Notes and Comment Blog

Our short and pithy observations on the passing scene as it relates to the mission of Butterflies and Wheels. Woolly-headed or razor-sharp comments in the media, anti-rationalist rhetoric in books or magazines or overheard on the bus, it’s all grist to our mill. And sometimes we will hold forth on the basis of no inspiration at all beyond what happens to occur to us.


Atheists v Hasids

Mar 7th, 2012 6:54 am | By

American Atheists were going to give the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn a very nice atheist billboard. Dave Silverman says they get emails from atheists there who feel very alone; AA wanted to let them know they’re not alone.

 

Silverman was at the site with the advertising company to erect the giant sign atop a residential building.

But landlord Kenny Stier refused to allow workers from the advertising company Clear Channel into the building, said Silverman. He told The Brooklyn Paper that he believes powerful rabbis in the largely ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jewish area persuaded Stier to block the billboard.

“It has been very disconcerting to see that the traditional victims of religious bigotry have become the purveyors of religious bigotry,” said Silverman, who was raised in the Jewish faith.

I’ve been reading Deborah Feldman’s Unorthodox; lots of religious bigotry there. Jesse Kornbluth reports that the Satmars (the branch of Hasid-ism [is that a word?] that Feldman was raised in, and left, and wrote a book about) have been needling him for writing a favorable review of the book. He also says they’ve been straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

What’s fascinating to me in all this is that the Satmars only want to engage on the smallest points:, like where Feldman went to school and the technicalities of her mother’s divorce, I’ve received not a word of protest about the conclusion of my review, which was, I thought, the most damning:

The real issue is sex. Not the act, but what it signifies — male control of women. That old story. We see it in far too many places; dehumanizing women is a key component of fundamentalist cults, from hardcore Muslims to certain Republicans.

Men who oppress women — they say they love them, but it seems more like they fear and hate them — haven’t been taught that sex is our reward for making it through the day. Like their women, these men have been sold the idea that sex is just for procreation. No wonder they feel like they’re the ones who are oppressed.

There are claims in this book that Hasids have disputed. I can’t tell what’s true. But I’m sure of one thing: Men who can’t live equally with women aren’t worth living with.

Why didn’t the Satmars take me on about the blatant sexism that oppresses both women and men in their community?

Because what could they say?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Man boobz v Reddit

Mar 6th, 2012 2:55 pm | By

David Futrelle has an information-loaded post on MRAs on Reddit explaining that and why “cunt” is not a sexist word via an equally compelling explanation that and why Rebecca Watson is -

you know the rest.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



A deep practice of interiority

Mar 6th, 2012 2:25 pm | By

A fella called Rev James Willems (is Rev his first name do you suppose? did he perhaps change his name to Rev in order to trick people into thinking he’s a Reverend? or is he actually a Reverend? I do not know the answers to these questions) commented on Be Scofield’s profundity about god’s love for transgender people. His comment is a classic of its kind.

“God” is not an assertion, but, rather, is an experience. I have no problem with people rejecting institutional religion. I have profound problems with people who have not lived a deep practice of interiority reducing spiritual experience to religion.  When one begins to prescribes what is acceptable behavior for another person, that person should have the self respect to pay attention to what the “Other” is saying about one’s own experience.

See? Classic. Jargon mixed with sanctimony.

But it’s irrelevant to what Scofield is trying to say. It’s got nothing to do with “anyone who seeks to redefine God or say that God loves transgender people.” An experience doesn’t love people. A person or other conscious agent loves people. An experience is not a person or another kind of conscious agent. Rev says god is an experience, so Rev is saying god is a kind of thing that can’t love (or hate or any other emotion) people. But Rev’s point is clearly that teh atheists are rong and Scofield is right.

It is my claim from years of working with others in meditation that anyone who spends serious time in meditation will have an experience of transcendence. There is nothing irrational or unreasonable about such an experience. It is simply transcendent. I agree that communicative praxis reflects one’s cultural situs and its resultant conditioning. Yes, cultural bias requires a significant critique. Such a critique will never demolish or destabilize a living experience of transcendence. One’s radical commitment to identity (LGBTQ or other) is not endangered by transcendence. It is strengthened and affirmed.

