My heart goes out to Barack Obama. Apparently he is urgently advised (though not, strictly speaking, required) to give up his beloved BlackBerry for the duration of his presidency. When he takes office, he’ll be required by law to preserve all his correspondence (electronic and otherwise)—and besides, a cell phone can be traced and could present a security risk.
I’ve only owned a smart phone for a few weeks, but already I’m at a loss to remember how I lived without it—and I’m not nearly as busy as the president. How will he know whether or not to carry an umbrella when he leaves the White House? If he’s stuck in a meeting during an important basketball game, how’s he going to know the score? What’s he going to do with himself if he’s stuck in the bathroom—or wants to be? (Even presidents need a little time out now and then.) It’s easier to sneak a cell phone into the can than a pile of newspapers.
Oh, sure—he can look out the window to check the weather. He’ll be surrounded by aids at all times who can tell him basketball scores. And if the president wants to have every bathroom in Washington stocked with new magazines, who’s going to begrudge him the right?
The problem is that personal computing has become so . . . well, personal. As anyone who owns a smart phone can attest, that little hand-held device quickly becomes an extension of your body and brain—essential for organization and communication. Hooking up to a personal computer almost instantly changes the way you do things in very fundamental ways. And it’s addictive to be able to scroll through the menu items, checking email, headlines, tasks, and appointment calendar—all with the touch of a finger. (I’m an amateur at this, but I’ve been known to do all four while stopped at a long red light.)
It can be persuasively argued that Barack Obama’s comfort and sophistication with the world of ubiquitous computing (or “UC,” as it’s called in the technology world) was a big factor in his successful campaign. Many of those who voted for him never saw an ad on television and followed the events of the campaign, as I did, on a hand-held device. What an irony that, as an individual, he may have to go back to the dark ages (circa 2002) and rely only on his organic brain and a paper planner during the time he’s in charge of the country!
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
The Dark Ages
As I write this, the Space Shuttle Endeavor is preparing to dock with the international space station. There astronauts, scientists, and engineers will perform new feats and experiments that will further advance human knowledge.
Every time science takes another leap forward like this, I’m reminded of Galileo, whose teachings about the solar system got him in trouble with the Catholic Church. Under house arrest for the last decade of his life, he was forbidden to communicate with the outside world lest he infect others with his revolutionary (and accurate) ideas. Even at that, due to the money and influence of his family, he fared a good deal better than his contemporary, Giordano Bruno, who was periodically tortured in prison during the last decade of his life, then burned at the stake for his failure to recant his heretical teachings—including that insidious notion that the earth revolves around the sun.
It’s a very good thing for Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and other Catholics in Congress that the church has gotten out of the habit of burning people at the stake. However, some Catholic bishops are pressuring priests to punish and publicly humiliate Catholic politicians by refusing them the sacrament of communion—not because of any actions they may have committed but because of their beliefs (or in some cases, because of assumptions said bishops have made regarding their beliefs).
This situation raises some interesting questions regarding science, sociology, and the role of religion in modern affairs.
The issues involved, of course, are abortion and related matters, such as the experimental use of embryonic stem cells. The position of the Catholic Church (and other churches, as well) is that abortion is an absolute evil and—by extension—that all believers should try to prevent and condemn these practices.
Here’s the irony: by virtue of its opposition to all types of birth control and comprehensive sex education, the Catholic Church probably does more to promote the practice of abortion than any other institution on earth—not to mention other evils, such as starvation and infant mortality in Third World countries.
Someone needs to tell the Pope, I guess, that just telling people not to have sex usually doesn’t work.
But back to the subject of abortion. As Barack Obama has said regarding his own position, nobody is in favor of abortion. To be “pro-choice” is not to be “pro-abortion.” It is simply to acknowledge two obvious facts: 1) that making abortion illegal doesn’t make it go away, and 2) that there is—and should be—a big difference between “illegal” and “immoral.”
I happen to believe that smoking—poisoning one’s own lungs and the air others breathe—is immoral. I don’t think the federal government should address the problem by making smoking illegal. This is a social problem that should be and has been addressed through education, raising public awareness, and providing support to people who are addicted to nicotine. As a result of these measures, the Center for Disease Control recently announced that the percentage of Americans who smoke has dropped below 20% for the first time.
