Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Toolboxnj

Patron
  • Posts

    309
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Toolboxnj

  1. Typically I "daydream" in the sense there are about three or four common stories that I've thought about for the last five or six years. Thinking about "work" or school or anything else in my life at that moment never puts me to sleep. Also I've been working on a sleep schedule where I fall asleep and wake at the same time. That helps too. Usually I can fall asleep within a couple minutes and I simply "start" the same story the next night.
  2. While I agree with the original post to an extent, it's important we do not ignore the machine that allowed a man like Cunningham (as honored a hero in Vietnam as he was) to become as corrupt as he did. In my recollection Cunningham was the chairman of an important defense appropriations committee and he steered dollars and contacts to personal donors. His crimes were the product of a broken system where corruption is rampant - a system where people like Cunningham have too much power when it comes to OPM. Now with the sentencing question. I had a family member that was involved in a DWI hit and run where he permanently disabiled another man for life. He blew a .18 BAC with the police and was very much guilty of the crime in question. But the family ponied up the money for the lawyer and eventually the 2nd degree assault w/ deadly weapon was dropped to a misdemeanor; instead of five-eight years in prison he got five years probation with a slap on the wrist (some fines and alcohol treatment). He then made a deal with the community service officer to redo his kitchen for him at little cost and the officer wrote off 180 hours of service in exchange. The family member hasn't learned his lesson; he still drinks even after a court order restricts him from drinking while on probation. Again, let's examine why this happens: - Our courts are clogged with nonsense criminal cases and civil suits (i.e. "victimless crimes") - Defense lawyers work hand-in-hand with prosecutors to get cases disposed of as quickly as possible without court time (plea bargaining) Our court system, then, gives an advantage toward guilty parties because all they have to do is admit their guilt and they recieve a lighter sentence then they would otherwise receive. The not-guilty in the system get the short end of the deal since plea bargaining is the natural, mechanic legal motion; a costly and prolonged trial is more costly than admitting to guilt even when one isn't guilty. Therefore the not-guilty poor are at a severe disadvantage... and I'm no Marxist (far from it). Our justice system is anything but "just". There needs to be a major overhawl of executive power, a more objective law and a greater funded judicial system. Until then we will continue to have issues such as this.
  3. Personally, the most rational group of folks I've associated with have been in the Jewish community including Reform, Conservative and Orthodox Jews. Jews seem to be predisposed to a love of knowledge, ideas and this world - their tribe has been in existence for 5000 years for some reason The best conversations about philosophy, meta-ethics and politics I have are with an Orthodox Jewish friend of mine that I see about once a month. We seem to be in agreement on many points although of course not everything. He's even come to a couple O'ist events in the area. Kinda wish I was born into a Jewish family myself instead of the Catholic cult
  4. Brave woman.. hope her head isn't on a platter soon.
  5. Thanks for the advice. I am only in sales training right now and I'll be "in the field" a week from today. Things are going to be slow in the beginning in terms of income and I'll be working + commute about 60-70 hours a week. So, a second job is really out of the question. It'll probably take 3 months to finally get that steady income from sales charges. I'd have to find a place very close to NYC on the New Jersey side in order to cut down on the commute cost (which including gas runs about $25/day) and those studio apts start at about $750/mo plus other expenses that will probably bring it to $1000/mo, which could be handled if I'm making $800-1000/wk easily. I'm sorry if it appears that I'm rationalizing, but NYC Metro rents are terribly high and probably why everyone in my training class still lives at home as well. As far as the marriage problem I could understand where they are coming from. These are certainly issues they should be aware of but I don't exactly know how to assuage their fears. I'm learning in sales that people generally just like to listen to themselves talk. Perhaps I should employ some of my business techniques of my parents.
  6. I'm addicted to a business sim called Capitalism II which I've had for years and pull out every now and then. I also play a baseball text sim OOTP and a PC WW2 Strategy game called Hearts of Iron.
