| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
The U.S. Needs to Open Up to the World To this European, America is trapped in a fortress of arrogance and ignorance BY BRIAN ENO Europeans have always looked at America with a mixture of fascination and puzzlement, and now, increasingly, disbelief. How is it that a country that prides itself on its economic success could have so many very poor people? How is it that a country so insistent on the rule of law should seek to exempt itself from international agreements? And how is it that the world's beacon of democracy can have elections dominated by wealthy special interest groups? For me, the question has become: "How can a country that has produced so much cultural and economic wealth act so dumb?" I could fill this page with the names of Americans who have influenced, entertained and educated me. They represent what I admire about America: a vigorous originality of thought, and a confidence that things can be changed for the better. That was the America I lived in and enjoyed from 1978 until 1983. That America was an act of faith, the faith that "otherness" was not threatening but nourishing, the faith that there could be a country big enough in spirit to welcome and nurture all the diversity the world could throw at it. But since Sept. 11, that vision has been eclipsed by a suspicious, introverted America, a country-sized version of that peculiarly American form of ghetto: the gated community. A gated community is defensive. Designed to keep the "others" out, it dissolves the rich web of society into a random clustering of disconnected individuals. It turns paranoia and isolation into a lifestyle. Surely this isn't the America that anyone dreamed of; it's a last resort, nobody's choice. It's especially ironic since so much of the best new thinking about society, economics, politics and philosophy in the last century came from America. Unhampered by the snobbery and exclusivity of much European thought, American thinkers vaulted innovative and determined to talk in a public language. But, unfortunately, over the same period, the mass media vaulted backward, thriving on increasingly simple stories and trivializing news into something indistinguishable from entertainment. As a result, a wealth of original and subtle thought (America's real wealth) is squandered. This narrowing of the American mind is exacerbated by the withdrawal of the left from active politics. Virtually ignored by the media, the left has further marginalized itself by a retreat into introspective cultural criticism. It seems content to do yoga and gender studies, leaving the fundamentalist Christian right and the multinationals to do the politics. The separation of church and state seems to be breaking down too. Political discourse is now dominated by moralizing, like George W. Bush's promotion of American "family values" abroad, and dissent is unpatriotic. "You're either with us or against us" is the kind of cant you'd expect from a zealous mullah, not an American President. When Europeans make such criticisms, Americans assume we're envious. "They want what we've got," the thinking goes, "and if they can't get it, they're going to stop us from having it." But does everyone want what America has? Well, we like some of it but could do without the rest: among the highest rates of violent crime, economic inequality, functional illiteracy, incarceration and drug use in the developed world. President Bush recently declared that the U.S. was "the single surviving model of human progress." Maybe some Americans think this self-evident, but the rest of us see it as a clumsy arrogance born of ignorance. Europeans tend to regard free national health services, unemployment benefits, social housing and so on as pretty good models of human progress. We think it's important (civilized, in fact) to help people who fall through society's cracks. This isn't just altruism, but an understanding that having too many losers in society hurts everyone. It's better for everybody to have a stake in society than to have a resentful underclass bent on wrecking things. To many Americans, this sounds like socialism, big government, the nanny state. But so what? The result is: Europe has less gun crime and homicide, less poverty and arguably a higher quality of life than the U.S., which makes a lot of us wonder why America doesn't want some of what we've got. Too often, the U.S. presents the "American way" as the only way, insisting on its kind of free-market Darwinism as the only acceptable "model of human progress." But isn't civilization what happens when people stop behaving as if they're trapped in a ruthless Darwinian struggle and start thinking about communities and shared futures? America as a gated community won't work, because not even the world's sole superpower can build walls high enough to shield itself from the intertwined realities of the 21st century. There's a better form of security: reconnect with the rest of the world, don't shut it out; stop making enemies and start making friends. Perhaps it's asking a lot to expect America to act differently from all the other empires in history, but wasn't that the original idea. |
|
|
"Too often, the U.S. presents the "American way" as the only way, insisting on its kind of free-market Darwinism as the only acceptable "model of human progress." But isn't civilization what happens when people stop behaving as if they're trapped in a ruthless Darwinian struggle and start thinking about communities and shared futures?" I couldnt help but think of nate and his capitalism cheerleading. |
our numerous very poor? our very poor who is rich by most of the world's standards? not to mention the simple existance of our middle class. who's arrogant, eh? |
i love how you guys comfort yourself with this, as if its any less excusable. what about gun violence? drug abuse? lack of healthcare? |
|
At least this was my experience. |
give us your tired, your poor, your hungry. please remember to bring your plan card and co-pay. |