Similarly, abortion is a complex social issue that needs to be addressed through scientific, social, and ethical discussions by educated people--not those who are hampered by simplistic, “either-or” thinking. Catholic clergy who subscribe to the notion that politicians who recognize the complexity of the issue should be “punished” by being denied communion are betraying both ignorance and arrogance—the same traits that inspired their predecessors during the Dark Ages to torture and kill those who disagreed with them.
Every time science takes another leap forward like this, I’m reminded of Galileo, whose teachings about the solar system got him in trouble with the Catholic Church. Under house arrest for the last decade of his life, he was forbidden to communicate with the outside world lest he infect others with his revolutionary (and accurate) ideas. Even at that, due to the money and influence of his family, he fared a good deal better than his contemporary, Giordano Bruno, who was periodically tortured in prison during the last decade of his life, then burned at the stake for his failure to recant his heretical teachings—including that insidious notion that the earth revolves around the sun.
It’s a very good thing for Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and other Catholics in Congress that the church has gotten out of the habit of burning people at the stake. However, some Catholic bishops are pressuring priests to punish and publicly humiliate Catholic politicians by refusing them the sacrament of communion—not because of any actions they may have committed but because of their beliefs (or in some cases, because of assumptions said bishops have made regarding their beliefs).
This situation raises some interesting questions regarding science, sociology, and the role of religion in modern affairs.
The issues involved, of course, are abortion and related matters, such as the experimental use of embryonic stem cells. The position of the Catholic Church (and other churches, as well) is that abortion is an absolute evil and—by extension—that all believers should try to prevent and condemn these practices.
Here’s the irony: by virtue of its opposition to all types of birth control and comprehensive sex education, the Catholic Church probably does more to promote the practice of abortion than any other institution on earth—not to mention other evils, such as starvation and infant mortality in Third World countries.
Someone needs to tell the Pope, I guess, that just telling people not to have sex usually doesn’t work.
But back to the subject of abortion. As Barack Obama has said regarding his own position, nobody is in favor of abortion. To be “pro-choice” is not to be “pro-abortion.” It is simply to acknowledge two obvious facts: 1) that making abortion illegal doesn’t make it go away, and 2) that there is—and should be—a big difference between “illegal” and “immoral.”
I happen to believe that smoking—poisoning one’s own lungs and the air others breathe—is immoral. I don’t think the federal government should address the problem by making smoking illegal. This is a social problem that should be and has been addressed through education, raising public awareness, and providing support to people who are addicted to nicotine. As a result of these measures, the Center for Disease Control recently announced that the percentage of Americans who smoke has dropped below 20% for the first time.
Similarly, abortion is a complex social issue that needs to be addressed through scientific, social, and ethical discussions by educated people--not those who are hampered by simplistic, “either-or” thinking. Catholic clergy who subscribe to the notion that politicians who recognize the complexity of the issue should be “punished” by being denied communion are betraying both ignorance and arrogance—the same traits that inspired their predecessors during the Dark Ages to torture and kill those who disagreed with them.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
"Conservative"
It’s the nature of language to evolve, but I sometimes mourn the transformation of good words that have wandered—even in my lifetime—far from the meanings they once had. Take the word “gay,” for example: once it meant “happy,” but now it can’t be used in that context without causing either consternation or confusion.
Another such word is “conservative.” When did it stop meaning either 1) “cautious” or 2) “inclined to preserve or conserve” something? This good word has been appropriated by some of the most radical, extremist elements in our society to describe attitudes and actions that are anything but “conservative” in the original sense of the word—groups from the KKK to the NRA to the “religious right.”
Somehow, instead of “conservative” Republicans and “conservative” Democrats—as well as moderate and liberal versions of both—we now seem to have only “conservative” Republicans and “liberal” Democrats. All these words—“conservative,” “liberal,” “Republican,” and “Democrat"—have become so laden with unwonted meanings and assumptions that I can no longer use any of them to describe myself. I now call myself “Independent”—which for many people seems to mean “uncommitted,” “wishy-washy,” or even “sneaky” and unwilling to disclose one’s true feelings. In today’s political climate—which has become so polarized and adversarial—you just can’t win.