  7. "Your life begins when the kids go to college and the dogs die" - If only that was true. My life has been great.. I have a loving and wonderful girlfriend (who is also my best friend and life companion), have started a good job in Manhattan and in good general health with the exception of my bank account which always seems to be a bit lacking. Overall, it's the best I've ever been both in emotional and rational terms and I owe much to Objectivism and a little cognitive therapy a couple years ago. But I've hit a stumbling block, and a very probematic one involving my parents. I've always been close to my parents and there was no reason why I wouldn't be. My parents provided me with everything in their power to make my life as comfortable as possible and I've done everything I could realisticly do in return. The past couple years I've lived at home and commuted to college which worked out because tuition was nil and I always had a home cooked meal (and bad in other respects in that I never really had a college experience). Lately my parents have been acting strange. Their #1 fear is that I'm going to get married soon (they were both married and divorced young) which is totally irrational because I cannot afford marriage financially and I simply don't want to get married in the next year (and neither does my g/f). As many times as I communicate with them that I'm not going to get married, they will continue to make comments to others like at my graduation party where my mother would say "Hopefully this is the last party til John's marriage in 10 years", or "what are you guys, married?" (when I choose to spend time with my g/f than at home) and other times when they've explictly told me not to get married. This has led, in part I believe, to a general enmity between my parents and g/f which would even be an issue if I didn't live at home. Even when I moved to NYC for a month in Feburary (lived with my uncle to cut down on my commute) my mother was jealous when I decided to spend the weekend with my g/f rather than come home (I eventually comprimised and did both). Overall, this need for me to be home is driving me and my g/f nuts because of the guilt my parents attempt to impose on me for wanting to be other places. My parents always know where I am - out of respect - but that's usually just one of three places: work, my g/f's and home. I don't party, drink or do drugs or anything that should be of concern to them or my health so I think I'm deserving of being able to switch between households as long as I tell them where I am. My mother has always been a "provider" in the sense that she couldn't do enough for me, my sister or anyone in the family. She never minded cleaning, cooking and doing the odd things for the family - in fact she enjoyed it. Now with my sister moved out (goes to school in Philly) and with me starting a new leg of my life (the working part ), she may feel empty that she cannot cater to anyone anymore even with my father still home. Her biggest fear - I think - is that my g/f is taking now taking up more of my time in terms of cooking, doing my laundry and just being there for me. I guess it's the difference between romantic and maternal love; my mother cannot give me what I need more today and that's the romantic, value-sharing love. Even though she started a new job - and a demanding one at that - see can't preoccupy herself enough to cover me and my sister's absense in the house. Now I have some solutions. I could be frank and explicit in a talk with my parents, although we've already had two "talks" in the last 2 months on the subject. I'm not going to change their minds on the subject... So.. I have to adapt and change where I life. Problem is that requires money that I don't have right now and I am partially financially dependant on my parents until my business picks up at work. I could also talk to my parents' close friends and ask them to perhaps influence them a certain way. But I need a way to keep my sanity in the meantime because it may take about 3-6 months before I have enough money to move out. I don't want to live with my parents for a second longer than I have to, but with no current cashflow I'm kinda stuck. Anyone have suggestions in any of those areas?
  8. Just some background. I work for a bookstore and I'm always thinking of ways to make the business more efficient and employees more productive. I heard about the RF technology and was wondering how to integrate them into the business. Each book has an ISB Number, a book's fingerprint if I may. It's a 10-digit number that is linked to the title, author and even edition of the book (as well as publisher and other data). Two of the biggest problems in a bookstore are inventory control and book placement; the bookseller must have an accurate count of the number of books in the store as well as where to find the book. Many man-hours are dedicated to something called "zone maintenance" which means that the bookseller must "touch" every single book, scan it with the portable data transmitter and see which area of the store the book belongs. There are other reasons why it is done, but this is good for now. Right now the bookseller only knows where the book should be, not where it is. Forgetting about cost issue for the time being (technology almost always lowers in price), could RF technology be used to "find" the exact placement of the book? For instance, if I assign a frequency to an ISBN would I be able to send a signal out to locate the exact location of a title? This would solve many issues in the bookstore environment. #1: You'd always have a real-time inventory number regardless of stolen goods, misplaced inventory, receiving problems or incorrect sales procedures. #2: If the book is in its incorrect place, you'd be able to easily locate the title for a customer or for other purposes. #3: You'd ensure correct product placement for each title since there are different levels; new books, for example, are usually placed in the front of the store. What do you guys think? Is this even possible?