Nate, there is an extreme gap between the rich and the poor in this country. I think that's hard to argue with. The "middle class" doesn't really exist in the large numbers you seem to believe it does. Furthermore, while our poor may seem wealthy compared to other people, that's beside the point--here, in the country they happen to live in, they can't afford basic goods and services. The "America's poor are africa's (or whoever's) rich" argument is just plain silly. I happen to think that capitalism is a pretty darn good economic system. I have yet to see any other economic system prove itself. However, I do admit to having socialist leanings as far as the government is concerned. Why? Because when I go to socialist countries, I don't see homeless people. I see well funded, carefully thought out programs from the state desgined to help the citizens. I see higher rates of taxation paying off. I see better environmental legisation. I see multi-party governments which work more or less harmoniously. I would be perfectly happy to give up a more significant amount of my income in taxes if it meant I got access to the social services I see in places like the Netherlands. Yes, to some extent, this does mean that the wealthy are supporting the poor, but contrary to your belief, the poor have a better chance of making their way in a supportive society. Some of the wealthiest tax payers in Europe weren't always wealthy--think of it as thanking society for the help. Of course, I'd probably feel differently if I was wealthy, but I'm not, so that's a moot point as well. I'll let you know when I'm done pulling myself up by my bootstraps through the glass ceiling and we can see how my views have changed. |
that does not say what kind of care you might get, mind you. |
|
|
The welfare system is a pain in the ass. There are different things you can do and get with it. My cousin got health care for her daughter, food stamps, money for day care so that she could look for a job, parenting classes, and money to live on (excluding rent which she didn't get because she was renting an illegally converted garage and couldn't claim it). It was going to help her with her education, too but she didn't go that route. Too bad, she wouldn't be struggling so much if she did. Spunky and I got social security for a little while for Mikayla, and applied for food stamps, but since I wasn't working and not looking for a job we were denied. I couldn't work, taking care of Mikayla and her numerous doctors appointments and therapy sessions. They did supply the therapists for her. We got cut off of the money once she turned a year old, saying that she was just fine (which was basically true and she was going to be normal) but they did continue to provide therapists for her, Occupational Therapist, Special Instruction Therapist, and Speech Therapist. It was a tremendous help and I don't think she would be doing as well as she is today if it hadn't been for their help. We were also on the WIC (Woman, Infant, Child) program for Micki which REALLY helped with the cost of the special formulas and drinks she needed, not to mention all of the food and such. She would have to see a nutritionist there and they would laugh at the fact that I already had her seeing one regularly and was right on top of her nurtritional needs. We were on that until Trace got his job with these guys, placing us over the allowable income bracket. So there are different systems out there based on what different needs you have. A lot of churches and things of that nature (when we were in Cali) also offered ways to help others who didn't make much money. There was the county food bank, which gave leftovers out, like peanut butter and orange juice and canned meat and cole slaw mix and pastas and things like that. There was the "Feed My Sheep" program where grocery stores donated day old things to the church and we would hand out breads, fruits, vegetables, sometimes some dairy products. Their philosophy was to help people not just eat, but eat healty. After a while people started donating other things and we would have clothes and shoes and household items to hand out to the community as well. There was another church in the area who had a similar program involving meats. You signed up and payed $40 per month and they gave you 100 lbs of meat. Steaks, chicken, pork, roasts, things like that. Again, I guess it all boils down to what you need. And where you are willing to go for help. And, of course, what your income is. |
Your welfare system is weird. |
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! soylent green is people moonit! it's PEOPLE! It's a movie about the future where poor people, old people and criminals are turned into popular food products. Kinda dull until the ending, and then you already know the ending. I give it a C. |
everybody to have a stake in society than to have a resentful underclass bent on wrecking things. To many Americans, this sounds like socialism, big government, the nanny state. But so what? The result is: Europe has less gun crime and homicide, less poverty and arguably a higher quality of life than the U.S." see? that's what i've been saying all along. i'm not parroting some bullshit manifesto, i'm just naturally smart like my man, brain one, yo. |
Single mothers with children (and some married couples who fall under the allowance), can apply for (in California) CalWorks, which is the new welfare (used be to AFDC/TANF). If you get on CalWorks you're eligible for foodstamps and you have to participate in a welfare-to-work program. (Although they call it something else now). They're also eligible for help with healthcare (medical). Single people are allowed to apply for general assistance (which, in theory, must be paid back). You're allowed to be on general assistance for a few months total of your life, which can be extended if you participate in a welfare to work program. You can be on food stamps for up to two months without actively seeking employment--if you wish to extend it, you need to be in a welfare to work program. The food stamp allowance would never feed me. I can't figure out how people manage it. Interestingly, the more kids you have, the more welfare you get. Kids pay, or something like that. I mean, it makes sense intellectually (more kids=more need). But it does perpetuate the stereotype of the welfare mother. (I just had to listen to a three hour presentation from social services all about welfare/community organizations, etc.) Yes, welfare is wierd. But when you see that our entire system for helping people is wierd, it fits in. |