Sometimes I’d like to call myself “conservative.” I believe in being cautious and try to think before I act. I recycle trash and believe in conserving resources. I try to conserve energy for dealing with the things that really matter. But I certainly wouldn’t want to be mistaken for anti-progressive, anti-intellectual, or fundamentalist in my beliefs. I can’t call myself “conservative” without being misunderstood, any more than—cheerful soul that I am—I can call myself “gay.”
In the aftermath of a rather contentious election cycle, I’d like to propose that those of us who like to discuss these things quit calling ourselves—or each other—anything at all. When it comes to complex matters such as politics and economics, labels tend only to oversimplify and obscure meaning. My hunch is that the solutions to our collective problems—nationally and internationally—will not be found among the most cherished beliefs of the so-called “conservatives,” the so-called “liberals,” or even the so-called “independents.” They will be found by those willing to listen to others, compromise when necessary, and practice what Carl Rogers called “unconditional positive regard.”
Another such word is “conservative.” When did it stop meaning either 1) “cautious” or 2) “inclined to preserve or conserve” something? This good word has been appropriated by some of the most radical, extremist elements in our society to describe attitudes and actions that are anything but “conservative” in the original sense of the word—groups from the KKK to the NRA to the “religious right.”
Somehow, instead of “conservative” Republicans and “conservative” Democrats—as well as moderate and liberal versions of both—we now seem to have only “conservative” Republicans and “liberal” Democrats. All these words—“conservative,” “liberal,” “Republican,” and “Democrat"—have become so laden with unwonted meanings and assumptions that I can no longer use any of them to describe myself. I now call myself “Independent”—which for many people seems to mean “uncommitted,” “wishy-washy,” or even “sneaky” and unwilling to disclose one’s true feelings. In today’s political climate—which has become so polarized and adversarial—you just can’t win.
Sometimes I’d like to call myself “conservative.” I believe in being cautious and try to think before I act. I recycle trash and believe in conserving resources. I try to conserve energy for dealing with the things that really matter. But I certainly wouldn’t want to be mistaken for anti-progressive, anti-intellectual, or fundamentalist in my beliefs. I can’t call myself “conservative” without being misunderstood, any more than—cheerful soul that I am—I can call myself “gay.”
In the aftermath of a rather contentious election cycle, I’d like to propose that those of us who like to discuss these things quit calling ourselves—or each other—anything at all. When it comes to complex matters such as politics and economics, labels tend only to oversimplify and obscure meaning. My hunch is that the solutions to our collective problems—nationally and internationally—will not be found among the most cherished beliefs of the so-called “conservatives,” the so-called “liberals,” or even the so-called “independents.” They will be found by those willing to listen to others, compromise when necessary, and practice what Carl Rogers called “unconditional positive regard.”
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Root of All Evil
I am opposed to the use of public funds for private education. –Jonathan Kozol
They say money is the root of all evil. In education, it’s lack of money that drives most of the serious problems and shocking inequities that really need to be corrected. With an educational funding system that is heavily based on local property taxes, schools in rich neighborhoods are rich and schools in poor neighborhoods are poor.
This is the reality in America today: Children from the suburbs can enjoy learning in clean, cheerful, well-equipped schools with plenty of books; experienced, well-paid teachers who have ample opportunities for professional development; and elective classes that help develop individual talents in the arts, academic clubs, or athletics. Many children in inner cities and rural areas go to school in unsafe buildings with inadequate numbers of outdated books; have little or no access to computers or other necessary equipment; spend their days in overcrowded classrooms staffed by underpaid, discouraged teachers; and enjoy no opportunities to participate in elective classes such as band, leadership, or PE.
How does this relate to the current national choice of political leaders? John McCain is in favor of extending this shameful system of educational apartheid; Barack Obama has good ideas for fixing it.
John McCain is in favor of school vouchers, charter schools, and home schooling. The fact is that all three of these initiatives—so popular among many who call themselves social conservatives—would only make matters worse.
A national system of school vouchers would channel public money for education not to the schools that need it but to parents who don’t. If a school is in trouble due to lack of money, a voucher system would simply allow families to take their support and their resources elsewhere. The poorer schools would continue to punish their children for being poor while those marginally more fortunate would become overcrowded. The sensible way to go about solving these problems is to provide adequate funding for all schools—and that’s something the current Republican leadership is reluctant to do.
