Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Problems with the Pop-Ups
Thanks for posting that article, Nolan. Gergen's comments are inexplicable, and I think they go to the weight his essay should be afforded.
Regarding Reagan, this may be what you're thinking of:
"Ronald Reagan himself was a committed Christian Zionist and his support for Israel had both strategic political and loosely articulated premillennial dispensationalist underpinnings. Reagan seemed to have a fascination with Israel's role at the end of history and often referred to it, both in private and on at least eight public occasions. One of the private instances was embarrassingly reported in the press and claimed that the President was engaged in a telephone conversation with Tom Dine, Executive Director of the Likud-oriented Israeli lobby AIPAC. Reagan said: "You know, I turn back to your ancient prophets in the Old Testament and the signs foretelling Armageddon, and I find myself wondering if - if we're the generation that is going to see that come about. I don't know if you've noted any of these prophecies lately, but believe me, they certainly describe the times we're going through." The remark was published in the Jerusalem Post and picked up across the country by papers subscribing to the Associated Press.(27) This stunning expression of Presidential intimacy with the chief lobbyist for a foreign government was "benignly" garbed in dispensational Christian images, but the political overtones could not be missed."
From this article.
Also, Dershowitz is going after the authors of that study with everything he's got:
In the New York Sun:
"What we're discovering first of all is that the quotes that they use are not only wrenched out of context, but they are the common quotes that appear on hate sites," Mr. Dershowitz, who is identified in the paper as part of the "lobby," told The New York Sun yesterday."
... and again in the Harvard Crimson:
"Dershowitz, who is one of Israel’s most prominent defenders, vehemently disputed the article’s assertions, repeatedly calling it “one-sided” and its authors “liars” and “bigots.”
Yih-hikes.
Regarding Reagan, this may be what you're thinking of:
"Ronald Reagan himself was a committed Christian Zionist and his support for Israel had both strategic political and loosely articulated premillennial dispensationalist underpinnings. Reagan seemed to have a fascination with Israel's role at the end of history and often referred to it, both in private and on at least eight public occasions. One of the private instances was embarrassingly reported in the press and claimed that the President was engaged in a telephone conversation with Tom Dine, Executive Director of the Likud-oriented Israeli lobby AIPAC. Reagan said: "You know, I turn back to your ancient prophets in the Old Testament and the signs foretelling Armageddon, and I find myself wondering if - if we're the generation that is going to see that come about. I don't know if you've noted any of these prophecies lately, but believe me, they certainly describe the times we're going through." The remark was published in the Jerusalem Post and picked up across the country by papers subscribing to the Associated Press.(27) This stunning expression of Presidential intimacy with the chief lobbyist for a foreign government was "benignly" garbed in dispensational Christian images, but the political overtones could not be missed."
From this article.
Also, Dershowitz is going after the authors of that study with everything he's got:
In the New York Sun:
"What we're discovering first of all is that the quotes that they use are not only wrenched out of context, but they are the common quotes that appear on hate sites," Mr. Dershowitz, who is identified in the paper as part of the "lobby," told The New York Sun yesterday."
... and again in the Harvard Crimson:
"Dershowitz, who is one of Israel’s most prominent defenders, vehemently disputed the article’s assertions, repeatedly calling it “one-sided” and its authors “liars” and “bigots.”
Yih-hikes.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
In a period of a couple of minutes last night, I heard Pavement's "Spit on a Stranger" on the CBS show "How I Met Your Mother" (don't ask why I was watching it in the first place) and Spoon's "I Turn My Camera On" on a Jaguar commercial. I'm guessing that this is part of the reason why Britt Daniel doesn't need a regular job.
Monday, March 27, 2006
It's funny that you posted that article because I just read a rebuttle of it in U.S. News by David Gergen. You can read the rebuttle online here.
The section of Gergen's article that I don't believe is when he says, "Over the course of four tours in the White House, I never once saw a decision in the Oval Office to tilt U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israel at the expense of America's interest. Other than Richard Nixon--who occasionally said terrible things about Jews, despite the number on his team--I can't remember any president even talking about an Israeli lobby." There are only two possibilities here. One, Gergen was left out of the loop. Or, two, he's not remembering correctly (or lying). Gergen was supposedly a close advisor to Reagan, and he's saying that Reagan never mentioned Israeli lobbies. This is ridiculous. I remember reading somewhere that Reagan believed in Armageddon, and he even mentioned this in his policy-making discussions with his advisors. How could he not mention Israeli lobbies?