You must be 18 to collect the Unemployment Benefit here (its slang is dole), you get around $120 a week, and you can earn up to $60 or $80 with part-time work to top it up. You can also get a living allowance if your rent is over a certain amount. Once you hit 25 (i think) they up it to around $150 or something. The job centre that runs along side (WINZ) helps the unemployed to get work and keep it - they do a scheme where they subsidise wages for long term unemployed for about six months. They also send you off to do volunteer work if you've been out of work to long, and they cut your dole if you don't show. You can be in a relationship and both people can be on the dole, but the money is way lower than if you are on your own. |
I am so glad I don't really need to worry about those things anymore. It's confusing. What I care about is getting the right kind of help to the people who need it and deserve it. I could give a shit what it is called. |
Moonit, we don't get all that much welfare--most people I know who got welfare weren't able to live on it. However, if you get a job, they usually yank your welfare (though you can stay on foodstamps for a while). It's really silly. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. We also have unemployment, which is for people who had good jobs, and got fired--they pay part (or all...I'm not sure) of your wages for a while. The job market here is being flooded right now. Everybody's looking for work and there wasn't any to begin with. Bleh. |
We also have community services cards - if you earn less than about $24000 I think - you get cheaper doctors visits etc. Healthcare for under 6's is free as is maternity care. Most doctors do free sexual health care for under 25's. If you quit your job you have a standown period before you can claim the dole. |
The irony is that for kids who are somewhere on the thin line between lower/middle class and upper/middle class (like i was), your parents make enough to exclude you from OSAP, but not enough to pay your tuition. As a result the really dirt poor ghetto kids all go to university and flourish and live like kings, while i had my own car but ate ramen noodles and tuna 4 times a week. It's a funny twist. That's what i like about socialism, the class twists. The "FUCK you, whitey!" kinda stuff. |
California actually has a really good state family planning (reproductive health, birth control, etc) program. Everything is free for people under a certain income, I forget what it is. Anyway, that's how I get all my family planning stuff done. Some docs are really cool and will write up other office visits as family planning consultations so that the state will pay. I think the "fuck you, whitey" kinda stuff exists in every society. I feel fairly oppressed here for being white. Jesus Christ, it's not like I was born white or something. I'm sorry that this confers an unfair societal advantage in some circles, but there's not a lot I can do about it. |
|
|
Schools like the University of Chicago still have a physical education requirement, which I think is awesome. I don't think that competitive sports which foster an elite are awesome. Watching prestigious universities fight over someone because he or she has remarkably good abilities in sports really bothers me. |
Personally, aside from all the crap that goes on, I think keeping atletic competition out of educational institutions creates a much more elitist environment. |
|
resentment against who platy? while i dont favor elitism, favoritism or anything of the sort for athletes...im in all support of "no pass (with a C or better) no play" programs. bear in mind that big sports like football and basketball are a source of revenue. without socialized education, they are important and help buy beakers, books, cadavers and the like for all you non sports students. |
|
The vast majority of NCAA football and men's basketball programs spend much morem oney than they bring in. In fact,64% of Division I and II football programs don't generate enough revenue to pay for themselves, much less any other sports. In 1999, These programs reported annual deficits averaging $1 million (Division I-A), $630,000 (Division I-AA), and$ 300,000 (Division II). (Source: Daniel Fulks, Revenues and Expenses of Division I and II Intercollegiate AthleticsPrograms: Financial Trends and Relationships -- 1999 (NCAA 2000) |
i stand corrected. i still dont understand the resentment matter. when i was in college, the sports program was entirely irrelavent to me and my experience. |
heh...not that much The resentment comes from people who judge all college athletic programs by the treatment that only a select few athletes get. Judging the whole by the attention levied on small parts is no better than the society that only values those athletes in the first place. College sports are inclusive. Anyone can attend games and a lot of them are free, if not very cheap. |
|
I had many friends who were athletes and not all of them had scholarships. For many, it's the last time they will ever be rewarded/appreciated for their skill. After that, it's just work work work. Just like the rest of us. |
|
I didn't find sports all-inclusive, Kazoo. I take no personal enjoyment out of watching sports. The school didn't have programs for "non-sports people like me." Had I wanted to start running track or something, I wouldn't have been supported. Yes, Patrick, Americans in general are too fat. But we've had sports and college mixed for a while and I don't see how that has a bearing on American weight gain/loss patterns. Furthermore, the sports program rarely if ever funneled money into other programs. Cadavers. Ew. Maybe it varies from university to university, but at Berkeley, I saw a lot of athletes getting a lot of perks, and I didn't see the fairness in this at all. Of course, I have many problems with the American university system and this is only one of them. |
|
And Berkeley does have an intramural sports program, as do many colleges/universities that have big athletic programs. There isn't a track team, but there are things for people who want to play sports: http://calbears.berkeley.edu/sportclubs/ |
