so what are these protests going to accomplish?

And at least here in Portland, the news covered nothing but the protests, with no commercial breaks, from 5 to 8pm. So, mission accomplished.

This communications major is wrapping up thirteen hours of work helping my station broadcast the news of the day. I'm going to a candlelight vigil tonight so I can finally, as a human, work through all the emotion I've had to fight back today while processing information.

No footage of the antiwar protest at the federal courthouse building or even a number given.

i had on CNN earlier, but i missed any protest footage. that might have just been my negligence though, as i was listening to the radio and reading.

Suppoesdly 20,000 turned out in Times Square in New York, but that number seems massively high?

http://www.ny1.com/ny/TopStories/SubTopic/index.html?topicintid=1&subtopicintid=1&contentintid=28732

There is little doubt in my mind that the application of massive brutal force, coupled with psychological pressure will allow the invasion army to overcome all armed opposition they meet. In the minds of many Americans (and British) the relief of a swift 'victory' will soon wash away the stain of having invaded another country on few, flimsy and mostly false pretenses. The challenge for those who see danger in the future from the precedents set here is to stubbornly insist on revisiting Bush's and Blair's pretexts and comparing them to the facts.

The fact that Iraq has not used its presumed WMD in defense of its homeland is pretty suggestive to me that their weapons programs were nowhere near as far advanced as we have been told. The connections to terrorism were never proved in even the most superficial way, merely asserted over and over.

Once Iraq is under our control, look for our propaganda to change the subject and to concentrate on Saddam's undoubted brutality in oppressing domestic dissent with brutal violence. Of course, don't expect to hear the same about Mubarak any time soon. I don't expect to hear much more about WMD or terror networks a month or three from today.

maybe they can have some effect. but people should keep in mind the downside.

Erm, well usually the point is to get a point of view to be expressed in the media. If the media have been acting all gung-ho about the war (and I don't watch tv news, so I can't say how they've been treating this) and acting as if no Americans are appalled at the thought of war, then this is an excellent way to let people know that, in fact, there are a lot of people quite pissed off.

tv news status: nw cable news having a steady stream of on-the-air callers - from the sampling i heard, maybe 90% against protesters??

i think all the reasons given for protesting are valid and admirable. i question that this is the best time

Those who engage in civil disobedience are not likely to change anyone's opinion; however, if such actions persist for the length (or perhaps beyond) of the war, their economic impact will be notable. The power structures of the world care only slightly about public opinion, if at all. Activists have appealed to the minds and hearts of the leaders, but to no avail. Now, many activists are targeting their pocketbooks.

The city cannot afford this. Children can no longer be guaranteed an education, as many schools have closed their doors; criminals can no longer be guaranteed prosecution, as there is not enough money to pay court-appointed lawyers to represent those who cannot pay for their own defense; the mentally ill have been turned out onto the street as clinics have shut down; unemployment among the youth is as high as it has ever been. Portland struggles to provide basic services. There is no more money.

When the city cannot pay, it turns to the state. Oregon is having severe economic problems at the moment, so Portland will not be reimbursed by the state. Therefore, Portland will have to turn to the federal government (in part through the Dept. of Homeland Security) to pay for the police power, for the graffiti removal staff, for overtime of the garbage collectors, for the lost business, etc.

Whether it is thoughtful and engaging or violent "fucking shit up," direct action is having an impact, however small, on the coffers of the nation. The war costs alone are going to require the administration to take back billions from the tax cuts. This almost exclusively hurts the rich (the primary beneficiaries of the tax cuts). Social programs have been widdled down to almost-nothing so unless they break up social security, the administration is going to have to run a massive deficit to pay for homeland security. Sustained civil disobedience will make this task just that much more difficult.

One might hope that protests in the U.S./U.K. will distinguish 'the people' from 'the leaders' in terms of culpability for this war, convincing the enemies it creates/inflames to restrict acts of terrorism/retaliation to military or at least symbolic targets, instead of large civilian centers.

While active, I am also somewhat cynical. I think it is only a matter of time before activism (still called "patriotic" by Bush) will be equated with and prosecuted as "terrorism," if it continues to disrupt commerce.

Of course, some of those people ended up in favor of the war as a result of the protests; that's the problem with a lot of protest rhetoric, it polarizes.