  9. Hopefully these debit cards cannot be sold for cash or exchanged for lottery tickets. Aside from that, this is something for private industry to do, not the government (as with all sorts of insurance opportunities). Programs like unemployment insurance, disability/old age insurance and medical insurance should all be done by private companies. Only voluntarily should a person exchange property with the government for some purpose (with the exception of police, military and courts and even that can be funded without force). But the problem isn't the debit cards, but the government itself. While military/police aid is expected, this kind of welfare-state transfer payment would not and should not occur is a free economy. Their mismanagment at the federal, state and local level as well as environmental groups that opposed stronger levees are to blame for the problem. What must concern O'ists and similarly minded libertarians/Constitutionalists (small 'L') is the power grab by the national government that will occur.
  10. I do believe the government has a massive fund insurance "slush fund" of sorts for people who live in flood-prone areas that "cannot afford private insurance" (i.e. the market price is "too high for the public to afford"). The first I read of it was in John Stossel's book Give Me a Break and according to him it's the government's biggest fund; about $700 billion is property is insured under this government program. If anyone knows about this fund and would kind enough to post information about it that would be great. All I found was FEMA's website about the program and Stossel's piece on it. What should we do about the disaster? First, why would we operate on the altruist-collectivist ethics? If you would like to do something no one should stop you, but don't force me to donate energy to the crisis. The fact is we generally would give to help folks in dire need.. what's $10 from my pocket? But, the government appropriated $10 billion this morning which is, in essence, $33 dollars from every American taxpaying or not. Furthermore, charities are not permitted to operate without regulations, prices are raising because of government (mis-)management of environmental polices and I have no idea where my money is going if I were going to donate.
  11. Scott, so you think he went beyond medical advice? Today GPs give prescriptions for anti-depression drugs and deal with other mental health issues. Furthermore, stories like this will put a chilling effect on the medical profession where doctors will be afraid to offer their professional advice at the risk of hurting someone's feelings. Although the doctor wasn't required to make the statement (where I think your double PC comment comes from) if doctors are reprimanded for "bedside" issues (this particular doctor may end up in sensitivity training class, IIRC) they will be afraid to give advise furthermore declining the state of the profession. It seems like this patient was evading the issue at hand. Instead of rationally accepting what the doctor had to say she evaded. Her medical situation wasn't the problem, it was the doctor that hurt her feelings. If she wishes to continue to evade, to not deal with the issue at hand she could find another doctor that will coddle her and reassure her that all is well.
  12. Side note, I never thought I'd be going to a top 50 university in the world I guess it's all what you make of it. I've also been told that your university/GPA only gets you your first job and the rest is up to you.
  13. From what I understand the issue isn't that he told her she was obese, but rather that she'd find it more difficult to find a partner if and when her husband died. In this politically correct world sound "advice" like that is taken as an insult because he is right.
  14. This was an assignment for a political theory course on democracy I took over the summer. The assignment was vague, but I'll attempt to reconstruct it. We could take any comicbook, novella, novel or other non-fiction writing and apply at least one of the theories of democracy discussed in class. The paper had to be no longer than seven pages and summary had to be kept to a minimum (ergo, the footnotes). I thought I'd share it with the community here. I'm willing to take any criticism, comments, questions, etc. It's already been handed in and graded (I got an A in the class overall), but I'd like to see what you guys think about it. The professor's focus throughout the class was on rhetoric and I thought this provided a good chance to impress her or entertain her interests (Anthem, of course, provides an excellent chance to exploit this). --------------------------------- John DeMarco Democratic Political Theory August 17, 2005 Ayn Rand’s Anthem can be interpreted as a stinging critique of communitarianism even though the book was published decades before Benjamin Barber’s Strong Democracy. The stark contrast between Putnam’s lamenting of the decline of American civil society and Barber’s socially constructed reality against Rand’s promotion of reason and egoism is clearly apparent in the rhetoric, theme and message of the novel. Forged during a new dark age, the individual is abrogated in favor of the collective; “We” has supplanted “I”, “their” for “her” as any trace of the radical individual to which Barber bemoans as “exploitive” is annihilated. Through art, Rand has fashioned (and reproached) the society which Barber intellectually defends nearly fifty years later, offering a possible re-creation of strong democracy. This paper will ignore the many philosophic differences between the two writers, since that would require perhaps a volume of writing. Instead, the focus will be on the common rhetoric between Barber and Rand while forging the similarities within