IRS scandal and ‘easy’ religion ghosts

May 18, 2013 By Leave a Comment

On a recent Crossroads podcast, host Todd Wilken remarked with interest on how many of the year’s major news stories have to do with religion. A cursory glance at the headlines proves it, year after year. But even the non-religion news stories frequently have religion angles.

And so it is with one of the scandals embroiling the Obama administration right now. IRS officials have admitted (via a cartoonish plot to plant a question in front of reporters) the agency wrongly targeted certain groups that had applied for tax-exempt status. Most of the news has focused on the surprising/appalling news that groups were singled out for scrutiny if their group hoped to be “educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights” among other Tea Party-ish things. This being an egregious abuse of power, looks like we’re in for a long hot summer of getting to the bottom of just what he heck went wrong.

But there is a religion angle. Some reporters have conflated two separate issues. On the one hand, we know that the IRS was targeting groups applying for tax-exempt status. They’ve admitted it. On the other hand, we have many stories about the IRS scrutinizing groups (including religious groups) that already had tax-exempt status. These might be related stories but we’re really still in the fact-gathering stage of this scandal. So keep that in mind when you hear reports from hear and there about curious goings-on. Here’s an RNS report about religious groups that talked about scrutiny they’d faced.

At a hearing today about the initial issue, Rep. Aaron Shock asked IRS officials about why they had asked some groups to provide information about their prayer vigils. You can watch the 2:00 clip here, which includes the IRS official responding that he was unable to say whether this line of questioning was appropriate or not.

You can read the Thomas More Society’s documents or pro-life media for more on this story and why it’s important to the larger debate (e.g., the scrutiny of these groups began in 2009, earlier than the IRS claims its higher scrutiny of some groups began). I’m surprised we haven’t seen more mainstream media coverage of this angle.

But Yahoo had a good report which included the original language from the IRS. (And props to the Washington Examiner for having this story days before the hearing, with a solid report on the initial claims.) The Washington Post‘s Slate site had a fascinating spin on this that gets to the desire of some reporters to move on from the fact-gathering stage … and with less-than-ideal results. Reporter Dave Weigel says that the story may sound incredible, but ….:

Like I said, incredible — which when you think about it tells you how quickly the Overton Window has shifted. If you read the document trove, CFLOI ended up handing the feds documentation on stem cells, on the viability of life in the womb, etc. The IRS accepted this; the group got tax-exempt status. The scandal, obviously, is that there’s something inherently evil about inquiring into the “content of prayers.” But the agency was easily satisfied. The point of the story isn’t that Christianity is being oppressed in America.

I’d just encourage reporters to stick with the first job of explaining the whos and the whats and the wheres of the story. I mean, where do we get the idea that the IRS was easily satisfied? Seriously? Where does that come from? Because if you read the Thomas More Society’s side of things, that is precisely the opposite of what went on. Dramatically different, in fact. I don’t know how you could read their document dump and get that idea:

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Journalism, Politics, Religion, Social Issues Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , Leave a Comment

Media coverage of Roe at 40

January 24, 2013 By

YouTube Preview ImageOne could write several volumes under this headline, but we’ll just look at a few items to come out in recent days. Let’s start with this from NBC:

As the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision takes place on Tuesday, a majority of Americans – for the first time – believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

What’s more, seven in 10 respondents oppose Roe v. Wade being overturned, which is the highest percentage on this question since 1989.

Whenever reading stories about polls, check the underlying data. Check the questions.

It’s worth noting that the results of this poll are different from the results of other major polling. Anyway, the poll begins by asking whether respondents approve or disapprove of Roe. Only 39 percent say they approve and 41 percent say they don’t know enough about Roe to have an opinion. The pollsters then completely misrepresent Roe, claiming it only legalizes abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. While pro-lifers might wish it were otherwise, there is far more support for the right to end the lives of unborn children in the first trimester than in the remainder of a pregnancy. Roe and its companion court decisions do not just legalize abortion in the first trimester. Far, far from it.

