MJ at In the Pines writes about Obama’s latest gaffe:
Obama implies the government should control how much you eat...what?! . . .
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Barack Obama set his sights on November's general election Saturday as he campaigned in Oregon, where he hopes to declare victory in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.
"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.
That's pretty scary, isn't it? He implies that the government should have control over what people eat, and suggests that it should be at the bidding of foreign nations?
It doesn't seem strange anymore that he would allow the whole calling a reporter "sweetie" debacle to become a big deal. Anything to take the attention away, eh?
It seems as if Obama is making a verbal gaffe every few days. He's quickly approaching Dan Quayle-George W. territory. If the TV talk shows treated Obama's gaffes the way they treat Republican gaffes, Obama's recent confusion about 57 states and where Kentucky is located would be staples by now (I suspect that as many people know that there aren't 57 states as know how to spell "potato").
As Glenn Reynolds might say: "They said that if Bush were elected president politicians would try to take away our most basic rights — and they were right!"
UPDATE: Some commenters below seem to think that I believed that Obama has plans to restrict food choice. No, he made a gaffe and said something stupid — as we all do from time to time. As with George W. Bush and Dan Quayle, this gaffe may reveal something deeper about the way Obama's mind works — or it may be a simple mistake.
Whether revealing or not, Obama's string of small verbal gaffes in recent weeks would be a comedic drumbeat if a Republican had made them.
2d UPDATE: The sarcastic Tim Blair seems to think it's an example of wooly-headed environmentalism:
After all, Agence France-Press thought Obama’s remark so unremarkable they buried it way down at paragraph 13, beneath searing lead pars about “setting his sights on November’s general election” and “hoping to declare victory in the race for nomination”.
You’d imagine a presidential candidate telling voters to go hungry for Gaia might be worth a mention at a point in the story before readers get bored and head for the nearest drive-through.
It’s such a perfect example of environmentalism’s religious component that Obama - who sometimes gives the impression that he’s running for the office of Jesus - really should have delivered it on Sunday, by which time he was addressing a crowd of 75,000 in Portland.
Uhmm.
"The way to a man's heart is through his stomach."
I happen to enjoy eating to excess. It's one of my few pleasures in life.
Barack Obama has just found his way into my heart in a whole new way.
I'm glad that none of the Volokh posters have gasoline pump price shock, but I dare say the average voter hears what is being said a little differently.
But if he does go the route of statist control – like he has in pretty much every other policy area – it would probably be something like having the Obama Justice Department encourage, enable, and/or file lawsuits against the food industry, “fat taxes” on unhealthy foods, new subsidies for “healthy foods,” more money pissed down the education industrial complex to “educate” “our children” about proper nutrition, etc. The infringement on individual liberty will be “indirect” and “targeted” at politically-disfavored industries while further feeding the Nanny State by stealing more capital from the productive class to feed the government class.
When one adds this world view with Obama's incredible historical ignorance, it is amazing a major American party even nominated this man to be President.
McCain is being handed the election.
On the one hand, it seems like the same echo chamber groupthink that has gotten Republicans into such a bind the past five or six years. I mean, most people would see that statement and think "Oh, it's like when your doctor says to quit smoking and he's puffing on a cigar." If Conservatives want to repeat these memes to each other, fine. Hasn't gotten them very far.
On the other hand, it's kind of eye-rolling silly, and it does still tend to lead to news coverage by the media.
Now that I think about it, isn't it an even better interpretation that Obama was chiding a left-wing crowd? These are the kind of sleek, well-fed liberals that drive SUVs and shop at Whole Foods. It's easy for them to talk up conservation for the Chinese. It's another to tell them that enforcing environmental demands means personal sacrifice
"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in fifty ... seven states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."
He starts off saying he's been to all the states except one, and then remembers that it's all but three --- his staff won't let him campaign in Alaska and Hawaii, so he's been to all of the contiguous states except one. That's the content.
So why 57? Obviously he means 47. Forty-seven plus one plus two equals fifty. He slipped up and said "fifty" when he meant "forty."
Why? Most likely because he started off the sentence with "every corner of the United States." He was thinking "I've been to all the states," and all the states is fifty. So he said fifty. And then he realized it wasn't fifty but a few less, and he corrected midstream.