Ooooh communicative praxis reflects one’s cultural situs – that’s a good one. What Rev says is still beside the point though.

Mind you, Scofield probably wouldn’t say it is. He would probably say it isn’t. But at the same time he wants to claim that god loves transgender people. He wants it all – a god who loves us, a god who is an experience of transcendence, a god who is both of those very different things at once – he wants it all, and he will get it via the alchemy of language, or rather, jargon. That and a lawless way with our friend the comma.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



A fatwa crashed down on de Botton’s head

Mar 6th, 2012 10:13 am | By

More atheist-bashing, this time from Bryan Appleyard at the New Statesman.

Two atheists – John Gray and Alain de Botton – and two agnostics – Nassim Nicholas Taleb and I – meet for dinner at a Greek restaurant in Bayswater, London. The talk is genial, friendly and then, suddenly, intense when neo-atheism comes up. Three of us, including both atheists, have suffered abuse at the hands of this cult. Only Taleb seems to have escaped unscathed and this, we conclude, must be because he can do maths and people are afraid of maths.

Abuse? What kind of “abuse”? How are we defining “abuse”? How are we defining “cult”? What, exactly, are we talking about? Who is abusing whom?

De Botton is the most recent and, consequently, the most shocked victim. He has just produced a book, Religion for Atheists: a Non-Believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion, mildly suggesting that atheists like himself have much to learn from religion and that, in fact, religion is too important to be left to believers. He has also proposed an atheists’ temple, a place where non-believers can partake of the consolations of silence and meditation.

This has been enough to bring the full force of a neo-atheist fatwa crashing down on his head.

Really? How are we defining “full force”? How are we defining “fatwa”? Not, I trust, as the order given by the clerical ruler of a large state offering a reward for the murder of a foreign novelist.

It turns out we’re defining it as PZ Myers talking about de Botton’s book as an object of nausea. That’s the full force of a neo-atheist fatwa crashing down on his head.

So, as I said, who is abusing whom? You could say that it’s abusive to characterize the words of a member of the despised group “atheists” as a fatwa crashing on someone’s head. You could say that’s just whipping up more of the same old hatred of atheists that already inspires a good deal of real “abuse.”

At the end he says something inadvertently funny.

Happily, the backlash against neo-atheism has begun, inspired by the cult’s own intolerance.

Begun? It’s been in high gear since almost the moment Sam Harris’s book hit the shelves. And as for what inspired it – does Appleyard really think it has nothing at all to do with believers’ sense of outraged privilege? Not to mention the non-religious or only semi-religious defenders of religion who think it’s their duty to defend the less articulate believers from the scary monster atheists?

Honestly; you go away for five days and come home to a pile of fresh atheist-bashing. Never a moment to catch your breath.

 

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Human rights and _____ rights

Mar 6th, 2012 9:41 am | By

Ron Lindsay did a post on the Women in Secularism conference last week, reminding anyone who needed reminding that it’s not just for women.

I doubt any of the speakers want a passive audience. They want an audience that will listen attentively, but who will also engage them with questions and challenges. Moreover, there will be ample opportunity for discussion not only with the speakers but also with one’s fellow attendees. This conference will be a great learning experience—for both men and women.

I do! I want a passive audience! I want people who will just sit there and nod agreement the whole time.

Just kidding.

Ben Radford (in a comment) expanded on the idea that women’s rights aren’t just for women.

What, exactly, are “women’s concerns”? I’ve never understood that. Usually people offer examples like child care, the right to an abortion, the right to equal pay, domestic violence, rape, and those sort of issues as “women’s concerns,” which I think is unfortunate and misguided. These are HUMAN concerns, and equally important to men; the characterization of these as “women’s concerns,” it seems to me, only serves to marginalize these important issues. It’s like saying that gay marriage is a “gay issue,” when it’s really a human rights issue. I can understand why people use the phrase as shorthand for a diverse group of social issues, but it always strikes me as somewhat sexist…

That’s a mix of categories. I think child care should decidedly not be a “women’s concern,” on the grounds that children have fathers as well as mothers. I think treating child care as a “women’s concern” just plays into the social custom by which mothers have all or nearly all the responsibility for child care, and that concern for women’s rights requires constant reminder that the responsibility can and should be shared.

