Here’s a copy of an email this lady friend sent to me. I thought it was well written and speaks for many of us, the silent majority, in the west and perhaps all across this great country. Let me know what you think.
I think she sent this to the American Cowboy magazine in response to a story. Or it might have been to Cowboy and Indian Magazine.
Who Speaks for the West?
> Dear Mr. Mullins,
>
> I read your fine article on politics and the West and the gerbil on the wheel in my brain has been making tracks off and on ever since. I grew up on a cattle ranch in South Dakota, rodeoed in High School and Little Britches Rodeo and then headed off to college and a poly-sci major. I was a Republican female at the end of Nixon’s scandalous resignation and the beginning of the feminist movement. All my college professors were big Liberals so we had some pretty heated discussions. I hadn’t done a lot of scholarly researching upon which to anchor my Conservatism, I was just a ranch kid who “knew” that the hippies were so fundamentally wrong on every issue, I hardly knew where to begin. I was piled on by my classmates and put down by the professors but they never shut me up or swayed me. I had some sympathy for the feminists as I had spent all my life helping both my mother in the house and mostly, the kitchen, and then when those chores were done, cowboyed and took care of animals with my sister and father. We were Dad’s ranch hands because we were all he had. And for the most part, we did a good job, as good a job as any man could have done. If we were discriminated against because we were female, we were never aware of it. The thing about riding and working cattle, if you do it well, nobody cares what sex you are. It’s just appreciated that you showed up and didn’t quit until the job was done. Still, I could see where a woman who didn’t want to be the traditional housewife might run up against some discouragement and disapproval. So, like I said, I had a little sympathy for my sisters who railed against being held back by masculine attitudes. However, I parted ways with them over their demand for a sexual revolution with its accompanying crudity and lowering of civil discourse, and their leftist bent toward having the federal government “fix” their problem by force. Then, I lost complete respect for them and their cause after they refused to condemn Clinton for being the poster child for all the things they swore they hated about men. They revealed themselves for what they truly are–socialists.
>
> Since those college days I have continued to follow the American political scene very closely. I have educated myself on Conservative ideology to the point where I totally understand where I’m coming from. I didn’t have to “find myself.” I was never lost. I just needed to be able to ‘splain things to my opponents and I think I’ve gotten better at that through the years.
>
> If it weren’t for the fact that the federal government owns so much of the land in the West, I would say that being ignored by the bureaucrats is a good thing. If you could get back most of that land for private ownership, then I would say, sit back and revel in being ignored. The less active the federal government is, except for national security issues, the better off we all are. I think that is the attitude of most ranchers and cowboys. We are a stubborn, independent bunch and don’t want to be told what to do and don’t want to feel as though we need to mettle with other people’s business, either. It’s tough to stay out of other people’s business, though, when they want the rest of us to sanction and support their choices. Especially when that sanction and support requires more and more of our money in the form of taxes, regulations, penalties, and the favored euphimism for more taxes: “user fees.” This cowboy character is the main reason the West is ignored by the press. Westerners refuse to be victims. You didn’t see the ranchers whose herds were stranded by biblical-proportioned blizzards, crying in front of a camera because FEMA wasn’t doing enough to help them. The only pictures I saw of their incredible plight were sent to me over the Internet. It showed the cattle huddled in groups looking like creatures from special effects because of the snow and ice encasing them and surrounding them. Then the next pictures showed the Colorado National Guard flying in to drop hay and ranchers doing whatever they could to get food to them. Where was the media fixation with this disaster? It wasn’t there because nobody was asking for federal help or sympathy. They were rolling up their sleeves and helping themselves and each other. Where was Oprah crying for the dying cattle and the people whose livelihood was at peril of being completely lost? And for that matter, which method was more successful? The victims of Hurricane Katrina waiting for FEMA, or the Westerners doing for themselves?
>
> I am a huge proponent of states’ rights. I am a Constitutionalist. I am all for more of the Sagebrush Rebellion. Everybody talks about how the “tone” in politics is too harsh. Well, I’m sorry but whenever we try to “deal” with the Liberals, we get screwed. And they continue to harp about how mean we are. It reminds me of a dog that is growling because he wants the bone the other dog has. If the dog with the bone gives it up to the growling dog, does that make them buddies? Hell, no! It makes the growling dog all the more confident to steal that dogs bone the next time. We need more spine and fight in the politicians we send to Congress. Unfortunately, the type of men we need don’t typically run for public office. Too many politicians pick a party because of where they are, not because they really understand or believe the ideology. They say what the voters want to hear and might even have good intentions of following through, but once they get to the Beltway and the media starts calling them mean-spirited cretins, all the fight and bluster just seems to drain right out of them. I’m sure it’s very lonely being a true Conservative in Washington, DC.