Anyway, the pollsters then ask respondents if they want not to overturn Roe but “completely” overturn it. Why that bizarre qualifier was added to the question is beyond me, but it’s a good polling trick to suppress one particular response.

So if you misrepresent what abortion law is and then lead people in a particular direction in your answer, you might get the result you’re going for.

Ramesh Ponnuru notes that Washington Post reporter took this information — and another poll — and advised that Republicans “need to stop talking about abortion. Immediately.”

The Washington Post asserts:

The trend line is clear, and Americans are becoming more accepting of abortion rights.

Ponnuru responds that this “thesis depends entirely on an overreaction to a few bits of poll data. A fuller look at the evidence does not bear it out.”The evidence for the Post‘s claim is the NBC poll above and a Pew poll. Ponnuru:

Actually, Pew did not find that support for Roe has been increasing. It found less support for Roe than it did in 2005, which appears to be the last time it asked the question. The ABC/Washington Post poll also found declining support for Roe between 2005 and 2010.

There is much more from Ponnuru but the bottom line is that you would be wise to be at least skeptical of this report.

For a broader and more polemical take on this, I’d recommend reading Tim Carney’s look at media treatment of abortion, Roe and Planned Parenthood. He begins by noting NBC’s misrepresentation of what Roe accomplished, calling it a fitting treatment for its 40th anniversary. He catalogues something you are not likely to even get a hint of from most mainstream media treatment — how “[l]egions of pro-choice judges and legal scholars have admitted that Roe was bad jurisprudence.” He goes on to note that “Planned Parenthood is an abortion business and an abortion lobby” but that its allies in the media obscure this.

He pulls few punches in showing that Planned Parenthood, contrary to media suggestions, doesn’t offer mammograms, offers almost no prenatal care and almost never refers pregnant women for adoption. “If you are pregnant, almost the only service Planned Parenthood provides you involves forceps or a scalpel.” This is true, of course, but it’s not a truth you will learn from most media presentations. Carney is one of the very few reporters covering crony capitalism and how it affects public policy. He talks about how Obamacare authors lobby for Planned Parenthood.

The most important media issue is how we present the terms of the debate. I noted earlier this year that almost all discussion of pro-life work is put in terms of restriction rather than protection. The opposite is true for the pro-choice efforts. If you work to protect unborn life, the media will almost always characterize it as against something. Carney notes a related phenomenon:

In the context of abortion, media and politicians will talk about “terminating pregnancies” and speak as if the only issue at stake is a woman’s body. The premise here is that there is no second person involved.

But we know that there is a second person. Look online at the cutting-edge ultrasounds, and you can see a face, and arms, and legs and a beating heart in the first trimester. That’s a baby.

Now, the fact is that we actually have seen some good coverage of the pro-life movement 40 years after Roe. I hope to highlight some of it. But a year after I witnessed the unabashed media defense of Planned Parenthood against a breast cancer charity that attempted to extricate itself from the abortion business, my eyes have been opened.

I know that if a fringe pro-life group put out something even 1/100th as tone deaf as this ad we saw this week from a major pro-choice group, we would have seen critical coverage. I know that if a staff writer at a popular publication argued that abortion doctors’ lives are lives worth ending, we’d see quite a bit of coverage. Some groups getting pepper sprayed get noticed on all three major networks and others don’t, you know? It’s just par for the course.

But, again, there is good journalism being done, too. Here are the most recent examples that come to mind of quality reportage, fresh angles or coverage of things we’re used to seeing buried. It is easy to focus on either the good or the bad. The whole picture is more complicated and, I hope, getting better. I hope there’s more of a market for good and balanced reporting such as the Washington Post and RNS examples in this paragraph, and less for the unbridled advocacy of an Andrea Mitchell.

Filed Under: Ethics, Science, Sex, Social Issues, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,

Marco Rubio and the media’s curiously inconsistent approach to science

November 20, 2012 By

YouTube Preview ImageI wonder if any of our readers have read Thomas Nagel’s new book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. I’ve been reading the reviews and they’re fascinating. The New Republic review says Nagel, a devout atheist, has “performed an important service with his withering critical examination of some of the most common and oppressive dogmas of our age.”