It was a slip of the tongue, not a civics mistake.
I echo the commenters that pointed out Obama clearly talking about conservative vs. non-conservation. Furthermore, I will note the recent scientific study that showed higher rates of obesity being linked to the worsening of global warming.
Anyway, one picture is worth a thousand words. Here are two.
We will be "required" to work at tasks set by Chairman Obama? We will be "required" to stop disagreeing with him and follow the party line? No, thanks.
I'd like to see how this one would go over with his big money backers like Buffet and Soros. And no buying of indulgences aka "carbon offsets." Do these people think we're a bunch of rubes? I guess so. And perhaps we are if we elect this empty suit.
And don't forget this notorious picture.
If only blogs were around when JFK was president. JFK: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Volokh.com: “JFK believes that the government should do nothing for its citizens and that we should support the government with our entire paycheck!” JFK: “I take pride in the words ‘Ich bin ein Berliner!’” Volokh.com: “JFK disclaims American citizenship and wants us all to become German! Communist!!”
I believe the point is that when Quayle and W said things far less stupid than, "I've been to, uh, 57 states..." or, "Well, Hillary's probably doing better in Kentucky because she was governor of Arkansas, which is closer to Kentucky than Illinois," the media jumped all over them. I'd be willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, except when was the last time a Republican got the benefit of the doubt?
Maybe if we stopped subsidizing agriculture so much, fatty foods wouldn't be artificially cheap?
He's done just exactly that.
But the other examples are not gaffes. They truly reflect the way he thinks. It's not an unusual mindset in certain subsets of our country, circles he's been a part of if you take his own word for it. Why would anyone think that he didn't mean it?
The last time Senator McCain suggested that Sunnis and Shi'ites get along with each other?
"That" in the final two sentences seems to be referring to expecting other countries to be OK with our current level of consumption not, as the linked post and your post implies, some concept of the federal government forcing us to reduce our largess.
Obama got slammed for his “bitter” comment, which I think was appropriate. Compare that with the numerous times McCain has gotten a free ride for not being able to understand the distinctions between different strains of Islam. He has certainly received the “benefit of the doubt” from the media.
Finally, the comparison to W is just plain wrong. Even by president Bush’s own admission, he is not articulate and says a lot of dumb things. Surely when someone is in the public spotlight, they will say some inarticulate things. But Bush can barely make it through an unscripted moment without tripping over himself. He’s exceptionally inarticulate for a politician. Moreover, people don’t try to read weird policy implications into everything he said. For example, when he mentioned doctors trying to practice their love on their patients, no one said, “wow, president Bush is promoting rape among doctors!” If you want to try to make the argument that Obama is inarticulate, go ahead. I don’t think you’ll get very far (and for obvious reasons).
Are you seriously this dumb? This is in no way a remotely fair reading of Obama's comments. Where does he argue the state should restrict what we eat and what we drive? He's arguing that other countries aren't going to tolerate overconsumption -- that their toleration of our habits is "not going to happen."
What's so objectionable about this? That a presidential candidate shouldn't suggest our consumption is going to have deleterious consequences, particular as other countries grow their economies and consume more? I'm not really sure where the gaffe is here; I certainly don't think it's fair to say he's saying the government should exercise control over the amount of food you eat.
Please tell me you're not this dim.
Does anyone disagree with this?
Well, I guess those who think that driving around in 12 mpg vehicles is the wave of the future might.
Dems think Dems get a rough time with the press, and Republicans think Republicans do. The reality is that some politicians get a free ride and others get subjected to death by a thousand gotchas, and it has very little to do with partisanship. It's all about narrative, and about journalistic laziness.
So don't say "we'll stop playing gotcha when the other side does." That's exactly what some of my liberal friends say, and it's garbage whoever says it. If gotcha politics is beneath us, we should repudiate it whoever is getting gotten.
So what Sen Obama is saying is that to deal with rising prices we'll have to find ways to reduce consumption. Duh, people.
The good news is that not even the mainstream press is buying these phony "gaffes" yet.
In other news, Sen. Obama just held a rally in Oregon with 75,000 people. I guess they don't read right-wing blogs.