Rand’s “Dark Age” communal world and Barber’s ideal one. Also, we will tend to the problems of democracy that were addressed by Rand in Anthem by focusing on a modern form discussed in class keeping with the overall rhetorical theme of the paper. Even the casual student of linguistics can delineate the motives of speakers and writers by the words they use. For instance, when Plato writes that the soul is “imprisoned” within the body it implies the soul is held there against its will, struggling to be released. The rhetoric in Anthem may be puzzling at first to those not familiar with Rand’s other works. The narrator uses the plural pronoun when referring to himself or others because the collective has superior value than the individual in “The City” where the novel takes place. This is exemplified through a mantra that is to be repeated whenever one would doubt in his “brothers”: “We are one in all and all in one. There are no men but only the great WE, one, indivisible and forever (Rand 19).” This is certainly an indictment of Communism and the Soviet Union from which Rand escaped from in her young adulthood, but Barber appears to be supportive of this communal conception of man. “[Men] can only overcome their insufficiency and legitimize their dependency by forging a common consciousness,” Barber writes, “The road to autonomy leads through not around commonality (216-7).” The reference to a common consciousness appeals to the Marxist conception of human nature found within the rhetoric of Anthem’s narrator. This rhetorical gap is not limited to Barber and other communitarian authors studied in class share the same proclivity for it. Putnam bemoans the fact that in today’s more liberal society world we’ve the lost social capital which is supposed to enrich us. Putnam writes in Bowling Alone that, “[Dense] networks of interaction probably broaden the participants’ sense of self, developing the ‘I’ into the ‘we’, or enhancing the participants’ ‘taste’ for collective benefits (2).” In Anthem, the enforcement of the communitarian ethos is different – those guilty of ethical infractions are punished in the Palace of Corrective Detention (19) – than what I democratic theorist would propose, but the premise is still the same. Putnam and Barber appear to support the voluntary absolution of the self, not using overt force to reach their goal (Putnam proposes more research in the area of social capital, community involvement and capital formation) and this differentiates them from the fictional Councils in Anthem. It’s important to note that while the Communists destroyed all egoism, this voluntarily sense of mutual, neighborly community-led democracy has some egoistic elements. After all, Barber notes, “altruists do not need government (237)” perhaps correctly, but Rand would ask “why should individuals be altruists in the first place?” Barber is not peddling Marxism or Communism, but rather is attempting to forge an ancient form of democracy that opposes modern, liberal conventions. After the narrator’s renaissance in Anthem, he proclaims, “I need to warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction (Rand 94).” Man is an end in himself according to Rand [1] , and Barber is in stark opposition to this claim. Barber writes, “Thus the radically individualist community is populated by competitors whose commonality is understood as nothing more than an ‘efficient means of achieving individual objectives,’ whereas in the organic community of status and hierarchy the individual is altogether sublimated (231).” The individual is sublimated under Communism and other faith-based systems comparatively to the community of Anthem and with disastrous results according to Rand. Love, work, friends and the pursuit of knowledge are all marginalized by the communitarian structure where “common work”, “common seeing” and “common vision” (Barber 232) are of greater importance. Rand’s creations include the “Council of Vocations” and the “Council of Mating” where individuals cannot choose on their own what vocations or mates to pursue, but are compelled by community’s authorities who use the common good as justification. It is quite possible under strong democracy that similar conditions may exist. For instance, licensing and accreditation boards may install quotas on professions in order to encourage individuals (or prevent their entry) into certain industries in order to foster “social capital” or commonality. While the extent of such a “council’s” power may not be all-encompassing as it is in Anthem, once again the premise is still there. After the novel’s turning point [2] there is a violent, but welcoming shift in the philosophical viewpoint. Again, there is this divide created between the ancient and modern forms of democracy; the ancient “communitarianism” yields to a more liberal, modern political formulation although the democratic elements are less evident [3] in the second part of the novel. Still, we can take representative democracy and its liberal base in order to describe Anthem’s “renaissance” by reading Madison’s Federalist Paper 10 and de Tocqueville’s statements concerning the tyranny of the majority. Also, the rhetorical change in the novel will be discussed as it concerns representative and strong democracy [4]. Starting with the words “I am. I think. I will (Rand 94) [5] ” the rhetoric changes from the plural “we, their, they” of the communitarian sense to the “I, she, my” singular. Rand initiates the liberal, individualistic tone of the conclusion just by changing the rhetoric which is not only a clever literary technique but it also draws a distinction between communitarianism and liberal democracy that’s been discussed in this paper. No longer is the individual submissive to the needs and desires of