the compensation was essentially unreviewed by the owners of the businesses. now it was reviewed by directors. directors usually who were selected for the intensity of their friendship with the ceo. who's salaries they were supposed to control. so when we have proposals from the fcc to make it easier to depose directors, when we have sabane who says the director should be independent. here's some test of independence. we know right away if he's your son, he's not independent. we know right away if you sit on his board, he's not independent determining yours. and i find it very -- the intensity of conservative reaction to these reactions to the floyd corporate governance and compensation systems that we have, i find upsetting. did he get it right? is it possible that it's producing too great risk aversions? yes. all of these things are possible. but it seems to me the least possible way to preserve capitalism is to have these systems where a ceo wrecks a company, walks off into the sunset with his golf bag swung over his shoulder, and a multi-million dollar goo