From Alvin Plantinga’s review “Why Darwinist Materialism Is Wrong” in The New Republic:

ACCORDING TO a semi-established consensus among the intellectual elite in the West, there is no such person as God or any other supernatural being. Life on our planet arose by way of ill-understood but completely naturalistic processes involving only the working of natural law. Given life, natural selection has taken over, and produced all the enormous variety that we find in the living world. Human beings, like the rest of the world, are material objects through and through; they have no soul or ego or self of any immaterial sort. At bottom, what there is in our world are the elementary particles described in physics, together with things composed of these particles.

I say that this is a semi-established consensus, but of course there are some people, scientists and others, who disagree. There are also agnostics, who hold no opinion one way or the other on one or another of the above theses. And there are variations on the above themes, and also halfway houses of one sort or another. Still, by and large those are the views of academics and intellectuals in America now. Call this constellation of views scientific naturalism—or don’t call it that, since there is nothing particularly scientific about it, except that those who champion it tend to wrap themselves in science like a politician in the flag. By any name, however, we could call it the orthodoxy of the academy—or if not the orthodoxy, certainly the majority opinion.

The eminent philosopher Thomas Nagel would call it something else: an idol of the academic tribe, perhaps, or a sacred cow: “I find this view antecedently unbelievable—a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense. … I would be willing to bet that the present right-thinking consensus will come to seem laughable in a generation or two.” Nagel is an atheist; even so, however, he does not accept the above consensus, which he calls materialist naturalism; far from it. His important new book is a brief but powerful assault on materialist naturalism.

But it was another review of the book, which was also quite favorable to it, that really surprised me. I’ll just give the beginning and closing words from the review in The New Statesman:

Thomas Nagel is widely recognised as one of the most important analytical philosophers of his generation. In both the philosophy of mind and moral philosophy, he has produced pioneering and influential work. This book inherits many of the virtues of that work. It is beautifully lucid, civilised, modest in tone and courageous in its scope…

But I regret the appearance of this book. It will only bring comfort to creationists and fans of “intelligent design”, who will not be too bothered about the difference between their divine architect and Nagel’s natural providence. It will give ammunition to those triumphalist scientists who pronounce that philosophy is best pensioned off. If there were a philosophical Vatican, the book would be a good candidate for going on to the Index.

Yes, the worst sin isn’t even supposing that a prevailing view might be questioned but, rather, giving comfort to creationists. Dunh dunh dunh!

But that’s the media environment we’re in (this is straight up Kellerian philosophy that the New Statesman reviewer Simon Blackburn offered).

I thought of all this when reading the response the mainstream media had to an interview Marco Rubio gave to GQ. In only the second paragraph we get this prophetic bit from reporter Michael Hainey:

Rubio smiles a lot and likes to put people at ease. But he also speaks with the restraint of a guy who knows everything he says will be parsed and, most likely, used against him. “I’ve learned the hard way,” he says. “You have to always be thinking how your actions today will be viewed at a later date.”

You don’t say. I mean, this is obvious. You can’t have had a pulse for the last few years (much less the decades prior to that) and not have noticed that some politicians have to be particularly careful in dealing with the media. There’s a certain freedom that politicians on the left have in dealing with the media that politicians on the right don’t have. When was the last time you heard a pro-choice politician asked why he thought it should be legal to kill an unborn child just because she’s female. Never? That is correct. (Which is just astounding!) When was the last time you heard a pro-life politician asked about exceptions for rape? An hour ago? Probably.

The GQ interview is wide ranging, if by wide ranging you mean questions about Rubio’s favorite Afrika Bambaataa songs, his three favorite rap songs, whether there is a song he plays to psych himself up before a vote in the Senate and whether Pitbull is too cheesy. It’s obviously incredibly fluffy.