>
> To me, one of the most important reasons for voting a Republican into the Presidency again is because of the Supreme Court and the fact that the next president will surely be nominating at least one justice. We need to tip the court back toward Conservativsim and strict adherence to the Constitution. When you get too many Liberals on the Court, you get rulings such as the one on Eminent Domain which expanded that law to mean that any government entity can decide if it wants to take your land and give it to a developer who might improve the land, meaning more tax revenue for the government. That is such a violation of the original intent of the framers. It is being challenged and many states have passed laws to protect against its far-reaching implications, but in the meantime, several U.S. citizens have had their property seized to make way for a fancy development. That’s just not right and no amount of palavering by the Libs and their media accomplices can make it so.
>
> Every time the feds pass laws or decide to bestow federal largesse on certain groups, the consequences are far-reaching, long-lasting and often include unforeseen negatives. Ethanol subsidies have caused farmers to plow up their alfalfa fields and other crops in order to cash in on the sky-rocketing corn prices. Now we have hay and horse feed shortages resulting in the dumping of well-bred, young horses at sales for $200 and $300 a piece. You can blame the banning of horse slaughter for this, too. Another do-gooder, Liberal idea that is causing more suffering and damage than anyone could have imagined. Many farmers have become dependent on subsidies and that is a real shame. I know that quite a few are surviving purely because of the subsidies. But, people like TV correspondent, Sam Donaldson, receive huge sums in subsidies because they dabble in farming as a hobby. Do we taxpayers really need to pay Sam Donaldson over $70,000 a year because he raises a few Angora sheep? Where is the common sense? Unfortunately, when you are talking about federal policy, there isn’t much of that.
>
> Lastly, when I hear someone say they are a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, I get a headache and my eyes start to bleed. The one cancels the other out. That’s the kind of muddled thinking espoused by soccer moms who have watched too much Oprah. It “feels” right, smart and superior to all us troglodyte, judgmental Conservatives. If you accept and condone the premises of the Liberals on social issues, the next logical step is to pass laws forcing everyone to not only accept and condone them, but to fund the consequences of these behaviors. The only way you can be fiscally conservative is to expect everyone to take care of themselves and their own responsibilities. This country has become the greatest in the world because it is a society of individuals who love freedom. It has not become great because of all the government programs. All those do, is put a drag on the economy and limit our personal freedoms.
>
> If the West wants to regain control of its own territory and citizens it is going to have to fight a powerful federal government for them, and playing nice with the Liberal Elites ain’t going to get you squat. There is not a Democrat running who has any intention of doing anything but expanding an already overgrown, over-fed federal government. When they try to sound populist they are merely trying to appeal to the whining victims who claim the government isn’t doing enough for the “little guy.” The best thing the government can do fo any of us is to get out of the way.
>
> Jill Hiller
> Valparaiso, Indiana
Dennisranch 
I found myself agreeing with this comment up until one point, the comment about banning horse slaughter causing a problem for dumping well bred horses. NO, no way!!! Greed and ignorance caused the problem. Shouldn’t people be responsible for what they breed and not dump horses for slaughter? Horses aren’t cattle, they never were.
Speaking Biblically, horses were not to be eaten, donkeys were used by God to carry Mary to Bethlehem and Jesus into Jerusalem on the first Palm Sunday, and why was this even made mention of if it was not important. Jesus told His disciples to bring the young donkey which was tied outside the city gate, and was never ridden. Whoa, that’s important. Then why will Jesus return in the clouds in glory on a white horse? Why do donkeys have a cross on their back?
