthermore, the nurses who are still there, don't want to stay. Because the work is so hard because there aren't enough nurses. So this idea that you can cut the budget, you can make a saving here, you can do this here, and let the consequences fall somewhere else. Because that way of thinking is so reprehensible. If you want to take a moral standpoint, or think about things politically, that it's really harmful, it's always about me, only me. There is no sense of conflict or no sense of owing obligations or responsibilities beyond the individual. And you know, the other thing is, moral boundaries. is a political argument for an ethic of care. And what the ethic of care is about essentially, is the way in which care is a central part of human life, but which is ignored and played down in our society. Well, what is more played down than the wages of somebody who cleans rooms in a hotel, those workers are care workers who are taken for granted, who are essential in a way, but you'd never know it from the way we treat them. And whose position in society is really harmed by those who think they have other more important life work to do. And it would really betray the book and the whole argument have spent my life making to say, well care work...it's only care workers. So what, you know, we're political scientists, we're important, we should get to do what we want, because it's important. No, that's not the way it should be. So I'm not going to the conference. And I'm not going to attend virtually either, because attending virtually kind of, if the whole thing had moved online, I would have been happy to participate. But during this, okay, if you're one of those silly people who's like a vegetarian, and we're going to let you just eat what you want, then we will, I don't mean to say vegetarian, so I still am saying someone might have that attitude, then, you know, we're just not going to take that position seriously. But, or you can take it seriously, we don't have to. So to participate, virtually, it feels to me like you're saying, Oh, it's okay, you're doing this, as long as I don't have to cross a picket line. No, it's not okay. If anybody crosses a picket line? I mean, that's the position I'm taking.