so spelling bees, academic competitions, science fairs, competition for tuition money and the like? competition is a part of our nature, some more than others. who gives a rats ass if you like watching them or not platy. fine. dont. maybe i dont like watching theater or ballet, but its no reason to cut those programs. and what exactly is the difference in such programs...say theater, dance and other performing arts? is there biased that goes on with athletes? sure. thats a legitimate gripe. in the age of the fattening american, any physical exercise, be it in kindergarten or college is welcomed addition to our routines. "I don't see how that has a bearing on American weight gain/loss patterns." so what. as our youth get fatter and fatter, fast food marketing more and more savy at reaching the youth at much earlier ages, athletics should be more widely available and more inclusive in our education experience. The Germans integrate education with athletics and call it "gymnasium" for fucks sake. they got it going on. as someone who was taunted by athletes and the so called athletic elite during my education, despite that, i still advocate fair sporting programs in schools, from K through college. no offense platy but your attitude about just sounds bitter. |
I DIDN'T SAY THAT BEING ATHLETIC IS NOT IMPORTANT. I would support athletic programs that integrated all students (like the University of Chicago), because I think that fitness is an important part of education. Someone who slides through college taking all humanities classes is not a fully rounded individual. Physical fitness is vitally important. However, elitist sports teams don't foster physical fitness for all students. When I was at Cal, the programs Kazoo is talking about weren't advertised as widely as the damn football team. Hence, a lot of students, including myself, didn't know about them. In the while, we got a lot of shit from the athletes, who seemed to be under the impression that they were God. Most of those fine men and women were horribly rude to people like me. So yes, Patrick, I am bitter. I'm bitter that people think it's ok to be assholes to other people just because they happen to be good/bad at something. And yes, Patrick, I think that competition of all kinds has no place in an academic environment. I realize that American univeristy is little more than a job-training program, but it would be nice to think that school was about learning, rather than one-upping the Joneses. That goes for, uh, spelling bees, academic competitions, etc. No one should have to compete for tuition money--tuition should be free, for everyone. If people want to play sports, that's fine. If people want to prance around on the stage talking about poor Yorick, that's fine too. I don't think that either of those groups should be given excessive funding to the exclusion of other academic groups. I don't believe that either group should be given ridiculous amounts of perks from the university, either. I'm talking everything from grade inflation to being allowed to skimp out on the requirements for your major. I DO advocate sporting programs. Try to get this through your thick skull. Just because I don't advocate rampant competition and unfair advantages doesn't mean I don't advocate athletics. Systems like the German gymnasium are great. Rockin'. Fine. Perfect. Schools like Chicago that require all students to participate in a physical fitness programs have it going on. Schools that treat their athletes like the best thing since sliced bread, to the exclusion of other groups, need to reevaluate their goals. |
I'm sorry, while I respect your opinion Platy and agree with some of what you said, this attitude truly depresses me. The problem isn't the incorporation of competition into the learning environment, the problem is that some people come in with or are given more advantages than others. Giving everyone a free tuition (which I fully support) is not going to change the fact that some people are going to be smarter and more talented than others. But it's not fair to assume that there can be no healthy competition because of the worst of what goes on in contemporary academic environments, which as we know is not structured to support such a thing. |
I still stand by my stance on sports, though. |
like i said platy, bitter. |
Anyway, I got over it by the time I started making friends in college. Some of them were on teams, and they were good folks and talented, and deserved some credit for their talents. |
I swam for one season in high school. I was the worst one on the team, but it was a lot of fun. I earned a letter jacket by managing (read: keeping score books) the girls varsity and junior varsity basketball teams. I was also a cheerleader...but I was about 12 when that happened. I was terrible at that too. |
It was pretty cool -- you could fulfill the requirement by playing team sports (like rugby -- man, those girls *earned* whatever attitude they got from being on that team), taking dance/aerobics/martial arts/yoga classes, or by doing self-monitored walking/jogging/bicycling for two semesters (made possible by our honor code). There was something for everybody's personality and schedule. |
"the founders wanted all graduates to be well-rounded young ladies, both inside and out. :)" Spider, I'm imagining you in one of those black and white films that show young women gym outfits that are skirts, polo shirts, and white tennis shoes exercising in unison. cute. |
Is Powell even involved the same god damn conversation? Who is he talking to? For fucksake. |
|
Senator Robert Byrd for President! Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences by US Senator Robert Byrd Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003 To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war. Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war. And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11. Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher. This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal. In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders. In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come. Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on. The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land. Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace? And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein? Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income? In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years. One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate. We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings. To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time. |
|
|