I’ll tell you why these things are important, because God has indicated that equines are not for human consumption, they have a special purpose. Now we need laws to protect them. People are cruel by nature, at least enough of them that we have humane laws on the books because of those that are so inhumane. Our laws protect use from each other too. Why are there so many animal rescues? Because of the greedy, selfish and cruel people that exploit them including those that over breed horses and dispose of the excess at slaughterhouses. The puppy and kitten mills are another example of human exploitation of animals. NICE! So we need one more law because a few greedy, selfish and cruel people only think of exploiting animals for their own benefit and never put the animal’s welfare into the equation. I believe in using animals and having pets, but abuse is not acceptable.
The false information comes in now when I read that the ban on horse slaughter is a problem when everyone knows that there is no real ban, you can always shoot your horse or send them to Mexico and Canada for slaughter and it’s being done every day. So why tell false stories about horse slaughter not being available? How dare you imbed it in a conservative message as though this is a conservative verses liberal issue, it is NOT! Many very conservative citizens and politicians support ending horse slaughter and the transport in America. I’m a fiscal and social conservative and oppose horse slaughter and the transport for human consumption in America, we don’t eat horses here, and don’t like foreign countries killing our horses and saturating American soil with their blood so that some French dude can eat them. Amercians are swindled out of their horses and some are outright stolen but there are plenty of irresponsible breeders to provide horses for the killers too. Breed something else. Anyone that agrees is welcome to join my Yahoo group, it’s not a debate forum.
I see your point, but isn’t a timely death for pet food better than slow starvation? That is what many of theses horses will face. Your right, humans are cruel. Lots of them. But some of us aren’t.
Also, I worry about the fact that if we stop horse slaughter, it’s only a small step to ban slaughter of any animal. Cows, pigs, etc.
We are to take care of and use wisely all those things given to us by our creator. Not to put them up as our gods.
You mentioned sending these excess horses to Mexico for slaughter. From what I’ve heard that is a terrible way for them to die. They don’t have humane laws for animals as we do. And you think you are being kinder by sending them to a horrible death down there?
I think you just assume if you don’t see it or think about it, it’s okay. Sorry, I don’t think that is helping horses or any other animal. That is just burying your head in the sand.
I don’t thin k any good conservative will ever be against this. Not if it is done humanely.
You sound like somewhat of a liberal to me, which is fine, but don’t try to fool me or yourself by saying your not.
I see you don’t allow debate on your forum. So what is it good for if you won’t allow a dissenting voice?
Sounds like a liberal to me. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck……….
Also, in agreement with what JB said, the trip to Mexico on these over-crowded transports is a cruel fate for these horses. Anyone who handles horses knows that when they’re thrown together with other, unfamiliar horses, they fight and kick. Sending a horse 75 miles to the kill pen in Shipshewanna seems more humane than sending them over a thousand miles across the border. A big, transport that was overcrowded with draft horses wrecked in Chicago and 16 of them died a very painful and prolonged death as a result.
It’s not just that some people over-breed that is glutting the market. It’s the feed shortages brought on by weather and federal policies. People are going to act according to what is best for them and their families. If they suddenly can’t afford to feed their animals, what are they supposed to do? Just let them slowly starve to death? Too many people buy horses unprepared for the work and expense of keeping them. That’s just an unpleasant fact and the government isn’t going to pass laws that are going to make people smarter. Misinformed do-gooders have caused more pain and suffering than people who mind their own business. Ranchers and horsemen know what should be done with horses. PETA and the other so-called animal lovers, do not.
I would never eat a horse and would never send one to the kill pen. But I understand the reality of nature and that I can’t personally, take care of all the animals in the world. I just try to take the best care of my own as I can. If more people would focus on taking care of their own responsibilities, we’d all be better off. Asking the government to manage things for us, does not encourage individual responsibility; and therefore, exacerbates the problems it is charged to solve.
I am appalled that any clear thinking person can condone horse slaughter.
How does one live with the fact that horses are being sent to a slaughter house, where they can smell and sense their imminent death? How do you live with the fact that the horse that worked for you, carried you and your children and lived to serve you, is then sent to a heinous end?
Do you think it is humane to hang a horse from his or her hind leg and let them take their last breath in their own pool of blood? Is this the end they deserve? Is that how your horses died? And this is how horses died in the United States, not in Mexico.
In Mexico it’s worse; they are stabbed to death after their spine is severed so they cannot move. But, no matter in what country they are slaughtered, it is still “slaughter”.