Okay, but what American has suggested that the Germans should refrain from "having seconds"?! Or that the Canadian shouldn't keep their houses so warm?
I'd be impressed with BHO if he expressed any skepticism about global warming. Of course we know he won't because it's the latest liberal fetish. Just because Bush is awful doesn't mean BHO can't be worse. This also applies Bush II aka John McCain.
(1) whether it's just a silly minor gaffe or
(2) whether (as most of Obama's defenders here seem to think) it's not a gaffe at all: Americans can't continue to eat as much as they want and justifiably expect foreigners not to object to this environmental misbehavior.
If it's a sound observation (as most of Obama's defenders here seem to think), then it's worthy of comment, criticism, and mocking by bloggers and comedians. This goes beyond similar things we heard from Jimmy Carter.
If it's a simple gaffe that might perhaps hint at statist inclinations (as I suspect), then it should be noted by bloggers and lampooned by comedians, but not taken too seriously by anybody.
obama has lost the Michael Moore (just an average fat schlub)demographic.
we're totally cool with conversation and being conversationalists.
as long as we can do it while scarfing big macs.
Just like Missouri and Arkansas are "Middle America." Not Deep South, but definitely country other than St. Louis and Kansas City.
Illinois is certainly a midwestern state, but is so Chicago-dominated that Obama considers it separate and apart. Just like most people.
I'm not just making this up. Do some research into perceptions of American region. Wilbur Zelinsky was the leading figure in this field of inquiry. He did a study of yellow pages (this was pre-WWW days) listings for companies named "Dixie" this-or-that. Others did studies of what people believe to be "the Midwest." Arkansas has much more in common with Kentucky in American consciousness than does Illinois.
C'mon, if that's the best "gaffe" you can come up with, Obama should cruise into the White House.
Whoa, what?
Is this all because you don't understand what Obama is positing?
Nowhere does Obama say that our everyday consumer behavior is a morally ugly business and needs to be changed. If he believed in a national campaign to lower thermostats, you'd think it'd be in a position paper somewhere, because that would be a big deal.
He said that if we expect to ask other countries to change their environmental behavior then we can't engage in conspicuously wasteful behavior while we're hectoring them. Like when a fat man bothers you to diet, or your Mom tells you to stop being critical.
Now, I can see why you'd think that Obama has underpinned an assumption that all those things he listed are bad. I suppose that's reasonable, even if it's not what he's saying. Most liberals would even agree that SUVs are wasteful and so on.
But so what? -- those things ARE DEFINITELY wasteful from the perspective of the third world countries we're hectoring to clean up.
And that's what he's reminding his white, liberal audience.
This doesn't seem like a point you can argue. OF COURSE Americans are wasteful energy hogs from a third world perspective. I don't feel any guilt about it, but I might feel like a hypocrite if I was at the same time bothering India to stop industrial growth.
Honestly, shouldn't it be clear that this is a fairly CONSERVATIVE sentiment? Telling a liberal crowd that industrial growth in the third world is not a bad thing is hardly leftist orthodoxy! Left orthodoxy is to posit a miracle, nature-oriented third world of cheerful ethnic farmers, lately ravaged by multinational corporations.
Don't conservatives WANT liberals to stop whining about nasty companies in the third world?
Gaffes aren't usually dependent on tenuous analysis. "Bitter" was a gaffe. This is just attempted boosting of a pretty standard statement.
The gaffe -- if there is is one -- is not about SUVs or thermostats, it's about whether we can, in Obama's words, "eat as much as we want" without engendering foreign criticism, presumably for environmental reasons.
As a matter of policy, they're more important, but as a matter of claiming that a particular American is stupid, they're just not effective. Mostly because the average American (heck, I'm pretty sure the average Congressman) doesn't understand the difference between the sects either. It's a very different scale of gaffe than saying there are 57 states, misspelling potato, claiming Arkansas is closer to Kentucky than Illinois, or mispronouncing nuclear (albeit in a way that a large proportion of the population does.)