the community, but rather the individual trumps what is called the “common good” [6] . Madison prophetically addresses the problem of factions as it relates to Barber’s strong democracy in Federalist Paper 10. Madison writes, “There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction (130)” by eliminating liberty or as Barber would, “giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions and the same interests (Madison 130)”. This is impractical to Madison since – in Rand’s interpretation – man has the ability to use reason and therefore will form interests and opinions which are in the individuals’ self-interest. Government’s job, according to Madison, is to protect individuals in order to enable them to use their faculty of reason and carry out their interests (131). Even though de Tocqueville appears to not fall directly within this line of reasoning he adds: “I think that liberty is endangered when [majority] power is checked by no obstacles which may retard its course, and force it to moderate its own vehemence (302).” Rand explicitly accepts Madison’s few on factions and adapts it to the novel. In retaliation of Barber’s communalism, Prometheus says, “I shall choose my friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters. And I shall choose only such as please me, and them I shall love and respect, but neither command nor obey (96).” Putnam would cringe at Prometheus’ lack of respect for social capital; Barber would claim that human nature commits man to the collective since he creates his own reality (Kant’s influence) and that to save himself he must save the race (215, 217). Barber claims that modern liberalism makes for exploitive relationships and radical individualism; Rand’s message in Anthem posits that individualism (like capitalism) is not zero-sum: rational men all always seek to advance their values [7] . One can belabor the conflict between Rand’s Anthem and Barber’s strong democracy, but the important rhetorical differences as they relate to the conflict between the ancient and modern forms or democracy have been discussed. While Barber’s democratic theory is not fully comparable to Communism or other statist political systems, it is apparent that the Marxist theory of human nature is something that Barber himself agrees with both explicitly (214) and implicitly. Anthem rejects the communal form of democracy and accepts liberalism and modern democracy as the only way to insure the protection of the minority – the individual. The paragraph’s noted in Madison’s Federalist Paper 10 serves as the basis for Rand’s political views. Madison claims that man’s ability to use reason enables him to form his own tastes and opinions; government’s job is to protect the individual from force that would curtail his ability to reason and pursue goals. The stark difference between the ancient communitarianism and modern liberalism is illustrated in Anthem through the rhetoric, the author’s conception of human nature and her determination of how individuals should interact in a moral society. [1] Rand repeats this theme in her over novels, most notably through John Galt in her last novel Atlas Shrugged. Galt exclaims “I swear – by my life and my love for it – that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to like for mine (979)” [2] The Golden One and The Unconquerable (later Prometheus and Gaea) expel themselves from the society by running into the Uncharted Forest. The two discover love and knowledge and face the contradiction that’s inside themselves due to the communal aspect of their society. In their new settings, the characters can be individuals and not just parts of the organic whole. [3] The first part of the novel can be construed as a political, not ethical statement of affairs which is more the focus in the second part. Rand writes that politics is merely personal morality applied to the greater social sphere. Objectivism, her philosophy, therefore takes a systematic approach concerning ethics and politics (also from the metaphysics and epistemology, but that is beyond the scope of this paper). If man is to live for his own sake (self-interest), then a government must be created in order to protect the individual from force (laissez-faire capitalism). To this day, Objectivism is the only systematic moral philosophy that can defend laissez-faire capitalism. [4] Rand held great distain for “democracy” as it is properly defined “rule of the masses”. She likened this to anarchy and mob rule which was not capable of defending the rights of the minority. The minority, in Rand’s case, is the individual, not some splinted group of a collective (either on racial or other grounds) as it is commonly viewed today. [5] Again, the philosophical system is displayed here. I am: metaphysics of objective reality. I think: the epistemology of reason. I will: the ethics of self-interest and politics of laissez-faire capitalism. While one may disagree with or attempt to find issue with Objectivism one cannot deny its systematization. [6] Rand notes that society is only a collection of individuals in her non-fiction which is clearly distinctive from the “organic community” of Plato and communitarianism. [7] This topic is the subject of an essay called “Doesn’t Life Require Compromise?” which is the pb version of The Virtue of Selfishness p. 68 --------------- Barber, Benjamin. Strong Democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy In America. Trans. Henry Reeve. New York: Bantam Dell, 2004. Hamilton, Alexander, et al. The Federalist Papers. Editor Benjamin F. Wright. New York: Friedman/Fairfax Publishers, 1961. Putnam, Robert D. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital” Journal of Democracy 6:1 (Jan 1995): 65-78. Rand, Ayn. Anthem. New York: Penguin Putnam, 1995.