But all the other items are specific to women. (Cue MRAs crying that men are raped too and the victims of domestic violence too.) In that sense it’s reasonable to call them women’s concerns, and it doesn’t imply that they’re women’s concerns to the exclusion of being human concerns and men’s concerns. But the rape of a woman, for instance, happens first of all to the woman who is raped. I don’t think it’s sexist to be clear about that.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



People who know what god likes

Mar 6th, 2012 8:09 am | By

I have a squillion things to do before I leave again tomorrow (like preparing my talk, for instance…), including offering some more detail on the conference, but I can’t ignore a new bit of point-missing and god-frotting from Be Scofield.

It’s about how Natalie Reed says god doesn’t love transgender people and Be responds (by saying yes they do too so, of course).

Natalie Reed, an atheist who is transgender has a new article called “God Does Not Love Trans People” over at Free Thought Blogs.

I have to interrupt for just a second. I do wish people would learn to use that comma properly. I keep seeing this mistake, and it’s very irritating. If you interrupt yourself to explain something, you then have to un-interrupt yourself before you continue. If you have an opening comma to introduce your explanation of who Natalie Reed is, you have to have a closing comma at the end of your explanation. You have to. It’s not optional. If you omit it, the rest of the sentence becomes a dog’s breakfast. There should be a comma after “who is transgender.”

Natalie Reed, an atheist who is transgender has a new article called “God Does Not Love Trans People” over at Free Thought Blogs. It’s a very long post and raises numerous issues, many of which I simply can’t address for the sake of brevity.

Oh darn, I have to interrupt again. It’s a very long post? What does he think his post is, short? For the sake of what brevity? And as for “simply can’t address” – who asked him in the first place? Basic rule of blogging: be careful not to sound as if you think you’re official in some way, or answering some urgent need.

I do beg your pardon; I’ll try not to interrupt again.

However, I do want to spend some time on her main assertion: transgender people should not believe in God or participate in religion because these are both harmful and dangerous  and they enable the transphobic oppressive religious institutions. She states, “I honestly believe that religious faith is inherently dangerous and harmful.” For anyone who seeks to redefine God or say that God loves transgender people you are guilty of strengthening and bolstering a harmful and dangerous institution.

There, I made it to the end of the part I wanted to disagree with.

What does he mean about seeking to redefine God? On what basis does he or anyone say that God loves transgender people? How does Be Scofield (or anyone) know that “God” loves transgender people or that “God” hates them? How does anyone know anything about what “God” thinks of transgender people or any other people?

The short answer is that he doesn’t, and neither does anyone.

Given that, what is the point of “redefining” god? What is the point of paying any attention to god at all? Given that no one knows anything about it at all – why argue about its loves or hatreds?

To give more glamor and heft to their views, that’s why. But nasty people who want to persecute transgender people (and/or infidels, women, apostates, scientists, liberals, foreigners, you name it) also use god to give more glamor and heft to their views. It’s a bad idea. It’s risky, at best. Don’t do it.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



My opinion of LA International Airport

Mar 5th, 2012 6:44 pm | By

LAX SUCKS.

LAX is a fucking pit.

They don’t make information about flights and gates readily available and clearly understandable, they don’t have helpful people readily available, the terminal is dirty and smelly, the facilities suck, the Wifi sucks, all the people who work at LAX suck – everything about it sucks.