It's been a long, long time since protests have had the same effect on the public and on public opinion that the Vietnam-era ones had. The novelty wore off decades ago.

And that the war is ongoing. That was all I was saying. Ron seemed to be implying that because the war is now underway protest is inappropriate because it antagonises people.

yes, if this 'war on terrorism' continues and bush goes on to invade Iran and so on then this could happen and it would become a civil liberties problem for sure.

i think vietnam comparison is a bit of a stretch and accuse you of trying to push buttons

england is an interesting situation, but i still think protest there is a good thing, because the public opinion is so strongly against

Quick, which cost more money that could have been used for better purposes: the protests that night or the war that night?

n, really? please explain

Number of pro-war counter-protesters I saw along the route: 8

If they come out well enough, I'll post some of the pics I took today. Can someone please tell me how wearing a shocking-colored frightwig and sporting a missile-as-exaggerated-phallus strap-on does anything other than undermine the credibility of the cause? By adhering to cartoony stereotypes and brandishing the clichés like shiny badges, all you're really doing is helping reduce the anti-war movement to an easily marginalized, easily ridiculed demographic that prompts more chuckles than serious credence. How do you expect people to take you seriously? Here are some clues: DON'T sing an impromptu a cappella rendition of John Lennon's "Imagine", DON'T wear tye pajamas to the demonstration, LEAVE the hippy trappings of the 60's at home and DON'T resort to lame sloganeering!

As far as all the protest technique-critique, I'm not sure if you're expecting a unified intellectual response or what; not everyone against the war is media-savvy. The left seems so terrified of the right's ability to tear apart their media image.

mass arrests in washington sq park, check out nyc.indymedia.org

re : LESBIANS FOR A FREE PALESTINE => During the Irish Famine in the 1840s, aid (food and blankets) was sent by a Native American tribe => I like these apparently curious and unlikely reach-outs, bcz what they say (against all established stereotypes) is "Humanity is of a kind"

Maybe protesting will accomplish nothing, but it feels better than *doing* nothing.

I can't believe that people are being *arrested* for protesting in the States. That idea frightens me almost more than the war does. Who will liberate the American people from their illigitimate dictators?

What the fuck do you know about it? Moreover, you just accused me of making generalizations, then turn around and lump everyone from NYC in one big groups of disaffect-o's.

the VALUE of getting this stuff on tv is not only to have it be shown in all those little bumfuck areas your metropolitan asses could care less about but also promoting SOLIDARITY with those "stuck" there.

People in those "little bumfuck" areas are probably more gung-ho to nuke the snots out of Iraq than anyone else, as middle America is a hotbed of conservatism. Where do you think that 76% approval is coming from?

Right, so you're defending the naked rain dances, the clowns for peace and the missile-as-dildos brigade because you can't think of something more 'effective'? Is that it?

No, I'm defending them, as I think I did upthread, because it's not up to me to tell other people how to act. That seems to me to be entirely OPPOSITE of the point of these protests, even if I find them distasteful. In a different way, there are other forms of human expression (political, artistic, otherwise) that I find boring/banal/embarrasing/distasteful/whatever, but I feel that my responsibility is not to lecture others about what they do (aside from oops, ha!), and do what I feel is right.

What would be more effective? Doing something that could be taken seriously. By appearing foolish (i.e. much of the protests), you are doing a DISservice to the cause you're trying to espouse, because you are only re-inforcing firmly-held stereotypes.

If you feel so strongly about this, why didn't YOU say something to your hated hippies? I didn't, so I won't. Why should it be my responsibility if it doesn't bother me? What bothers me is our illegal war and illegitimate president, and that's what I'm out in the street marching against (and taking some responsibility in speaking out against)!

Why not, like Oops says, spearhead some sort've letter campagin? Utilize the channels of your local government.

Have you not checked out the web sites of groups that have sponsored these marches?

Boycott certain goods and services, maybe.

I'm not sure if Raytheon or General Dynamics have consumer products divisions, but I'm not planning on buying any GE anytime soon (but then again I wasn't anyway - those fuckers laid off my dad last year because of age discrimination).

Utlize public access opportunities within the media.

Ha, do you think the American public watches a lot of Public Access stations? I mean, does anyone in NYC aside from horny teenagers who watch Robin Byrd?

But leave the mohicans and the tree people at home.