I don't think this gaffe falls into that class as much, and it might make a lot more sense in context, so maybe this isn't quite the post to make the argument on. This is more worrisome in the "a gaffe is when a politician accidentally says what he really thinks" style--not that Obama plans to directly control what we eat, but certainly that he thinks that it's something we should be concerned about. That scares me much more than whether he says the occasional stupid thing. And if the gaffes were the only evidence of this attitude, I'd also be a lot less worried.
Though, the comment about Illinois-Arkansas-Kentucky is stupid on 2 different levels:
1: Geographically, Illinois is closer, and whether you want to nitpick about Chicago being further away, isn't a senator supposed to represent the whole state?
2: Hillary may have had her time in Arkansas, but now she's the senator from New York, hardly closer to Kentucky than even Chicago in any way. And if she's a southern working class gal, then I must be a slack-jawed yokel.
Other's aren't so blinded by the politican discourse.
But no. We're unfair to the world by taking 25% of the energy for only a few people...
The hilarious part is that we're talking about this as if it has ANY bearing on his fitness for the presidency.
I'm sure that this "gaffe" will lead us to believe that he will appoint rediculously unqualified idealogues to positions of power during a war while blindly deferring to the whims of an appointed viceroy without maintaining a shred of accounability. Thank god we dodged that one...Now we can vote McCain.
Now I'm just confused. Is the gaffe, in your view, because he implied that foreigners are right to critique America? Is it just because he kind of vaguely referred to eating as a bad thing, which would be sort of silly?
Looking back at the initial post, you appear to think that Obama implied that foreign governments should be able to tell Americans what to eat. Is that right?
Perhaps a better question would be: do you think this gaffe is self-evident, or does it require further explanation? To a mainstream audience with no built-in suspicion against Obama. And, even if so, don't you find this kind of rat-a-tat small arms fire very similar to Kerry's pathetic salvos against Bush leading up 2004?
You mean like when National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley confused Nepal for Tibet 8 times on This Week, and the AP covered for him, not only by omitting mention of the gaffes in its story, but by actually fixing a quoted passage, with no notice to the reader(!) that the quote was altered?
Is it too much to ask for a moratorium on these type of posts here?
Up front, I'm an Obama supporter. I think I've read most of your Obama-related posts, and certainly all the recent ones. Fyi, this one does seem aberrantly anti-Obama. I don't recall seeing anything previous that was inconsistent with you being skeptically non-partisan. Or if partisan, not uncharitably so. But this is another story. I think you need a fair amount of whole cloth to spin these words into anything sufficiently authoritarian to call a gaffe. And since I otherwise have no reason to think you've gone aggressively anti-Obama, I'm at a loss. Any thoughts?
link
"He's done more for the healthcare of others than just about anybody in history. We are going to be rooting for him and I insist on being optimistic about how it's going to turn out."
More than anybody?
Louis Pasteur, Alexander Fleming, Jonas Salk, Edward Jenner?
You could say he was just trying to say something nice about the elder "statesman" of his party. Or you could say he really does see gov't as the end all, be all and savior of all of us.
I think that the MSM treatment of Obama is affirmative action writ large.
I think somebody on the thread already said this, but it's not a question of foreigners objecting to our behavior. On the contrary, it's about our objections, and how our behavior can undermine our moral authority to lodge objections convincingly.
In short, it's hard to be a credible voice for moderation if you gorge like Vitellius. In fact, it's hard to be a credible voice for anything if your mouth is full, but the point isn't about food per se, or even about consumption. It's about waste and hypocrisy. He's just using gluttony to illustrate the more general and utterly uncontroversial principle that hypocrites make unpersuasive critics. So if we want a more conservation-oriented world, we should expect to either set an example or not be taken seriously.
Modern campaigning is exhausting. I find his stamina inspiring.
And we want to change everyone else's consumption and environmental impact -- why, exactly?
There are a lot of assumptions behind Obama's statement, and examining those is more interesting than playing "gotcha."
I do think we should work on ways to have the same standard of consumption (which used to be called "standard of living" . . . when did that change?) with less use of energy and other scarce resources. That's just basic innovation, and we should do it all the time regardless of the current environmental fads. And then, once we have developed the technologies to do that, we should sell them to those who can pay and give them to the destitute. (We should repeat the process for all subsequent generations of technology, of course.) But I don't believe it is appropriate either to feel guilty for our own standard of living or to lecture other countries to reduce theirs. That's what people work for, and try to pass on to their children.