Publicly funded charter schools are all too often another means of segregating the rich from the poor, allowing districts that have the resources to establish satellite schools that can be and often are selective and discriminatory in terms of which students are allowed to attend. Even the best charter schools tend to have a different philosophy from that which has always been the foundation of American education: educating the whole child. The curricula in many of these schools are narrowly focused on particular areas, such as science and engineering, performing arts, or business. It is certainly the prerogative of families to allow their children to “major” in particular subjects at the expense of others. However, just as with religious education, if parents choose to provide their children with alternative educational opportunities—those that differ from our agreed-upon public mandate for a broad, general education—then they should not receive public funds for doing so.
As an educator, I’ve known many home-schooled children. A few are fabulously successful—those who happen to have extremely well educated, highly motivated, and generally affluent parents who can provide their children with plenty of enriching experiences. Many others, however, arrive at adulthood handicapped by poor language, math, and social skills. Rather than encouraging parents to opt out of the public school system, we should fix the real problems in education that cause many parents to view all public schools as inherently inadequate.
Barack Obama’s focus in education would not be on making it cost-effective for privileged families to opt out but rather on helping all school districts meet the highest standards. His administration would focus on the two areas that research has shown to pay the biggest dividends in terms of student performance: early childhood education and reduced class sizes.
The biggest obstacle to improving American education in the past few decades has been a cultural problem that plagues every aspect of life in this country: a fundamentally oppositional, antagonistic taking of sides, which results in combat rather than collaboration.
This more than anything gives me hope that Barack Obama can help revitalize education: his ability to bring together people of many different persuasions in a spirit of respect and cooperation that focuses on solving problems, not defeating opponents. It’s the difference between seeking a win-win situation and a seeking a win-lose situation. In education, if anyone “loses,” it’s the children.
They say money is the root of all evil. In education, it’s lack of money that drives most of the serious problems and shocking inequities that really need to be corrected. With an educational funding system that is heavily based on local property taxes, schools in rich neighborhoods are rich and schools in poor neighborhoods are poor.
This is the reality in America today: Children from the suburbs can enjoy learning in clean, cheerful, well-equipped schools with plenty of books; experienced, well-paid teachers who have ample opportunities for professional development; and elective classes that help develop individual talents in the arts, academic clubs, or athletics. Many children in inner cities and rural areas go to school in unsafe buildings with inadequate numbers of outdated books; have little or no access to computers or other necessary equipment; spend their days in overcrowded classrooms staffed by underpaid, discouraged teachers; and enjoy no opportunities to participate in elective classes such as band, leadership, or PE.
How does this relate to the current national choice of political leaders? John McCain is in favor of extending this shameful system of educational apartheid; Barack Obama has good ideas for fixing it.
John McCain is in favor of school vouchers, charter schools, and home schooling. The fact is that all three of these initiatives—so popular among many who call themselves social conservatives—would only make matters worse.
A national system of school vouchers would channel public money for education not to the schools that need it but to parents who don’t. If a school is in trouble due to lack of money, a voucher system would simply allow families to take their support and their resources elsewhere. The poorer schools would continue to punish their children for being poor while those marginally more fortunate would become overcrowded. The sensible way to go about solving these problems is to provide adequate funding for all schools—and that’s something the current Republican leadership is reluctant to do.
Publicly funded charter schools are all too often another means of segregating the rich from the poor, allowing districts that have the resources to establish satellite schools that can be and often are selective and discriminatory in terms of which students are allowed to attend. Even the best charter schools tend to have a different philosophy from that which has always been the foundation of American education: educating the whole child. The curricula in many of these schools are narrowly focused on particular areas, such as science and engineering, performing arts, or business. It is certainly the prerogative of families to allow their children to “major” in particular subjects at the expense of others. However, just as with religious education, if parents choose to provide their children with alternative educational opportunities—those that differ from our agreed-upon public mandate for a broad, general education—then they should not receive public funds for doing so.
As an educator, I’ve known many home-schooled children. A few are fabulously successful—those who happen to have extremely well educated, highly motivated, and generally affluent parents who can provide their children with plenty of enriching experiences. Many others, however, arrive at adulthood handicapped by poor language, math, and social skills. Rather than encouraging parents to opt out of the public school system, we should fix the real problems in education that cause many parents to view all public schools as inherently inadequate.