It's not up to me to tell people to stay home when the idea is a mass protest, and everyone's invited (and I didn't organize the thing in the first place!).

If you wan't to defeat your enemy, learn to sing his song. Infultrate the system via the accepted channels and try to change it from the inside.

Uh, I have a job, I vote, I pay taxes, I am in the system.

Spend less time in the art studio making scary George Dubya Bush puppets and more time registering to vote and reading up on the facts.

I do the latter, but why do you also assume that these are mutually exclusive? I don't know any papier-mache-head makers, so I can't say how well they know the facts! I presume you don't, either.

and reversing-accusing me of stereotyping new yorkers while going on in your next second to stereotype everyone in the "flyover states" is just stupid

someone quick find me a picture of jaz coleman with paint on himself

Ha!

Okay, that was silly. Sorry.

Okay, that's a good point.

if, you know, you weren't being purposefully disingenuous like a lot of people on this thread, you might have been able to unpack the counter-analogy enough to realize that claiming ignorance from a position of moral authority is dubious when some simple research into the subject might give your arguments that much more weight. but hey, one-liners are easier, right?

I thought I was answering a one-liner with a one-liner -- but if you saw my initial analogy as a one-liner, then you were doing the same, so. Retracted. Sorry to be unnecessarily glib.

I'll expand. First off, I don't see myself as being in a position of moral authority. I don't think protests are -wrong-. If I thought they helped, I'd be out there (although in New Orleans, the deck is stacked really heavily against protests, in the whole context of Mardi Gras, a parade-and-parties subculture, etc. ... no one notices large groups, really. So ideally, I'd be "out there," but I'd be living somewhere else.) I don't think people lack the right to protest; I've only questioned whether it does any good. I haven't seen any good come of it, except for making those who participate feel better, and I'm not sure that's a good thing, because if you feel you've done your duty, won't you feel less compelled to explore other avenues of opposition?

I do object to the "you can't point out something doesn't work if you don't provide a solution" argument. It's valid in some cases -- I'm wary of candidates who do nothing but point out the flaws in their opponents' plans, while providing no solutions of their own, but that's because I want to vote for someone who has some idea of what he or she plans to do once they get to work.

In this case, I don't see why it's important. Most, maybe all, of the posters to this thread seem to be against the war. It follows that they all want to see efforts expended to stop that war, or stop the policies and approaches which resulted in it, or at the least prevent the parties responsible for it from remaining in their positions of power, and they want those efforts to be fruitful.

Analogy seems like the best way to sum up my objection to the "if you don't have a solution, quit nitpicking" school of thought. There are obviously situations in which people can tell X isn't working, without knowing what to recommend instead. The fact that they lack an alternative solution doesn't mean they're wrong.

In case it isn't clear, let me say that I'd love to be proven wrong about protests. I'd love to discover that they have an effect on federal policy (I've seen protests work for regional/local issues, so I don't need to be convinced about that -- but in those cases, they were centered around an issue people could be mobilized to vote for or against, an option we don't have with the war).

If the actions of a few hippies you don't aesthetically chime with make you want to take your toys and go home, then you are being the very worst kind of elitist, and I have seen your likes before. I am reminded here of PC girls at my college who bussed down to a pro-choice rally in DC, only to abandon the march because there weren't enough 'working class' and 'women of colour' in attendance. Like the labels fell off or something. This middle-class, cater-for-me mindset totally sucks; you can't dial up peace like pizza.

Look, man, I was only making observations and suggestions about how I think they'd be more effective in their efforts. If they want to make jackasses of themselves, I'm not going to stop them. It's their right to do so, after all. Just don't ask me to take them seriously.

What bothers me is our illegal war and illegitimate president, and that's what I'm out in the street marching against (and taking some responsibility in speaking out against)!

If that makes you feel better about it, then knock your socks off. I just don't think it's going to matter to our illegitimate president nor bring an end to the illegal war. But, y'know, that's my opinion. Like Jess says, I'm a disaffected, defeatist snob, apparently.