The section of Gergen's article that I don't believe is when he says, "Over the course of four tours in the White House, I never once saw a decision in the Oval Office to tilt U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israel at the expense of America's interest. Other than Richard Nixon--who occasionally said terrible things about Jews, despite the number on his team--I can't remember any president even talking about an Israeli lobby." There are only two possibilities here. One, Gergen was left out of the loop. Or, two, he's not remembering correctly (or lying). Gergen was supposedly a close advisor to Reagan, and he's saying that Reagan never mentioned Israeli lobbies. This is ridiculous. I remember reading somewhere that Reagan believed in Armageddon, and he even mentioned this in his policy-making discussions with his advisors. How could he not mention Israeli lobbies?
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Wondering how the US found its way into Iraq? Do yourself a favor and read this article by two political science professors, one from Harvard and the other from the University of Chicago:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html (digest version)
Long version, here:
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf
I don't think this is the only reason we're in Iraq, but it's a biggie (if not THE biggie).
Kevin Phillips, on the other hand, thinks oil was the primary motivating factor. Anyone read his book ("American Theocracy")? I saw him interviewed on Russert -- sounds fascinating.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html (digest version)
Long version, here:
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf
I don't think this is the only reason we're in Iraq, but it's a biggie (if not THE biggie).
Kevin Phillips, on the other hand, thinks oil was the primary motivating factor. Anyone read his book ("American Theocracy")? I saw him interviewed on Russert -- sounds fascinating.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
I agree that a steroid user, or a stock broker who knowingly pushes a bad stock, does not escape criticism by virtue of the fact that their transgressions are committed at the direction of their superiors. I simply think that their culpability is much lower than it would be otherwise.
The question, then, is one that you addressed in your initial post is: What is actually wrong with taking steroids?
In your initial post you mention that it is illegal, and therefore wrong. I suppose there is some merit to that, although I hesitate to go down that road (i.e., just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral -- sodomy, marijuana use, etc).
There are the collateral effects of taking steroids. For instance, as many point out, many teenagers take 'roids to get scholarships to major conference schools, and they die doing so. But I am not convinced that there is a causal link -- can we really say with any certainty that teens are taking performance enhancing drugs because professional athletes are? I don't think so. I think they're taking them for the SAME REASON that professional athletes are: to get ahead. Therefore, even if professional athletes stop taking steroids, the incentive for teenagers (i.e., scholarships, winning conference, etc.) will still be there.
Then there is the cheating argument. That has some merit, although it does little for me. Because MLB and the players union all but sanctioned the use of steroids, was it really cheating?
I just can't get mad at Bonds about this.
Finally, I don't know what to say about the racism thing, but I do think that Bonds is routinely and unfairly targeted because he is a difficult superstar who doesn't give easy interviews. I give athletes like that (i.e., Albert Belle) a lot slack and take any news about them (especially bad news) with a grain of salt.
The question, then, is one that you addressed in your initial post is: What is actually wrong with taking steroids?
In your initial post you mention that it is illegal, and therefore wrong. I suppose there is some merit to that, although I hesitate to go down that road (i.e., just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral -- sodomy, marijuana use, etc).
There are the collateral effects of taking steroids. For instance, as many point out, many teenagers take 'roids to get scholarships to major conference schools, and they die doing so. But I am not convinced that there is a causal link -- can we really say with any certainty that teens are taking performance enhancing drugs because professional athletes are? I don't think so. I think they're taking them for the SAME REASON that professional athletes are: to get ahead. Therefore, even if professional athletes stop taking steroids, the incentive for teenagers (i.e., scholarships, winning conference, etc.) will still be there.
Then there is the cheating argument. That has some merit, although it does little for me. Because MLB and the players union all but sanctioned the use of steroids, was it really cheating?
I just can't get mad at Bonds about this.