I'm confused. What's objectionable about this? The world clearly cannot support 7 billion people at an American standard of living (not with current technology). If we don't voluntarily cut back our consumption, we should expect people (individuals) in other countries to be upset with us. Additionally, if our environmentalists continue to rail at everyone about levels of consumption, and we do nothing, we cannot expect people in other countries to be happy about being told to cut their consumption.
I don't see why this observation is worth of mocking; comment and criticism, yes if you have a cogent argument about why it isn't true, but mocking? Are you serious?
Former slave-owning/confederate states are not in the midwest. Arkansas, Kentucky, and Missuouri are not midwestern states. Illinois is.
To 2Hard4U2C: Yes, unfortunately it's that time of year my friend. Hold your nose and pull the lever for the candidate that stinks the least. Aren't we all getting sick of this shite?
The U.S. is one of very few countries, and maybe the only one, that actually produces a higher percentage of the world’s GDP than it consumes.
If you mean that third world technology can’t support U.S. lifestyles, you’re correct. But if third and second world countries have access to U.S. levels of technology. If they had the economic and social freedom to take advantage of them, then supporting seven billion people at an American standard of living is not only doable, it could produce a world surplus that could raise everyone’s standard of living higher than today’s Americans.
OTOH, restricting the U.S. economy in the name of conservation, if it eliminates the surplus U.S. production, may well bring on the disaster it was designed to prevent.
If you're suspicious about Obama and consider him a Leftist in disguise, then you can scrounge evidence from these comments. If you're not suspicious, then you won't, and it all sounds silly.
I think what's sad here is that you COULD make this into an anti-Obama post that is nonetheless worthy of the Volokh Conspiracy.
You could note that Obama easily slips into a set of worldview assumptions when presented with the right (liberal) audience. "Bitter" being the prime example. The problem with that is that Obama presents himself as a universal candidate, a transformative figure above sectarian divide. By changing his rhetoric to accommodate the false world view of his more liberal audiences, he's really just telling them what they want to hear.
They think they're getting hope, but they're truly getting a standard set of "I agree with your vision of how everything works, vote for me."
I wouldn't agree with the above, but it is interesting and something I haven't seen before.
Gracious, what a stupid complaint. Look at the freaking context. He obviously means "healthcare policy in the United States." The English language is full of shortcuts and phrases the meaning of which should be obvious from their context.
Is that the game now. Take everything Obama says as absolutely literal.
What's next, If Obama says the earth is round are you going to claim he does know it is actually a sphere? (Which it actually isn't since it actually bulges at the equator and is a little flat at the poles).
You would be right if many of the resources that fuel the USA GNP were not grossly mispriced.
What do you mean by "now"? Don't you always review the latest opinion polls from Paraguay before deciding whether to bake your potato or twice bake your potato?
I agree. IMO, it's just a simple gaffe (though most Obama defenders here disagree). I found it humorous and Carteresque. Certainly, he makes fewer gaffes than I would in the same situation--for reasons you note.
People are taking all this too seriously. I was not writing an op-ed on why you shouldn't vote for Obama. I voted for Obama in the Democratic primary and, if he moves very strongly to the center on the war and free trade in the fall, I may vote for him in November. Otherwise, I'm leaning toward McCain right now.
Jim Lindgren
I think that Kevin hit the nail on the head. If you strongly disagree with Obama's remarks, this might be reason to be alarmed, but I fail to see how what he said is "stupid". Stupid doesn't mean "leftist and me no like!"
Um, your ALL CAPS post title kinda really implies such?
After a quick google, I think you better send out the 2008 update of Wayne's Official Geographic Boundaries Memo to all the Missouri folks who are deluded into thinking they are "Midwesterners." Just a few examples:
Minnesota, Ohio &Missouri Lead the Midwest in Second-Quarter 2005 Health Care Venture Investment
Welcome to the Association of Midwest Museums
Serving the Midwest Museum Community for More than 80 Years
States
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Ohio
Wisconsin
Midwest Neuroscience, PC, has been providing neurologic services to the Kansas City, Missouri, area for 30 years, including neurology consultations, EMG, EEG, Carotid Doppler and Open MRI of the brain and spine. We are your convenient resource for acute care and direct patient referral. Appointments are available within 24 hours.