To Jess:
and reversing-accusing me of stereotyping new yorkers while going on in your next second to stereotype everyone in the "flyover states" is just stupid

How is it stupid? Defend your generalization then!

someone quick find me a picture of jaz coleman with paint on himself

At your service....

http://www.an-irrational-domain.net/images/jaz/jaz122.JPG

The actions of a few hippies merely put me off and depress me. They don't make me want to bomb Iraq. They just make me sad, as as far as I'm concerned, they're deluding themselves.

to wit:

i make my initial post - not directed at anyone except ilm at large - on the nature of cynicism and public protest.

alex replies - to kerry directly but in a way which also ties into my post - re. cyncisim.

i mention to alex that cynicism won't protect him for ever.

"escalation into a near flame-war": Who said anything about it "protecting" me? Are you so wrapped up in the cause that your senses have left you, Jess? Are you that knee-jerk?If so, you're no different than the "love it or leave it" jarheads who think September 2001's hijackers were all Iraqis.

trust me, alex don't need any help in flaming. just check out "killing joke: classic or dud".

and more importantly, i STAND by what i said: cynicism as a worldview means you have taken a wrong step somewhere. otherwise it is totally a defense mechanism, one which can be very useful to protect yourself against cant and bogusness. but one which is very tricky to navigate and very easy to give onesself over to entirely before too long.

For a start, I wouldn't say my view of the world is categorically cynical, but I don't see how someone could intelligently examine the world around them without a shred of cynicism.

One very important point of protests/demos/manifs is to be the inflammation within the allegedly healthy body.

This is apt, but it also points out how important it is for a protest to present the right "symptoms": some inflammations are a result of valid dissolute lifestyle stuff that needs to be examined and perhaps changed, while others are just senseless invasions that need to be quashed with as many antibiotics as possible. So be sure you're attacking the right organ, I guess (which is what most of the hataz are saying, I think.)

So the sickness = ? To hear some protestors tell it, the sickness to be purged is that the United States isn't willing to go to war with Saudi Arabia and North Korea as well.

In any mass protest there will always be people whose methods and tactics you find embarrassing or actually counterproductive to the central aims of the thing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being disappointed or annoyed by this. The whole point of a protest, though, is that regarding the topic at hand you agree with those disappointing wackjobs more than you agree with the most reasonable member of the opposition. So yes, you can feel that the protesting fringes actually sap or embarrass that voice. And yes, a lot of them are there because protesting is easier, more fun, more urgent and concrete than making careful arguments or writing letters -- and a lot of more moderate voices aren't there because of that. But turning your back on the protest is the worst reaction you can possibly have to this, and a thousand times more counterproductive than anything the window-smashers or puppeteers could be up to: by turning your back on protest all you're accomplishing is to cede the anti-war voice to precisely the people you think are least qualified to hold it. Like Mark says, you can only stand next to them and outnumber them, and like Stencil and Kerry have said quite frequently over the past week, the bulk of the people at the biggest of these protests have been doing exactly that. How much cognitive dissonance should this situation possibly cause? Just stand there and remember: I disagree with their tactics, but we agree about the war. All that's really being debated here is whether to stress the disappointment or the solidarity.

Less synthetically: I actually do think Oops has something of a point about things like blocking traffic. Not that blocking Lake Shore Drive for a little while was the worst thing ever to happen, but I think protesters need to be careful and sparing about actively impinging on other people's freedoms to make themselves heard, especially in this current situation. The fear that's driving so many Americans to support war is a fear of "terrorism," which for them is a fear of uncertainty -- the fear that there are elements around them who, for reasons they can't quite fathom, are very upset about something and therefore plan to disrupt their lives with various levels of disorder or violence. There's a level on which I fear certain types of protest add to that atmosphere. But there's also a level on which it has to be remembered that protests aren't debates: they're not solely about convincing people who disagree with you. They're just about being there and being heard, creating a coherent voice and drawing out the people who have agreed with it all along but haven't been motivated to act. And, in so doing, you can still convince some people, but not with coherent and rational argumentation -- you convince them by leading them to make clear decisions about issues you don't think they've ever been forced to think through clearly. There are a lot of people in this country whose support of the status quo is built on convenience, on self-professed ignorance, or on preoccupation -- people who may not have even developed an opinion on this war other than thinking that the president seemed to have some convincing-sounding reasons, so he probably knows what he's doing. We shouldn't forget that one point of protest is to make the person stuck in traffic for an extra hour start to wonder why, and try to find an explanation not in the four-word placards but by asking people and reading things.