The indicator board for flights and gates was far away from the arrival gate. When I found it it said the gate for my flight was “T3″ – which doesn’t even sound like a gate, and there was no indication where it was. The airport cop I spotted didn’t know. All the lines were too long to hang around waiting to ask. (Further annoying details omitted for brevity.) Someone who seemed to know told me T3 is Terminal 3 (then why have it under “gate” on the board?) and to go to gate 44 and go down the escalator and take a shuttle bus – but when I got there there was no mention of T3 or Terminal 3 on the signs so I went back up, and after much struggle and repeatedly nearly falling over people’s fucking wheely bags when the people were struck by a thought and abruptly stopped moving along with their wheely bags, I found someone else to ask and he said yes, take the shuttle bus at gate 44, ask the people there – so I went back and the person there told me I had just missed the bus for T3 and it would be 20 minutes.

After 20 minutes of listening to her scream at everyone who came along (further annoying details omitted for brevity), I was enabled to leave that portion of hell in order to step into another, to wit, the shuttle bus, which drove all over the airport, crossing runways and taxiways with gay abandon, past myriad signs chirpily suggesting “watch for aircraft.” We arrived at the back of a vile warehouse or garage sort of place and sat still for several minutes breathing the refreshing jet fumes while the driver sat motionless and silent – then she opened the door and said we’d arrived, pointing at some stairs and saying the terminal was at the top. So we climbed about 3 stories worth of dirty metal stairs with our baggage. One rather large woman stopped after about ten steps, looking warm.

This sounds like a joke or parody but it fucking isn’t. I’m not kidding. The bus comes only once in 20 minutes; it traverses the whole airport in among the moving airplanes; passengers are dumped out and told to climb 3 flights of nasty stairs with their luggage; no one offers to help or says “sorry for the inconvenience” or “thank you for taking the shuttle bus with us today” or “was that a vision of hell or what” or “have you ever been in a worse piece of shit airport in your life?”

This is apparently something to do with the fact that Alaska has taken over some of American’s business. I surmise that the arrangement is recent and they haven’t quite figured out how to make it go smoothly yet. I could give them some advice.

[I'm writing this on the plane now. I wrote the first part in the inferno where I waited for the flight to Seattle, and I'm continuing it on the inferno that is the plane.]

I could give them some advice. They could put big signs up at the arrival gates telling hapless passengers that their connecting flights may be with Alaska AND THAT THEY HAVE TO GO TO A WHOLE NEW TERMINAL AND THAT IT’S A FUCKING NIGHTMARE. They could also give the essential details of how to begin the life-cheapening process. They could hire someone for The Shuttle Bus Waiting Room From Hell who wouldn’t see her job as screaming at everyone who makes the mistake of turning up. They could hire someone to drive the bus who would act like a human being. THEY COULD APOLOGIZE ABJECTLY FOR THE STAIRS and explain what they are planning to do about them. They could warn people about having to carry their luggage up – honestly, it was ok for me, though I made a great show of struggling up because I was so furious, but it was not ok for the large woman – it was not ok physically and it was totally humiliating. Jesus. I’m getting pissed off all over again. I think someone did go down to help her, but not before standing at the top of the stairs gazing down on us. Yes really: they did. Two employees of that (this) stinking airline – the one that used to hand out prayers, you know – stood at the top of those 30 or 40 stairs watching us climb. When I got to the top they were just getting around to deciding that one of them should do something about the large woman, at least I think they were – who knows, maybe they were just pointing out that she seemed to be finding it all somewhat tiring.

They could do all this, and they could apologize often and in detail for the whole thing. That would be a start. They haven’t done any of it. I would like to line them all up and kick them on the shins.

Now, to continue the joke, I’m on the flight from hell to boot. I’m in the very last row, row 30. I couldn’t get a window seat (even though that’s what I asked for a month or two ago – I’ve got to learn that when other people book a flight for me they ignore my window seats request), so I’m in the aisle. We are having the worst turbulence evarrr - so I can’t get up and stroll around, but other people feel that they can, and they keep pitching into me on their way to the toilet which is about 6 inches from my left elbow. There are eleventy seven children and babies. There are two children in the row in front of me – being “good” but making steady, relentless, busy noise. In front of them is a baby who roared and screamed for the first hour. I think it’s now dead.

I mean, could it be any worse? I suppose there could be a talkative missionary next to me who also smelled bad, but short of that…what’s missing? Ah the toilet just flushed. What fun this is.