You state that it’s better than the horses starving to death. There are laws in place for abuse and neglect and those laws have and will be enforced. The answer is not slaughter, it is “responsibility”. Take responsibility for your own animals, stop breeding and report those who break the law by neglecting their animals.
It was mentioned that some are worried that they will stop the slaughter of pigs and cows. Why are pigs and cows categorized the same as horses? Perhaps that’s the problem. Horses are not livestock, they are companion animals.
There are seeing eye dogs, military dogs, police dogs and therapy dogs. There are seeing eye horses, military horses, police horses and therapy horses. Why aren’t we also slaughtering dogs? Do you all think that dogs should be slaughtered? What’s the difference?
Slaughter is not the answer. I pray that those who continue to condone this barbarism will soften their hearts and realize that this is morally wrong.
No, my horses don’t end like this. Many do, whether we like it or not. I just don’t think you are being realistic.
So you would have them sent to Mexico to die an even worse death?
What do we do with all the unwanted horses in the USA now?
If you want them killed more humanely, work on that instead of saying we can never end a horses life. Because that is what you are saying essentially.
Hi, sorry to see that folks are dragging you through the anti horse slaughter whirlpool. For what it is worth I agree with you. I don’t eat horses, our old ones are buried here on the farm when they die, but I sure am scared of the slippery slope phenomenon. What’s next? Cows? Pigs? Chickens? And who is going to feed and care for the 80, 000 horses a year that were up until recently slaughtered in the USA.
All these well meaning folks are just shilling for animal rights organizations and they don’t even see it.
BTW, I thought that the letter that started all this was excellent!
Junglebob, the difference between horses and livestock is that it is illegal to buy or sell horse meat for human consumption in the US. Livestock are accepted and legal food animals in the US, horses are not. The Americans that are supporting anti slaughter legislation have one goal, to stop our horses from being slaughtered by foreign countries for foreign diners. Horses are viewed as companion animals, not livestock. The anti slaughter campaign is strictly for horses. Are you aware that the transports have been taking place every year? In one year, the transport counts were 79,749 and can be verified on the USDA website. Where was the outrage on the transports when the kill houses were open? Why is it an issue now but there wasn’t a peep out of the pro folks when the kill houses were open? There is plenty of factual documentation proving the abuse/neglect has nothing to do with the availability of slaughter. The folks that were neglecting their animals were not taking them to slaughter. The reported cases are no higher than the number reported when the kill houses were open. As far as all those ridiculous articles written by pro slaughter PR firms on abandoned horses, every one of the claims was investigated and not one could be verified. Just more scare tactics. No different than when the AVMA was warning everyone of abuse, neglect and abandoned horses when CA passed the ban. The only thing that happened was the horse thefts decreased by 39.6%.
Threecollie, you are aware that the amount of horses going to slaughter is based on the demand by the foreign market and has nothing to do with unwanted horses. The number given for the amount of unwanted horses is ALWAYS the exact number of horses slaughtered. The kill houses were open for over 20 years. Don’t you think if slaughter was a solution that we would have slaughtered our way out of “unwanted” horses by now? If the horses are unwanted, why do the kill buyers have to pay for them?
Some one better fill the Navajos of northern Arizona in on the whole dont eat a horse thing. Cause they sure eat them like they are going out of style. Just a bunch of imbred horses up there on the rez good for nothing. Cept i guess they see them as meat. I think if folks wanna eat horse then let them , they arent pointing a gun to your head making you eat it are they ?
The whole why do kill buyers have to pay for them thats not even a good argument. Even tho they are unwanted horses you still have money in them and want to get as much as you can back out of them. The killers make money on them so why not the seller ? Isnt that the way the world works ?
I tell you what you bleeding heart folks should build you some corrals and start buying hay ! Leave you address and we will start spreadin the word !
It is typical that the traditional way to dispose of broken mouthed and disabled horses is stopped due to a knee jerk reaction by people who are too ignorant to realise that something else needs to be put in place BEFORE banning the existing structure for diposal. Typically, this will lead to untraceable horses dumped on open range and ranch land to die a slow and cruel death, proper facilities are needed which can be monitored by veterinary inspectors as was the case in the legal abattoirs. Most horse ownwers do not have the luxury of large acreages on which to bury a euthanised horse,or else are restricted by local legislation on how fallen horses and livestock can be disposed of.While I don’t eat horsemeat, there is a longstanding tradition in Europe so I have no qualms as far as selling the meat of slaughtered horses or in my case, I sold the meat of culled Zebra to an Italian salami factory, to those who can use the meat I am a great believer in re cycling!