  15. I agree. Bryan Larsen is amazing.
  16. If I recall correctly, it was on the second DVD of the Sense of Life Paxton work. IIRC, Peikoff or Binswanger were telling personal recollections of Ayn which included lunch with a group of Catholic nuns.
  17. I've always endorsed the Motley Fool's books (Gardner brothers are the authors), particularly their guide to investing. I read it when I was 12-13 and learned about balance sheets, cash flow, mutual funds, index funds and whatnot. Maybe it's not what you are looking for, but as far as investing goes I think the Motley Fool is top-choice.
  18. He's a self-described "Nationalist". Savage is the conservative that's "almost" there. What I mean by that is we'll give 15 mintues of great commentary about the War on Terror.. but then he'll say we need a draft in order to shape young people. His religious/faith based positions are more against the multi-culturalists than are "pro-religion". But, this "borders, language, culture" isn't Hitlereque in my opinion and I think we can relate to them too. Liberalism and nationalism are related and we need to curb the illegal immigration problem (my solution is dismantling the welfare state and increasing legal immigration); we should speak a common language despite of the calls from the racists that every language, every culture is equal; Americans share a common Nature: the Liberal (philosophically) who walks the fine line between freedom and equality, who works harder than any other in the Western world and is home to the nation that most values the mind.
  19. Oh my, that's priceless softwareNerd, lol
  20. I listen to John Batchlor on the ABC radio network. He's an outstanding journalist who's major interests are the WoT, Iraq, Israel and other interesting topics. It's all all-guest show, which means no callers - all the guests have great knowledge of their area of expertise like John Loftus (counter-terrorism work). He defines himself as a "liberal Republican", but I find I have much in common with him. Also there is Michael Savage whom I think is the most entertaining and engaging figure on talk radio. He does share some common ground with O'ists (Peikoff interview) and is very consistant unlike other hosts. He's not simply a mouthpiece for the conservative right or for Bush and this makes him stand out IMHO. Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh are terrible hosts in my opinion. Hannity is a rubber-stamp Bushite who crawls to the lowest intellectual level to appeal to his mostly ignorant audience (judging from the callers). Limbaugh has his moments, but I can't hold interest throughout a 3 hour show. There's also Mike and the Maddog and Steve Sommers for sports here in NY I enjoy listening to Imus in the Morning, but there are too many damn commericals so I usually just "channel surf" between the AM news stations.
  21. Everytime I hear about reform in Africa I think of Tom Friedman's joke about corruption in his book Lexus and the Olive Tree. Those of you that read the book will know what I mean.
  22. Perhaps we'll hear from Gary Hull on this piece of news. Anyone interested in the issue of monopoly should read his new book, The Abolition of Antitrust.
  23. Janice Rogers Brown. She will defend property rights to the death. I am hardly concerned with abortion rights, "gay" rights, "prisoner" rights and the demands of all these balkanized groups. If the individual has no right to property, what does he have a right to? This is a collection of quotes from Brown amassed from a liberal activist group, People For the American Way: http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12751 You can see why liberals/socialists did not want her confirmed to the appellate court and why those who support property rights should. Pay close attention to her statements on guns rights, property rights, and the connection between socialism and FDR's New Deal. If I didn't know she was a Christian I would have thought an Objectivist said some of these things.
×
×
  • Create New...