Oh hooray! The two children and their mummy are now treating their seats as a trampoline – the mummy just leaped out of her aisle seat and slammed herself down in the window seat, shaking all three seat-backs and nearly catapulting the remains of my orange juice onto this blameless little notebook. The guy next to me has his elbow resting comfortably on my arm, despite the fact that I am holding it well over on my side of the armrest. The flight attendants, a few inches behind my head, are partying away as colleagues should – I can hardly hear myself think. Whee – bumpity bumpity! More turbulence.

Ah well. It’s so awful it’s funny, at least it is once I start turning it into a blog post.

The baby is alive. It’s roaring again.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Please remove your belt

Mar 5th, 2012 4:54 am | By

Back at airport. There’s a non-stop to Seattle boarding right now, but it’s not mine…alas.

I take it you’re bored with conference chat. I’ll revert to normal posting for a couple of days – then I’m off to Manchester.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



The conference is over

Mar 4th, 2012 10:35 am | By

I did my talk this morning, on the panel with PZ, Liz Cornwell, Bill Cooke, Vic Stenger, and Anthony Pinn.

I scored a very excellent souvenir! I noticed a name tag on the speakers’ table in front of me, about where Pat Schroeder was sitting yesterday, so I picked it up all casual-like before anyone could snatch it out of my hands, and covertly turned it over, and sure enough…

I totally have Pat Schroeder’s name tag!

The conference next year is in Seattle, and Tom just invited me. I’m holding him to it.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Still here

Mar 4th, 2012 4:06 am | By

Awards banquet last night. Stephen Law got one, Jessica Ahlquist got one, Dan Dennett got one.

Everybody stands up when Jessica takes the podium. We can’t help it. I usually don’t like it when people leap to their feet, but I don’t object this time. I bet Jessica finds it cringe-making, but it can’t be helped.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Another quick update

Mar 3rd, 2012 3:48 pm | By

I have 8 minutes on this computer and anyway it’s time for the banquet…

But it was a fun day. Outreach talk this morning – Jessica rocked the house.  A talk-lunch, lunch, at which I talked to Dave Silverman, and Ellenbeth - she and I share an online stalker. Seriously. Russell Blackford on secularism. Pat Schroeder!!! this afternoon. She too rocked the house.

Gotta go.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



News from Orlando

Mar 3rd, 2012 4:44 am | By

So I saw Dennett arriving and then I went on into the bar area and plugged in my notebook and posted that I’d just seen Dennett. That took fifteen minutes or so – it’s not my notebook after all, it’s the horrible connection, everyone says it’s horrible. Well that plus reading up on the latest exploits of the Harvard Humanists took about 15 minutes. Then I packed up and was about to go wander around a little to see if PZ had arrived when PZ turned up in front of me, having just arrived. We went over to the bar and joined Tom Flynn and Dennett and Liz Cornwell and Debbie Goddard to schmooze.

Lots of good talks yesterday. Ellenbeth Wachs on nightmare stuff in Polk County and the way they tried to shut her up. Dave Silverman on the importance of not losing law suits. Rita Swan on getting rid of religious exemptions to laws mandating medical care for children. Lionel Tiger on women ruining everything. Stephen Law on the evil god. Harry Kroto on lots of things – education, science, Murdoch – he’s terrific.

More later.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Seen

Mar 2nd, 2012 7:14 pm | By

I was just walking through the lobby and there was Daniel Dennett arriving. No one else around, just Dennett.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



People

Mar 2nd, 2012 4:24 am | By

Reception thingy last night. I met Melody Hensley and Simon Davis, and Lauren Becker, and Ron Lindsay, and Jessica Ahlquist, and Russell Blackford and Jenny Blackford, and Stephen Law, and then after we’d been turfed out of the ballroom or whatever it is, Paul Fidalgo arrived after a delayed flight. All fun. Also Tom Flynn and Debbie Goddard, but I didn’t meet them, because I already had.

It’s slow work, typing on a tiny keyboard – I keep making typos because the keys are in unfamiliar places.