Andy Hope
Ex Zimbabwe
presently NC.
A well written article Jill, the USA facilities used the captive bolt gun to ‘stun’ the horses before bleeding, and as in all American abattoirs the whole process is overseen by veterinary inspectors (from trained meat inspectors, up to the actual assigned state vet), so the humane handling and slaughter of the horses is constantly monitored.
andybob posted this on our forum. He told me to post it on here.
Well, Jinglebob, since you are picking and choosing what can and can’t be printed, I’ll bow out.
If someone is being abusive I would understand your omitting their comment, but since I only answered yours you could have been polite enough to post it.
But then again, what should I expect from someone who condones bleeding a horse to death, or someone who believe that the horses were stunned before they were strung up to bleed out?
Magic2step I have no idea what you are talking about as this is the first post from you I have seen. I will post any comment that is in good taste as to words and that has a name on it. I will not post anonymous posts.
We agree to disagree. there are lots worse things in life than death. And once your dead there is no pain or shame or anything else that will hurt you or a horse.
I don’t send my horses to slaughter,but I have a ranch and can keep them, until they get old, when I shoot them and haul them away to the horse graveyard, where great horses from this ranch all end up. If I could I would have my body dumped there with them for the coyotes, fox, bugs and wind to clean and whistle thru’ my bones. It would be a great place to have as a final resting place.
Argue all you want, you won’t change my mind and it doesn’t look like I will change yours. I honor my old horses and God. But I don’t get them mixed up, like some of you evidently do.
Great comment, JB. I agree with you. That’s where I’d like to end up, too.
The people who are against horse slaughter claim that horses are companion animals like dogs. That’s rather far-fetched. I’ve handled, trained and loved horses all my life and would love to think that they love me back like a dog, but that’s just not reality. We have learned to break and train what is essentially, a wild animal for use as a living tool in farming, ranching and transportation. Because of the cowboy and racing, we have developed a real romance with the equine. I understand the drawing back in horror at what seems to be the moral outrage of slaughtering horses, but life can be cruel because nature is cruel. The nature of horses precludes us from treating them like dogs. They are wonderful, noble animals but not all of them are worth all this romanticising over. Some are only good as the basic ingredient in Alpo. Sorry, but I’ve come in contact with a few of these. I’ve known a couple I would have personally, sent through the grinder to feed my dogs. But that’s not why I am against the government closing the slaughter houses. I’m against it because I don’t think the government always makes the smartest choices for us or our animals.
I guess this will work itself out one way or the other. I read a couple of years ago about the problems that the no-kill pet sanctuaries were having managing all the pets they were getting. If you know that your pet won’t be euthanized, and you have to move or decide you never should have gotten that dog or cat, then why not dump it at the shelter? This kind of “safety net” works adversely in every area, including welfare, as was proven when the Republicans in Congress force Clinton to sign Welfare Reform.
Jill Hiller
Jill, perhaps I interpreted your post incorrectly but it sounds like you feel it’s okay to use the animal as living tool – which earns money but you don’t think some of that money they earned should be put aside for a humane, dignified death. Just toss them aside like an old shoe?
Texas had a slaughter ban that dated back to 1949. All the courts did was uphold the law. Illinois banned horse slaughter because the citizens asked for it not because the government decided we needed a law. New York passed a ban for the same reason, as did California and other states. The federal bills that are pending are pending because American’s asked for them. American’s are overwhelmingly against slaughter and for once, the legislators are listening to their constituents. In building on your no-kill shelter comments, isn’t slaughter the same? Actually it’s worse because the kill buyers pay them to dump their animals. As long as the incentive is there for slaughter, the irresponsible over breeding will continue. The AQHA will continue to collect their registration fees for all the foals. It’s unfortunate that animal welfare legislation is needed but someone has to speak for the animals. Without legislation you have people like Michael Vick that abuse animals for profit. Just as France and Belgium abuse our horses for profit. You have puppy mills that have animals living in cages in deplorable conditions. Their puppies are sold to unsuspecting owners and many of them don’t live past a few months because of health issues from the over breeding. How do you stop that without having consequences? Do you think that people are going to have a revelation and one day realize they shouldn’t be treating animals in that manner? It’s all about the almighty dollar and the heck with who or what I hurt as long as I get my money.