Barack Obama’s focus in education would not be on making it cost-effective for privileged families to opt out but rather on helping all school districts meet the highest standards. His administration would focus on the two areas that research has shown to pay the biggest dividends in terms of student performance: early childhood education and reduced class sizes.
The biggest obstacle to improving American education in the past few decades has been a cultural problem that plagues every aspect of life in this country: a fundamentally oppositional, antagonistic taking of sides, which results in combat rather than collaboration.
This more than anything gives me hope that Barack Obama can help revitalize education: his ability to bring together people of many different persuasions in a spirit of respect and cooperation that focuses on solving problems, not defeating opponents. It’s the difference between seeking a win-win situation and a seeking a win-lose situation. In education, if anyone “loses,” it’s the children.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Showing Up
Eighty percent of success is just showing up. – Woody Allen
In the short time he’s had a central role on the national stage, it certainly seems like John McCain has developed a habit of not showing up—or trying not to.
First, he tried to cancel the first presidential debate with Barack Obama, citing the urgency of the national economic crisis. Then he cancelled on David Letterman at the last minute (much to his subsequent regret), only to be busted a few minutes later getting his makeup done in Katie Couric’s studio. Just yesterday, he cancelled two appearances in Pennsylvania due to weather (although Obama kept his promise to the 9,000 supporters who were willing to wait in the icy rain to hear him speak).
As polls indicated that his popularity was dropping last week, McCain announced that he doesn’t plan to show up at his own election watch party. What kind of a message does that send to the hundreds of people who (for reasons that are beyond me) have faithfully followed him, believed in him, and held out every hope for his success? Doesn’t he at least owe them the courtesy of being there?
Clearly, courtesy is not an attribute of John McCain, as evidenced by his habitual rudeness to his opponent during this campaign. One can only imagine what effect it could have on American diplomatic relations if, as president, he failed to show at a summit of world leaders (or referred to one of them, dismissively, as “that one!”).
America needs a president who behaves like an adult—who thinks with his mind, not his emotions. In the unrelenting spotlight of a national campaign, the “Maverick of the Senate” has shown himself to be impulsive, erratic, and ultimately untrustworthy.
In the short time he’s had a central role on the national stage, it certainly seems like John McCain has developed a habit of not showing up—or trying not to.
First, he tried to cancel the first presidential debate with Barack Obama, citing the urgency of the national economic crisis. Then he cancelled on David Letterman at the last minute (much to his subsequent regret), only to be busted a few minutes later getting his makeup done in Katie Couric’s studio. Just yesterday, he cancelled two appearances in Pennsylvania due to weather (although Obama kept his promise to the 9,000 supporters who were willing to wait in the icy rain to hear him speak).
As polls indicated that his popularity was dropping last week, McCain announced that he doesn’t plan to show up at his own election watch party. What kind of a message does that send to the hundreds of people who (for reasons that are beyond me) have faithfully followed him, believed in him, and held out every hope for his success? Doesn’t he at least owe them the courtesy of being there?
Clearly, courtesy is not an attribute of John McCain, as evidenced by his habitual rudeness to his opponent during this campaign. One can only imagine what effect it could have on American diplomatic relations if, as president, he failed to show at a summit of world leaders (or referred to one of them, dismissively, as “that one!”).
America needs a president who behaves like an adult—who thinks with his mind, not his emotions. In the unrelenting spotlight of a national campaign, the “Maverick of the Senate” has shown himself to be impulsive, erratic, and ultimately untrustworthy.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Negative Ads
This morning, General Colin Powell spoke eloquently for those of us who have had it with John McCain’s shameful, dishonest, and desperate attempts to discredit Barack Obama as a person.
To criticism about his blatant smear campaign, McCain has complained that he, too, has been the object of negative ads. But let’s face it: the term “negative” covers a lot of territory.
To suggest that Obama is un-American, unpatriotic, un-Christian, or untrustworthy is to appeal to the basest elements in American society. Deliberately using emotionally loaded terms like “terrorists,” “dangerous,” and “socialist” to evoke fear, hatred, and distrust—and to tolerate expressions of disdain and violence at Republican rallies—is dishonest and irresponsible.