I will continue to be quite brief and boring for a few days. But I promise I’m being fascinating in real life!

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Items

Mar 1st, 2012 3:21 pm | By

So this little notebook laptop I got for emergencies and travel turns out to be deathly afraid of the internet; it either freezes in panic or faints dead away whenever I ask it to do anything. Therefore I have to proceed with caution, so posting will be mostly link-free for a few days.

I see where Rush Limbaugh called a college student who testified to Congress about the need for insurance to cover contraception a “slut” and a “prostitute.” I think it’s bad that he did that.

I don’t think much of Hemant Mehta’s post yesterday on how Chris Stedman is just misunderstood, but Rieux (in comments there) and Crommunist (on a post at his place) have said good things about that.

The sun will soon be setting here in Florida.

Orlando is very flat. The view from here is of flatness all around with a few tallish buildings visible on the edge of the frame, spaced widely apart (like, two due north, one northwest, none due west, etc – it looks quite random). It’s interesting. I’m not accustomed to flat. Where I live is very lumpy.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Window seat geekery

Mar 1st, 2012 9:00 am | By

Ok that’s a little better. The bar emptied out some so I have an armchair pulled up to a table, and there’s less noise of chatter.

The trip itself was interesting, I must say. I’ve never flown Seattle to Houston before, and it’s all mountains for a long long time. Very cool.

Also very puzzling in spots – weirdly geometrical in appearance in what appears to be mountainous wilderness – straight lines where straight lines make no sense. They don’t seem to be roads, because of the wilderness thing.

One item in particular has me absolutely stumped, and kind of fascinated – a set of rectangles abutting each other, like squares on a quilt. About six. Like farms, in farm country, but not in farm country and WAY too big to be farms – and above all, what separated them from each other was snow/no snow. Now I ask you – even if they were huge ranches of a rectangular form – how could one ranch be bare of snow while adjacent ones are not?!

Very weird. I’ll probably never know what they are.

Then in Texas (I think) – lots and lots of circles. Anybody know what those are? They look agricultural, but the sizes vary a lot, and anyway why circles? They’re certainly not in wilderness though, so they’re not mystifying the way the quilt is.

I saw some fantastic meanders (in rivers, you know) – twist twist twist – like a hairpin road. Also some thrillingly BIG rivers.

I’m a huge window geek.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Location location

Mar 1st, 2012 7:01 am | By

Now I’m at a different airport, the one in Orlando. Unfortunately my room is on the wrong side to get the airport Wifi, so I’m sitting in an armchair in the lobby when I would much prefer to be sitting at the desk in my room. Ho hum.

Anyway I’m here. I’ve seen Tom Flynn and said hello, and he says Stephen Law is around somewhere, and that’s all I know so far.

I want to join in the quarrel with Hemant Mehta, but I have to catch up with it first.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



This is the place where I am at the moment

Feb 29th, 2012 10:16 am | By

So here I am at the airport. I got nothin to say except that I’m at the airport.

I’m at SeaTac’s fancy sitting-area place, which faces a giant window – from the table where I am it’s acres of grey sky with a little scrim of airplanes and runways at the bottom. Quite nice.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



The disease of education

Feb 29th, 2012 7:08 am | By

Lawrence Krauss says a necessary thing. He starts from a campaign argle-bargle by Rick Santorum saying that higher education is bad because it kills faith.

Mr. Santorum views this apparent facet of higher education as a danger, and his proposed solution is simple-less higher education and more faith.

As a faculty member at an institution of higher education, and as a scientist, however, I question the basic premise that loss of faith is a bad thing. If it is true that those who are more educated have a greater tendency to question their religious faith, shouldn’t we consider that this might be telling us more about religious faith than about how harmful getting a college degree can be?

Yes, we should. (more…)

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Whereabouts

Feb 29th, 2012 6:19 am | By

I’m off to Orlando in a couple of hours, to help with (or get in the way of, as the case may be) Moving Secularism Forward. I may do a pointless post from the airport, saying I am now at the airport.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)