Here are two questions asked from the middle of the interview (in order):

GQ: You were obviously very moved by your grandfather’s dignity and your father’s dignity. What are the qualities that would qualify for a man to have dignity?

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

What the what?

Rubio gives a fairly standard political answer:

Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.

Oh no he did-unt!

Then a bunch of media outlets all lined up to freak out. This smugtastic Slate piece, which had to run a correction about whether sociology, linguistics, anthropology, and other sciences indicate that the Earth is billions of years old, was definitely my favorite.

I guess my problem with the whole scenario is that I don’t trust the media here. It’s not like we have a media where we see routinely tough questions asked about science as it relates to human life and dignity. You remember all of the outrage over opposition to stem cell research that destroys human embryos, don’t you? The cover stories, the factually inaccurate pieces condemning ethicists as anti-science? I do. Why don’t we see the same deluge of stories about embryonic stem cell research now? Do you have any ideas? Is it because embryonic stem cell research kind of turned out to be a bust whereas stem cell research that doesn’t destroy embryos is going gangbusters?

We don’t have a media that questions all sorts of scientifically questionable thinking so long as it comports with a particular agenda.

Instead we have a group of people who have very unscientific ideas about when human life begins (or, at the very least, never even have the thought of asking that question to politicians who support abortion on demand) act outraged.

You know who was the last “journalist” to ask President Barack Obama when he believes human life begins? It was that Pulitzer Prize winner Rick Warren. Do you remember Obama’s response? At the Telegraph: Tim Stanley has thoughts on this:

More importantly, if it’s okay for Barack Obama to say that abortion is “above my paygrade” and refuse to offer a guess as to when life begins, why is it not okay for Rubio to dodge a bullet when asked a question about the origins of the Earth? Considering that the question posed to Obama back in the 2008 election had serious moral consequences and Rubio’s does not, I can’t understand why Obama’s evasion is heralded as a victory for common sense but Rubio’s is treated like a declaration of war on science. The hysteria and hypocrisy are tiring at best.

I don’t care when the world began and I don’t care if my elected officials know either. I’m far too worried about a stagnating US economy and its spiralling debt. And yet, in these strange and worrying times, how “sciency” someone is seems to have become a litmus test for office – regardless of where they stand on the things that they can actually do something about.

It’s the miserable philosophy of a materialist liberalism gone mad – a systematised worldview that prefers to wallow in inconsequential data rather than explore profound questions about life and death. Note to the mainstream media: abortion is a more important issue than the age of the Earth. It personally affects a lot more people.

The hysteria and hypocrisy are getting to me, too. I find the whole thing ridiculous.

Note: I’m sure we all have our own political, theological and scientific responses to Rubio’s comments. I know I do. But while there are many places on the internet to express those views, this site is reserved for a discussion of media coverage. Please keep comments focused on media coverage, which still gives us a lot of room to have fun.

Filed Under: Books, Catholicism, Ethics, Evangelicals, Politics, Science, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Catholic bishops’ not-so-partisan partisan crusade

November 2, 2012 By

YouTube Preview ImageThe Washington Post ran a piece from Religion News Service with the headline:

Catholic bishops make last-minute pitch for Romney

Considering that the bishops didn’t even name Vice President Joe Biden when they corrected a false claim he made about the HHS mandate during the debate a few weeks ago, I thought it major news that they’d be making an overt pitch for Romney. Then I read the top of the story:

A number of Roman Catholic bishops are making forceful last-minute appeals to their flock to vote on Election Day, and their exhortations are increasingly sounding like calls to support Republican challenger Mitt Romney over President Obama.

The most recent example: a letter from Illinois Bishop Daniel Jenky accusing the administration of an unprecedented “assault upon our religious freedom” and implying that Catholics who pull the lever for Democrats who support abortion rights are like those who condemned Jesus to death.

Oh dear. Already we have a problem. That bold headline that asserts that Catholic bishops are all in for Romney turns into a lede where we are told that something merely “sounds like” (To whose ear? We are not told.) support for Romney. And the Jenky letter never singled out Democrats who support abortion. Far from it. So why was it written up that way?