So I'm hesitant about some of the tactics -- I think some are a little embarrassing, others flat-out counterproductive, and others maybe just risky and deserving of careful thought. I'm sure we all feel this way about some tactic or other. But those are the people you agree with: you're going to have to either drown them out or deal with them.

I hear the points about not letting the fringes of the movement take over said movement because you're put off by their tactics. Intellectually, I understand this. But when I see and hear about protesters breaking the law and causing havoc, I ask myself "Is this what I am 'for'?"

And, oops: stopping traffic may frustrate some people (though surely not all) who are stuck in traffic, but that's a fairly civil form of disobedience: It's hardly rioting. No one is likely to die because Lake Shore Drive is shut down for a few hours. If that is havoc, it's a fairly controlled, premeditated, and benign form of havoc.

But isn't the end goal of media attention to provoke thought? Isn't part of the goal of protest to -- sooner or later -- force people to seriously reckon with the idea that a significant number of their peers disagree with the status quo? I think this sort of thing is essential in the U.S., which is so culturally isolated that it's very easy for people to just assume that our actions are routine and consequence-free.

And a great number of Americans don't like to think of themselves as politically opinionated. Many of the people who get caricatured as Toby Keith-listening middle-American war supporters are just people who reflexively support any war the U.S. is in, as a default position -- they're people who happily leave such things up to the men in the suits, right up until strong, sustained, and convincing opposition breaks through and makes them think: "A lot of people are really angry about this. Maybe they have a point." It's not that it convinces people who already have opinions: it convinces those who don't have opinions that what's happening is crucial enough that they should.

I think that's a bit of wishful thinking. Call me cynical, but I don't think that would happen more than a handful of times. More likely someone would see this opposition and think "Hey, these damn hippie peaceniks are out in the street again...why do they hate America, don't they know what we're fighting for, blah blah blah."

It was also an element with Vietnam: obviously it was the course of the war itself that led more and more people to sympathize with the protest movement, but the fact remained that the protest movement set up the camp, staked out and tidied up a position so it would be ready for more and more people to turn to it. The question -- "what are these people so worked up about?" -- eventually got answered, in the form of years of dead bodies. And the people asking it increasingly shifted in position: "Actually," they were able to say, "the worked-up people have a point."

I mean, everyone loves to say that people are sheep, and obviously we are social animals. Protest serves a social function. A good anti-war protest makes it a million times safer for the average person to say "I'm against this war" or even just "I have doubts about this war." It creates confidence that people agree, that this is a reasonable position and not a risky fringe crusade. The type of protest people have been digging at on this thread is the type that can, unfortunately, somewhat diminish that sense.

(or what nabisco said)

Nab: But isn't the end goal of media attention to provoke thought?

Yes, but not to provoke thought in the commuters, to provoke thought in the people watching the media (and even more so the people watching the polls).

I'm one of those people who live in bumfuck, NY. Semi-rural area, not too conservative, not too liberal (although we do have ithaca nearby, but that's a whole different story). I'm not in favor of war. War=bad.
The some of the protests that I have seen on the news have made nothing but a negative impact on me. If I'm remembering correctly, I heard something about the city of San Francisco having to pay their cops $40/hr overtime to because of the protests that blocked streets, etc. That really adds up quickly. So, if almost all of the city's police force is trying to clear streets so that people can go to work and try and keep the economy in bad economic times afloat, who's out there fielding the emergency calls? Is all the city's money is going towards trying to keep the roads clear? This is not going to make any great impact on middle america.

Not only this, but I've seen tons of ambivalance towards this whole conflict in my community. There is the opposition, those in favor, and those who don't really care. There have been several community protests, but I have heard of no letter writing campaigns or anything else. What I see are weekend protesters who don't bother to research the issues being fought over at all. And, I'm sorry, but it leaves me with an aversion to the whole protest scene.

Please don't attack me. I mean no harm and I really hope this makes sense.

Well no of course they didn't have to, the city chose to have all those cops there.

***

It appears that an escaltion in tactics on the part of a minority of protestors has moved many people to show their "true colors," and I don't just mean on this thread.

Senator Minnis (appropriate name) of Oregon (a former cop with a record of violent response to protestors of all stripes) has sponsored a bill which would create the crime of terrorism which could in fact result in life imprisonment for people who in any way participate in an action which disrupts commerce, education, or transportation. The bill actually received a hearing today, and will likely go to committee if it hasn't already; all this, despite the fact that in an interview John Minnis admited that the bill would "need some tweaking to come into compliance with the Constitution."