Finally, I don't know what to say about the racism thing, but I do think that Bonds is routinely and unfairly targeted because he is a difficult superstar who doesn't give easy interviews. I give athletes like that (i.e., Albert Belle) a lot slack and take any news about them (especially bad news) with a grain of salt.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
I agree that racism might be playing a part in how Bonds has been treated compared to McGwire. But there are still a few things on which I would disagree with you guys.
I still don't buy the argument that because Bonds was basically given no road blocks to his steroid use (or even given incentives by many to do so), he deserves no public rebuking. Yes, all the stuff about everybody knowing is probably true, but I still don't think that makes it right. To make a similar analogy to the ones Joel made - Are the soldiers at Abu Ghraib 100% at fault for abusing the prisoners held there? No. The higher-ups are also at fault, and maybe even more at fault. But that doesn't mean the rank-and-file who did the deeds are not morally responsible for their actions.
I'm also not sure that race is the only factor. Like I said, I think it is a factor, but don't you think that Bonds's reputation and bad attitude is as much to blame? I mean, everybody knows that Sosa used steroids, but his jovial nice-guy reputation has protected him somewhat (yeah, Sosa isn't African-American, but I don't think most racists care much about the difference). Also, I don't think that McGwire has gotten off scott free. Yes, he hasn't faced the scrutiny of Bonds. But after his debacle during the Senate hearings, I think the opinion of most people has definitely changed for the worse. Do I wish all the players who used steroids would be discovered and then punished equally? Yes. However, we all know that isn't going to happen. So, maybe it's unfair that Bonds is the scapegoat, but he sure has done everything up to this point to make that seem not so bad.
I still don't buy the argument that because Bonds was basically given no road blocks to his steroid use (or even given incentives by many to do so), he deserves no public rebuking. Yes, all the stuff about everybody knowing is probably true, but I still don't think that makes it right. To make a similar analogy to the ones Joel made - Are the soldiers at Abu Ghraib 100% at fault for abusing the prisoners held there? No. The higher-ups are also at fault, and maybe even more at fault. But that doesn't mean the rank-and-file who did the deeds are not morally responsible for their actions.
I'm also not sure that race is the only factor. Like I said, I think it is a factor, but don't you think that Bonds's reputation and bad attitude is as much to blame? I mean, everybody knows that Sosa used steroids, but his jovial nice-guy reputation has protected him somewhat (yeah, Sosa isn't African-American, but I don't think most racists care much about the difference). Also, I don't think that McGwire has gotten off scott free. Yes, he hasn't faced the scrutiny of Bonds. But after his debacle during the Senate hearings, I think the opinion of most people has definitely changed for the worse. Do I wish all the players who used steroids would be discovered and then punished equally? Yes. However, we all know that isn't going to happen. So, maybe it's unfair that Bonds is the scapegoat, but he sure has done everything up to this point to make that seem not so bad.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
World Baseball Classic
Before I address your topic, Nolan, I just want to say that the WBC has been highly enjoyable. I've been praying for an event like this for years, and now that it's finally here, I can't get enough of it. I truly believe this event will be huge ... maybe in 2010, but definitely in 2014. Today's US v. Japan game was phenomenal -- it was great to see how much the Japanese team cares about beating the US.
Bonds
I'm a Bonds apologist. Partly because I think he gets a bad rap from the media (he's selfish and cranky, don't ya' know?), and partly because he's the best hitter of our generation.
But also because anyone who has watched Barry Bonds recently knows that he has to be injecting some wacky stuff into his ass. I don't hear anyone arguing that he built those monster pecs via traditional weight lifting.
Because this is all too obvious, Bonds should not be bearing the brunt of this negative press.
The Giants surely knew of Bonds' transgressions, yet they rewarded him with a monster contract.
The MLBPA must have been aware of Bonds' drug use, yet they consistently resisted the inclusion of any meaning drug testing in any of the recent collective bargaining agreements.
And, of course, the owners must have known, yet by all accounts they made no concerted effort to insist on drug testing until after they received significant pressure from the US Senate. That's understandable, given the owners' belief that home run totals directly correlate to attendance.