OK, before I go on, I do want to point out what the piece does well. It is certainly newsworthy that these bishops are so clearly addressing Catholics on religious liberty. Those of us who aren’t Catholic and would have no idea about any of this going on in Catholic dioceses around the country are well served by reporters sharing this information. And the article has a decent survey of the various bishops who have spoken out.

Let’s look at a quote from the Jenky letter and then show you how it was summarized:

Nearly two thousand years ago, after our Savior had been bound, beaten, scourged, mocked, and crowned with thorns, a pagan Roman Procurator displayed Jesus to a hostile crowd by sarcastically declaring: “Behold your King.” The mob roared back: “We have no king but Caesar.” Today, Catholic politicians, bureaucrats, and their electoral supporters who callously enable the destruction of innocent human life in the womb also thereby reject Jesus as their Lord. They are objectively guilty of grave sin. For those who hope for salvation, no political loyalty can ever take precedence over loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ and to his Gospel of Life. God is not mocked, and as the Bible clearly teaches, after this passing instant of life on earth, God’s great mercy in time will give way to God’s perfect judgment in eternity.

Here’s how it’s changed up:

Jenky also compares abortion rights supporters to the Jewish crowd in Jerusalem that pledged loyalty to the Roman Empire and demanded that Pontius Pilate crucify Jesus.

I’m not entirely sure that changing “a hostile crowd” to “the Jewish crowd” is helpful. I don’t understand why that change was made, in fact. But more than that, I think the significance of Jenky’s statement was completely missed. That is an incredibly strong statement to come from a bishop — even for the issue of the “destruction of innocent human life in the womb.” It’s interesting that it wasn’t included in the story.

The story suggests the bishops don’t really care about the doctrine so much as partisan aims. So we read:

Across the continent in Alaska, Juneau Bishop Edward J. Burns wrote a column in the local newspaper on Oct. 27 comparing Vice President Joe Biden’s support for abortion rights to supporting slave owners in the antebellum South, and he questioned Biden’s character and Catholic faith.

Numerous other bishops, from Newark, N.J. to Springfield, Illinois to Colorado Springs have made similar appeals.

They always stress that they are not endorsing any particular candidate but they frame their statements by listing a set of “non-negotiable” issues that start with opposition to abortion and go on to include other policies that Republicans generally support and Democrats generally oppose.

It’s just a really interesting way to frame the story. But is it accurate? The media’s “exhortations are increasingly sounding like” calls to question the bishops motivation, aren’t they? “See, those bishops claim they care about doctrine but — wink-wink, nudge-nudge — we’ve figured out their partisan aims — something we never seem to notice in our couldn’t-be-fluffier coverage of the Nuns on the Bus.” Also, I’m sure you already noticed that the final excerpted sentence completely negates the headline for the piece.

But what’s really noteworthy is that this is a really bizarre reading of Burns’ column. For one thing, I didn’t see where Burns questioned Biden’s “character.” If you’re going to assert that he did, you should substantiate the charge. What’s more, you would never know this from the RNS write-up but Burns actually critiqued both Biden and Ryan! Failure to mention that fact does help the narrative that the bishops are being partisan, but it certainly isn’t fair. Here’s what Burns actually wrote:

That being said, each vice presidential candidate has been inconsistent in the ways in which they have followed the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. Vice President Biden, while stating that he believes, as his Church does, that life begins at conception, and while professing his personal opposition to abortion, supports the virtually unlimited right to abortion that has resulted in deaths of millions of unborn children since the tragic Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. In addition to this position of his in conflict with the teaching of the Church, Vice President Biden has also come out in support of legalizing same-sex marriage.

By way of contrast, Congressman Ryan has been a resolute advocate of Catholic moral teaching on the defense of the unborn and traditional marriage between one man and one woman. However, the Federal budget that he has proposed could do harm to the poor and vulnerable by neglecting their legitimate needs. For example, Congressman Ryan proposed a budget that has received a critique by the Domestic Justice and Human Development and International Justice and Peace committees of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, stating that “a just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons.”