I know plenty of horse owners that differ with your opinion. Their horses are exactly like pets. Unconditional love. The special nicker they give only to their owners. Animals are slaughtered for food. Horses are not part of our food chain. Buying or selling horse meat has been illegal for years in the US. Slaughter has been around for over 20 years. It has not stopped the over breeding and it has not stopped abuse and neglect. If anything is perpetuates over breeding and horse thefts. And let’s not forget how wealthy it’s made the foreign owned companies.
Jinglebob, I agree with your comment. Religion should not be brought into the pros or cons of slaughter. It’s strictly an animal welfare issue.
I’m sure you do know plenty of “horse owners” who agree with your opinion. I do, too. I’m sorry but most of what they believe is just plain silly. They are the same people who put deer antlers on their horses at Christmas time and feed them treats until they’re fat and useless or they founder.
There are always going to be Michael Vicks and ignorant irresponsible animal owners. Yes, the people of Illinois passed the ban on horse slaughter. I’m sure most of the legislators who voted that through are real experts on horses and animal husbandry. That’s the problem. All the soccer moms decided that killing horses is too distasteful for them so they called their policians.
Your resentment for people who make money is also naive and silly. If you banned the use of horses as workers on ranches or decided riding them was too cruel, then you’d have to pass laws to try to keep them from becoming extinct. Better check into the racing industry and the horse show industry because there’s a lot of abuse in those venues, too. Make owning a horse equivalent to owning a dog and they will be worth nothing. There are still puppy mills and there are still people who collect and then, inexplicably starve and neglect their animals. Time will tell, I guess, how banning horse slaughter in this country affects the welfare of all horses. Tell those people whose horses love them so, not to be in the way if they spook at something.
Very well said Jill. Thank you for all your time to this subject on this blog.
Too many view horses as big fuzzy puppy dogs. They have never seen horses in the real world. They’ve never see what one horse will do to another. A stallion to another stallion, or even a gelding or colt. These are the same people that stopped the useful culling of the wild feral horses, which they called “mustangs”. These feral horses have no resemblance to any mustang, other than they are both types of horses. Because of people like this, now we round up feral horses and truck them to feedlots and let them fight in small pens and die of old age in discomfort, all to be more “kind to them”. Some people have no idea and should not be allowed around animals without supervision. They are animals , not pets and not human.
What you seem to be sayin’ is just grab some common sense!
No problem,JB. If this peters out lets see what other subject I can bludner into that causes so much controversy. What’s really funny, is this was just a small part of my original letter. Who could have known?
Uhh it sounds like Magic didn’t make sure the post went through. Happens all the time to me. Did GOD not give man dominion over all the animals on the earth? I don’t remember the bible saying that we were not supposed to use horses for anything? Granted they are not like beef but they are still animals. I don’t condone cruelty but for goodness sake, What do they think we should do with them when they get old? Let them suffer? The American Indians used every part of the horse, buffalo, and any deer or elk they killed. They had great respect for the life they were taking. I think that is being done here also. There will always be someone who goes too far in anything. Punishing the whole lot is just irresponsible.
Tim, when an animal gets old and his time has come, you don’t’ let him suffer. You call the vet and have him humanely euthanized. You don’t have him butchered.
Jinglebob and Jill, you done got folks fired up! Not much to add, except I like AZCowpuncher’s take on it: Not eating horses *may* be biblical, but it sure ain’t gospel! And based on my time back East, I think he’s also right with the implication of his last bit — that too often, the folks who protest are the least prepared to get their hands dirty.
It is good to remind people from time to time that the so-called standards we uphold aren’t universal even within our own country, and are often the product of our relative affluence. Most of us have divorced ourselves from food production to the point that we wouldn’t know if we were eating horse or not, and we’re so far removed from suffering that we’ll invest huge sums of money in a single beloved animal while entire populations die off and the guy sitting outside our building starves.
This is NOT to say that we *shouldn’t* invest in and care for the animals that support us, or that we *should* extend a handout to everyone with his or her hand out. I’m just saying that it’s easy to join “the movement” when you’ve got time on your hands and/or money to burn.
The folks doing the hard work generally have neither …