By contrast, most of the Democrats’ “negative” ads have focused more on the issues than the opposing candidate. McCain has, in fact, voted with George Bush 90% of the time. McCain has never disputed that statement. He did, in fact, say (on “Black Monday,” no less) that the “fundamentals of the economy are strong.” And by pretty much any standard, his behavior in recent weeks can be described as “erratic”; he’s changed course many times on issues from how to address the economic meltdown to whether or not to attend a scheduled debate with Barack Obama—or, more famously, David Letterman.
The Democratic campaign is notable for the issues that haven’t been raised and the ads that haven’t been produced. Nothing’s been said, for example, about how the pregnancy of Sarah Palin’s daughter might reflect on the governor’s attitudes about sex education. Relatively little has been made of John McCain’s association with Charles Keating or G. Gordon Liddy. For the most part, the Democratic campaign has allowed unclear or contradictory arguments by McCain and Palin to be evaluated on their own merits (or lack thereof) by the public, while Obama focuses on finding real solutions to critical problems.
I’d like to think it won’t matter after the votes are counted—but it will. The world is watching. Clips are being broadcast in China and Saudi Arabia and Great Britain just as they are in California and New Jersey. The reputation of America—already so tarnished and so negative—is forming for the next phase of our international relations—which will require cooperation on issues from the world economy to containment of nuclear weapons. The next president will need support at home to bring about the cultural shifts necessary to salvage the economy, slow global climate change, improve education, and make health care available to everyone.
Given the negative impact his tactics have had on his campaign, there seems to be some hope that McCain will learn from his mistakes and stick to the issues from now on. Clearly, it’s time for him to start doing what he’s claimed to be doing all along—putting America first.
To criticism about his blatant smear campaign, McCain has complained that he, too, has been the object of negative ads. But let’s face it: the term “negative” covers a lot of territory.
To suggest that Obama is un-American, unpatriotic, un-Christian, or untrustworthy is to appeal to the basest elements in American society. Deliberately using emotionally loaded terms like “terrorists,” “dangerous,” and “socialist” to evoke fear, hatred, and distrust—and to tolerate expressions of disdain and violence at Republican rallies—is dishonest and irresponsible.
By contrast, most of the Democrats’ “negative” ads have focused more on the issues than the opposing candidate. McCain has, in fact, voted with George Bush 90% of the time. McCain has never disputed that statement. He did, in fact, say (on “Black Monday,” no less) that the “fundamentals of the economy are strong.” And by pretty much any standard, his behavior in recent weeks can be described as “erratic”; he’s changed course many times on issues from how to address the economic meltdown to whether or not to attend a scheduled debate with Barack Obama—or, more famously, David Letterman.
The Democratic campaign is notable for the issues that haven’t been raised and the ads that haven’t been produced. Nothing’s been said, for example, about how the pregnancy of Sarah Palin’s daughter might reflect on the governor’s attitudes about sex education. Relatively little has been made of John McCain’s association with Charles Keating or G. Gordon Liddy. For the most part, the Democratic campaign has allowed unclear or contradictory arguments by McCain and Palin to be evaluated on their own merits (or lack thereof) by the public, while Obama focuses on finding real solutions to critical problems.
I’d like to think it won’t matter after the votes are counted—but it will. The world is watching. Clips are being broadcast in China and Saudi Arabia and Great Britain just as they are in California and New Jersey. The reputation of America—already so tarnished and so negative—is forming for the next phase of our international relations—which will require cooperation on issues from the world economy to containment of nuclear weapons. The next president will need support at home to bring about the cultural shifts necessary to salvage the economy, slow global climate change, improve education, and make health care available to everyone.
Given the negative impact his tactics have had on his campaign, there seems to be some hope that McCain will learn from his mistakes and stick to the issues from now on. Clearly, it’s time for him to start doing what he’s claimed to be doing all along—putting America first.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The New Tickets
Based on the commentaries now circulating after last night's presidential debate, it seems that we have four Joe's running for office: Joe Cool, Joe Biden, Joe "Six-Pack" Palin, and Joe the Plummer.
From where I'm sitting, it looks like any one of them stands a better chance of being elected than John McCain.
From where I'm sitting, it looks like any one of them stands a better chance of being elected than John McCain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