Another relevant item that was missing from this story was Archbishop Charles Chaput’s statement:

“We’re Catholics before we’re Democrats. We’re Catholics before we’re Republicans. We’re even Catholics before we’re Americans because we know that God has a demand on us prior to any government demand on us,” he said in a new interview with the wire service. “And this has been the story of the martyrs through the centuries,” Chaput said.

You can view his remarks at the top of this piece, too. The entirety of his remarks deals exclusively with the partisan issue. If your article is trying to make the claim that the bishops are all partisan, failure to include this Chaput quote from last week certainly helps. But if you read all of these statements, is the grand unifying theme of them really about the Grand Old Party? Or is it something else?

Filed Under: Catholicism, Godbeat, Politics, Social Issues, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,

Why didn’t Catholic bishops call Biden out by name?

October 15, 2012 By

I’m on the road right now, in Montana, and haven’t had a chance to catch Saturday Night Live yet but apparently in the comedy show’s skit on the Vice Presidential debate, the Joe Biden character said:

“I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church. But then, like most Catholics, I ignore them and do what I want.”

Hardy har har. The joke was in reference to a portion of the debate where the moderator treated abortion as a question of faith and then asked both candidates to explain — as Catholics — their position on abortion. During the answer to that question, Republican candidate Paul Ryan brought up the threats to religious liberty posed by the Health and Human Services mandate requiring individuals and organizations to provide health insurance coverage that may violate the teachings of their faith.

In response, Biden said something most interesting (according to this Washington Post transcript):

With regard to the assault on the Catholic church, let me make it absolutely clear, no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital, any hospital, none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact.

Well, like almost everything uttered by politicians, that’s not a fact. And a few hours later, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called him out. Religion News Service had a story that some people brought to our attention:

In a rare public rebuke, Catholic bishops chided Vice President Joe Biden for saying during Thursday’s vice-presidential debate that Catholic hospitals and institutions will not be forced to provide contraception coverage to employees.

Without mentioning Biden by name, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said the “inaccurate” statement “made during the Vice Presidential debate” was “not a fact.”

I think some people thought RNS was having fun with scare quotes again. But this is just quote-quoting it. What’s really interesting about this statement from the bishops isn’t just that they called Biden out for lying. They did it without using his name and in a quite passive manner. The quote mechanism used above conveys that.

There was a bit of a problem with inconsistency in using such an approach later in the story, however:

The White House later offered a complex compromise that would allow insurance companies, rather than employers, to pay for the contraceptive coverage. Critics — including the bishops — say it doesn’t go far enough.

“They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries,” the bishops’ conference said.

It’s true that the White House claims that its compromise is not a shell game but rather a totally legit way to keep employers from being too involved in paying for things they oppose. Claims should be put forth as just that, however. It’s easy to say that “The White House later offered a change that it says would ….” There’s no reason to adopt the White House talking point. Just say what it is. Obviously people opposed to this mandate think it’s no compromise at all and that the claim is laughable — that the underlying issue is unchanged. So just let them make their case, too — as this story does above.

Anyway, a good story that lays out the bishops’ view and the curious way they made the statement. That might even be worth more coverage — why did the bishops play the passive game of saying some mysterious person at the debate erred? Why did they not call out Biden by name? Religion reporters definitely noticed this. Perhaps there’s some coverage of this I haven’t seen yet. Of course, I also haven’t seen mainstream coverage of another Biden claim on abortion. Many Catholic sites and individuals have lambasted his claim that the basis for Catholic opposition to abortion is de fide. There’s no reason that this interesting debate — along with those about whether the Catholic religion requires particular legislative approaches when it comes to care for the poor — can’t get more mainstream coverage. It really lies at the heart of these important political differences on how society can best protect the lives of the unborn and how society can best take care of the weakest among us.

Filed Under: Catholicism, Politics, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,