Aren't steroids bad for your body? Geez, it sure sounds like it.
Doesn't that send a horrible message to high school athletes? Absolutely.
Wasn't he breaking the law? Sounds like it.
So he shouldn't have taken steroids, right? I don't know ... other than his own health, which he clearly doesn't care about, Bonds had every other incentive to artificially embolden his body. His prodigious home run totals have resulted in enormous contracts, the steroids may have even prolonged his career, and everyone with the power to do something about it looked the other way. Willingly.
It is true that some of his actions may have been illegal, and if so, I suppose he'll pay the price (whatever that is). Until then, though, I don't see how Americans can continue to focus their anger over steroids towards Bonds when (1) countless other major-leagers are probably guilty (e.g., Mark McGuire), and (2) the powers that be -- the Giants, the MLBPA and MLB -- practically begged him to do it.
To me, it's like the employer that encourages his employees to falsify injury reports, or the investment bank that provides huge monetary incentives to its sales forces to push stocks they know are junk. Can you really blame the guys on the front lines? Well, yeah, to a certain extent, but they wouldn't do it if it wasn't in their best interest, which is, of course, the principle that our economy is built upon.
Of course, I'm a secular moral relativist, so take my opinion for what it's worth.
Before I address your topic, Nolan, I just want to say that the WBC has been highly enjoyable. I've been praying for an event like this for years, and now that it's finally here, I can't get enough of it. I truly believe this event will be huge ... maybe in 2010, but definitely in 2014. Today's US v. Japan game was phenomenal -- it was great to see how much the Japanese team cares about beating the US.
Bonds
I'm a Bonds apologist. Partly because I think he gets a bad rap from the media (he's selfish and cranky, don't ya' know?), and partly because he's the best hitter of our generation.
But also because anyone who has watched Barry Bonds recently knows that he has to be injecting some wacky stuff into his ass. I don't hear anyone arguing that he built those monster pecs via traditional weight lifting.
Because this is all too obvious, Bonds should not be bearing the brunt of this negative press.
The Giants surely knew of Bonds' transgressions, yet they rewarded him with a monster contract.
The MLBPA must have been aware of Bonds' drug use, yet they consistently resisted the inclusion of any meaning drug testing in any of the recent collective bargaining agreements.
And, of course, the owners must have known, yet by all accounts they made no concerted effort to insist on drug testing until after they received significant pressure from the US Senate. That's understandable, given the owners' belief that home run totals directly correlate to attendance.
Aren't steroids bad for your body? Geez, it sure sounds like it.
Doesn't that send a horrible message to high school athletes? Absolutely.
Wasn't he breaking the law? Sounds like it.
So he shouldn't have taken steroids, right? I don't know ... other than his own health, which he clearly doesn't care about, Bonds had every other incentive to artificially embolden his body. His prodigious home run totals have resulted in enormous contracts, the steroids may have even prolonged his career, and everyone with the power to do something about it looked the other way. Willingly.
It is true that some of his actions may have been illegal, and if so, I suppose he'll pay the price (whatever that is). Until then, though, I don't see how Americans can continue to focus their anger over steroids towards Bonds when (1) countless other major-leagers are probably guilty (e.g., Mark McGuire), and (2) the powers that be -- the Giants, the MLBPA and MLB -- practically begged him to do it.
To me, it's like the employer that encourages his employees to falsify injury reports, or the investment bank that provides huge monetary incentives to its sales forces to push stocks they know are junk. Can you really blame the guys on the front lines? Well, yeah, to a certain extent, but they wouldn't do it if it wasn't in their best interest, which is, of course, the principle that our economy is built upon.
Of course, I'm a secular moral relativist, so take my opinion for what it's worth.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Ever since the publicity started for the book on Barry Bonds's steroid use, I've been having some interesting conversations that have made me think twice about the situation. I'm not saying that I support Bonds using whatever he did, but doing questionable things to improve performance isn't new to sports. In fact, many MLB teams provided their players with amphetamines in the 1950s, and, although the direct link between the team and players was stopped in the 60s, players have continued to abuse speed up to the present. Tony Gwynn stated a few years ago that speed use in MLB was "rampant."