I am disgusted that this could even be fathomed let alone seriously considered. The erosion of civil rights is real and immediate, and yet the majority of people I talk to, including those against the war(s), still insist that one should 'accept reality' and defer to ('inevitable') authority. One of my fellow un/under-employed friends said only half-kidding, "at least you wouldn't have to worry about rent in prison."

It does occur to me that a lot of the US protests have had problems with the authorities either restricting the protests before the start, keeping them away from traditional gathering places, or have hemmed in protests once they've got going.

In the main marches and rallies in the UK are worked out by the organisers and the police together and it helps that in most cities there's a traditional gathering place and in London at least a couple of obvious routes through. There was an enormous row when the Secretary of State for Culture said that Hyde park would not be allowed for the rally. The Police, organisers and the Mayor of London made her back down.

When people have their rights to protest , as they seem to have done in some american cities, some elements are going to lash out and do thing which the main constituency the protesters are trying to influence may find those tactics unpalatable.

I think though that the authorities should accede to any reasonable request from the protesters in the interest of fairness and freedom of expression. Ideally though the protesters andauthorities should work together in the public interest no matter how opposed to each other they may be. Everyone will come out of the experience better.

Ed is absolutely right that when there are acceptable spaces created for this sort of thing -- venues in which people are traditionally allowed and expected to gather and voice their opinions -- there's a much smaller level of confrontation, a lesser need for police intervention, etc. It creates a podium for the masses to gather and speak, and in certain ways it even lends some authority and gets people to notice what they're saying.

Ed: the one place in the U.S. that's like this is the Mall in Washington, D.C. Protests there are necessarily well-organized, moderate, and non-confrontational; they also get news coverage and respect simply by virtue of existing in a historical space of protest. (Cf Vietnam, MLK at the Lincoln Memorial.) Unfortunately these days they seem very poor about opening that space in cooperation with anything but the most widely-acceptable of causes, and I don't think the anti-war project is nearly organized enough to assemble a moderate high-profile event there.

But seriously, right now, protest-wise, there is nothing I'd like to see more than a diverse, focused, and fucking HUGE anti-war gathering on the Mall.

That's just myopic, like the lame 'inconvenienced commuter' stories in the Evening Standard whenever there's a Tube strike: 'sheesh, other people's right to protest and strike sure is annoying and inconveniencing for executive me, make it stop'. I think freedom of speech is a responsibility with costs like any other, and I pay the taxes that subsidise the police ANYWAY. Also, I know *a lot* more about police and their duties than most people participating in this thread. To wit:

There is a budget for public order, whether at protests or parades. Nobody bitches about the extra cost when it's PARADE TIME or people call them killjoys.

You can't really say resources are being diverted by the wrong kind of emergency. There is no right kind of emergency.

Cops love overtime, or at least the cash part, because their starting salaries are so poor. My uncle did a lot of this in the '60s, and that was back when one low cop's salary supported a family.

Suzy has a point about the parades, and the NYPD/FDNY force at parades is MASSIVE to the point that on some blocks there are more law enforcement agents than revellers, esp. for St. Paddy's or Puerto Rican Day.

I really don't want to try to explain how a movement grows, but just want to point out that a movement may grow w/in a particular area (NYC, let's say) and make virtually no gains as a whole. Focusing on what happens in major cities is just a symptom of the common problem of ignoring 'fly-over' country.

nabisco, your point about the Vietnam peace movement seemed to prove my point. You casually mentioned that it was the course of the war that caused massive public opposition, and that the protest movement was just there waiting. To me this shows that the protest movement was uneffective, and it was only when people came around to the anti-war point of view themselves that the actual movement gained momentum. If I set up a "Down With Bush" organization that attracted limited support, and then Bush killed his brother or did something else where it was obvious that he was bad news, I really couldn't take credit for the swelling of Bush hate.

For the record, I'm not convinced either way as to whether or not the Vietnam protests had much effect. It's a whole different matter as to whether the massive public opposition to Vietnam actually was the main factor in ending it.

(nb: I really hate to disagree with you--disagree is probaly to strong of a word--since I agree w/virtually everything you say, this thread and elsewhere)