Midwest Helicopter is Located at Spirit of St. Louis Airport (SUS)
in the "Million Air" FBO Complex at
517 Bell Avenue
Chesterfield, Missouri (MO) 63005-3602
( in West St.Louis County, Missouri, USA )
Midwest Fat Tire Series schedule announced
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Organizers of the Midwest's premier mountain bike racing series have announced the 2008 schedule of races in Missouri and Kansas.
*ZING*
Ah, a perfect example of how to distract using strawmen. Do ANYTHING but discuss the substance of what Barry said. Truly disgraceful behavior for those who claim to be morally superior.
Well, then, won't the problem take care of itself?
Funny, I thought this post was about a "gaffe." My response to that is that being gaffe-free certainly has nothing to do with being president, as demonstrated by Prez. Bush.
As for morally superior, I never claimed to be that. "Morals" are an artificial construction created by people who believe in sky fairies and such religious nonsense.
Yeah, yeah. I have met Missourians that claim to be midwestern. Ever read Huck Finn? Missouri has much more in common with the south than it does with the midwest.
In any event, you were arguing that Arkansas was somehow in the midwest....
We're known by the friends we keep. Most of us don't have any friends who wipe their feet on the American flag. Most of us respect the National Anthem by properly placing our right hand over our heart [as Obama admits his grandmother taught him], instead of on our crotch and closing our eyes. And most of us want our presidential candidates to support our soldiers and our country by wearing a flag on their lapel. Obama, the Affirmative Action candidate who has been given everything without corresponding merit, disrespects all that is good about America.
Do Obama's apologists actually believe that his anti-American attitude is acceptable to most Americans?
Do Obama's attackers really believe that Obama has an anti-American attitude?
I can understand disagreeing with Obama over what is the best course for our country -- that seems to be the respectable position taken by most of the conspirators. Some of the comments seem to go a step further and assert that, since we disagree with Obama, he must be somehow anti-American.
I happen to disagree with a fair number of Obama's policy preferences but I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that he wants what is best for this country -- even if I disagree with him over what that is.
And don't forget to add that we should support our troops by not playing golf.
You know, I think I'd rather take my chances with the market.
The people who opposed Obama before they knew his name (many are apparently still uncertain what it is) no doubt really believe he's anti-American. And their counterparts on the left really believe Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq to line their their friends' and own pockets with oil money. Both contingents are reliably ideological and determinest, and neither wins votes for its preferred candidates.
Why Obama's new big government will tell us. Michelle Obama already told us that we have to submit. The scary thing is that the RCP average polling shows a 5 point lead for BHO on McCan't. What are Americans thinking?
True, if you stipulate that everyone who doesn't think he's anti-American is an Obama lapdog.
That they're tired of being told who they have to hate to avoid being labeled anti-American lapdogs?
Maybe you should get your eyes checked . .
"Once again all rations were reduced, except those of the pigs and the dogs. A too rigid equality in rations, Squealer explained, would have been contrary to the principles of Animalism. In any case he had no difficulty in proving to the other animals that they were NOT in reality short of food, whatever the appearances might be. For the time being, certainly, it had been found necessary to make a readjustment of rations (Squealer always spoke of it as a "readjustment," never as a "reduction"), but in comparison with the days of Jones, the improvement was enormous. Reading out the figures in a shrill, rapid voice, he proved to them in detail that they had more oats, more hay, more turnips than they had had in Jones's day, that they worked shorter hours, that their drinking water was of better quality, that they lived longer, that a larger proportion of their young ones survived infancy, and that they had more straw in their stalls and suffered less from fleas. The animals believed every word of it."
Animal Farm, Ch. 9
What a stretch!!! Nowhere does he say the government should restrict what people eat or consume. He says that PEOPLE should restrict these things. And he is right.
It insults our intelligence to even BEGIN to compare this to G.W.'s endless parade of gaffes.