Where do we draw the line between performance enhancing and cheating? What is the difference between Bonds using anabolic steroids and the hundreds of NFL players who take multiple cortisone shots every Sunday to allow them to play the game? Cortisone, although not an anabolic steroid, is a corticosteroid (a naturally occuring steroid). And repeated use of cortisone can do a great deal of damage to the human body. I must say it's hard for me to say this since the only way Curt Schilling pitched in the 2004 playoffs was by taking cortisone steroid injections in his ankle. That is, unless you really believe that was ketchup in his sock.
There are other types of performance enhancing that nobody seems to be questioning either. It used to be just corked bats and scuffed balls. But what about the batting armor? What about these new contact lenses that Nike is putting out that allow batters to see the seams on the baseball faster? I know these don't really compare to directly shooting yourself up with steroids, but they are all new things that make old records easier to break.
On the other hand, when it comes down to what I actually believe, I don't know if any of those arguments matter to me. I love how Bonds's supporters say, "You know, I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about this. I mean, steroids weren't even banned in baseball until 2003." Well, yes, MLB didn't have a policy banning steroids until a few years ago. And maybe MLB didn't take it seriously because they knew people loved to watch Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa break records, and it brought fans back to the game.
It doesn't really matter if MLB had a policy or not though. Anabolic steroids were still illegal to use during the entire time Bonds reportedly used them (the Anabolic Steroid Control Acts of 1990 and 2004 are the two pieces of legislation making steroids a controlled substance). So, for me, people can go on and on about how MLB, Selig, and baseball fans are being hypocritical, but, in the end, Bonds (and any other player who used) was committing a crime.
Anyways, that's my two cents. What do you guys think?
Where do we draw the line between performance enhancing and cheating? What is the difference between Bonds using anabolic steroids and the hundreds of NFL players who take multiple cortisone shots every Sunday to allow them to play the game? Cortisone, although not an anabolic steroid, is a corticosteroid (a naturally occuring steroid). And repeated use of cortisone can do a great deal of damage to the human body. I must say it's hard for me to say this since the only way Curt Schilling pitched in the 2004 playoffs was by taking cortisone steroid injections in his ankle. That is, unless you really believe that was ketchup in his sock.
There are other types of performance enhancing that nobody seems to be questioning either. It used to be just corked bats and scuffed balls. But what about the batting armor? What about these new contact lenses that Nike is putting out that allow batters to see the seams on the baseball faster? I know these don't really compare to directly shooting yourself up with steroids, but they are all new things that make old records easier to break.
On the other hand, when it comes down to what I actually believe, I don't know if any of those arguments matter to me. I love how Bonds's supporters say, "You know, I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about this. I mean, steroids weren't even banned in baseball until 2003." Well, yes, MLB didn't have a policy banning steroids until a few years ago. And maybe MLB didn't take it seriously because they knew people loved to watch Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa break records, and it brought fans back to the game.
It doesn't really matter if MLB had a policy or not though. Anabolic steroids were still illegal to use during the entire time Bonds reportedly used them (the Anabolic Steroid Control Acts of 1990 and 2004 are the two pieces of legislation making steroids a controlled substance). So, for me, people can go on and on about how MLB, Selig, and baseball fans are being hypocritical, but, in the end, Bonds (and any other player who used) was committing a crime.
Anyways, that's my two cents. What do you guys think?
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
1. I'm guessing that most guests (at least those with half a brain who actually watched an episode or two before going on) know that they are there to be made fun of. However, you should read this article about Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. After reading the article, I'm not sure I believe it entirely though. I mean, how could his aides not have told him that he was on a comedy show? I'm sure someone told him at some point that he wasn't going to a heavy-hitting interview. If not, his aides should be fired. But, if the story is true, I don't get it. How can you not know what the Daily Show is at this point? Even if you don't watch it, the Daily Show has become a big part of our cultural and political landscape. I know plenty of people who don't even have cable television, but they all know that the Daily Show is a comedy program. It's almost like not knowing that Brokeback is about gay cowboys.
2. Hilarious. I wish I would have been there to witness that conversation. I can't say that I would've said anything differently, but it's funny nonetheless.
2. Hilarious. I wish I would have been there to witness that conversation. I can't say that I would've said anything differently, but it's funny nonetheless.
1. Are Daily Show interviewees privy to the fact that the show is a spoof, or are they part of the act?
2. I went to the Low show in Portland last night. I ran into a girl I went to high school with, which was very weird. And as I was talking to her, Britt Daniel walked right by me. I stopped him, and we had the following, rather embarrassing, totally regretable conversation:
ME (perplexed): Are you guys in town?
Britt: No.
ME (perplexed): What are you doing here?
Britt: I live here.
ME (perplexed): You live here, in Portland?
Britt: Yeah, for about six months.
ME (perplexed and star struck): What's with you guys, all the indie singers decided to move to Portland -- the Shins, Steve Malkmus, and now you? Why?
Britt: I'm writing new songs.
ME (idiot): Really? It's been less than a year since the last album. You are a total machine, man!
Britt (annoyed): I don't feel like a machine.
ME (finally sensing the awkwardness): Oh, okay. Well, hey, good luck in Portland.
Britt (walking away): Thanks.
Then, later, I was sitting at the bar and he came and sat down next to me (which was odd, because there were a number of other empty seats at the bar). Instead of learning my lesson (i.e., you never really have anything good to say to a musician), I engaged in the following quite embarrassing, totally regretable conversation:
ME: Do you make enough money not to have a second job?
Britt (smiles): Yeah.
ME: How long has that been the case?
Britt: About 3 years ... since Kill the Moonlight.
ME: Huh.
(Britt's very, very hot girlfriend walks over, ready to go ...)
ME: The John McIntire remix is totally cool.
Britt: Yeah, it is, huh.
(Awkward pause)
Britt: Yep, he's a cool guy.
ME: Ok, well good luck in Portland.
Britt: Yeah, thanks.
2. I went to the Low show in Portland last night. I ran into a girl I went to high school with, which was very weird. And as I was talking to her, Britt Daniel walked right by me. I stopped him, and we had the following, rather embarrassing, totally regretable conversation:
ME (perplexed): Are you guys in town?
Britt: No.
ME (perplexed): What are you doing here?
Britt: I live here.
ME (perplexed): You live here, in Portland?
Britt: Yeah, for about six months.
ME (perplexed and star struck): What's with you guys, all the indie singers decided to move to Portland -- the Shins, Steve Malkmus, and now you? Why?
Britt: I'm writing new songs.
ME (idiot): Really? It's been less than a year since the last album. You are a total machine, man!
Britt (annoyed): I don't feel like a machine.
ME (finally sensing the awkwardness): Oh, okay. Well, hey, good luck in Portland.
Britt (walking away): Thanks.
Then, later, I was sitting at the bar and he came and sat down next to me (which was odd, because there were a number of other empty seats at the bar). Instead of learning my lesson (i.e., you never really have anything good to say to a musician), I engaged in the following quite embarrassing, totally regretable conversation:
ME: Do you make enough money not to have a second job?
Britt (smiles): Yeah.
ME: How long has that been the case?
Britt: About 3 years ... since Kill the Moonlight.
ME: Huh.
(Britt's very, very hot girlfriend walks over, ready to go ...)
ME: The John McIntire remix is totally cool.
Britt: Yeah, it is, huh.
(Awkward pause)
Britt: Yep, he's a cool guy.
ME: Ok, well good luck in Portland.
Britt: Yeah, thanks.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
All of you should watch the Daily Show this week - Tuesday is the listed date, but it could be any day this week according to the local paper. There is going to be a story about the town I grew up in (and, as of the moment, live in) - Shakopee. Apparently, there is a controversy about whether a fence should be built around the women's prison here. It's the only prison in the entire country with a maximum security wing that doesn't have a fence around it. There's a pretty good article about it on the MPR website here. The Daily Show found out about it because there was an article about the fence in the New York Times in December. The mayor of Shakopee, who is against the fence, is going to be the one being interviewed (hopefully by Ed Helms or Rob Corddry).
By the way, the prison is only about a half mile from my mom's house.
By the way, the prison is only about a half mile from my mom's house.
