On supposed liberal elitism

Often heard is the accusation that liberals form an "elite," a sub-stratum of society wholly antithetical to the values of "real Americans." Characteristic of this elite are their personal choices regarding reading material, residency, transportation and other affinities. Rarely is the Internet not laden with charges that "Volvo-driving, wine-sipping, NYC/SF-dwelling, gay-loving, college-graduating, Europe-worshipping, subtitled-film watching agnostics look down on 'real Americans'."

How is this any more elite than a truck, an SUV or a Hummer?

If one is to look closely at the elements so scorned by so many of these "real" Americans, one may find that they are hardly elite at all, just different from the mainstream. To begin with, a frequent generalization concerns the mode of transportation favored by these "elites." This, of course, would be the Prius or the Volvo. The Prius starts at just over $23,000, according to the Toyota website: http://www.toyota.com/sem/prius.html?srchid=K610_p312826639 while a Volvo can fetch for between $25,000 to $40,000. Either way, purchasing a Volvo or a Prius firsthand can incur considerable expense, but so can the purchase of a Hummer or a pick-up truck with the latest accoutrements from an American car company. While some could argue that the purchase of a hybrid car can induce a smug feeling of moral superiority on the part of the owner, so could being wholly reliant on public transport, something that is considered decidedly "non-elite" by much of mainstream America.

Despite rumors to the contrary, most subtitled films do make sense!

As for entertainment, it is often generalized that this "elite" would rather spend hours being entertained by the likes of Fellini or Bergman or Truffaut than NASCAR. To many, foreign films, particularly those bearing subtitles, are considered impenetrable and thus only appealing to a small sector of our society. Undoubtedly, some of the works of Fellini and Bergman may have limited appeal; however, several of these "elite" directors have made works that are easily accessible to the masses. Fellini films such as "I Vitelloni" and "Nights of Cabiria" offer no serious obstacles to the ordinary viewer and treat universal themes. So do many of the films by Kurosawa, Herzog and Bergman, particularly "Scenes from a Marriage," and "Wild Strawberries." An affinity for foreign film is not automatically exclusionary. The presence of subtitles does not necessarily indicate that the work is only accessible to those with a background in Jungian psychology or an MFA in film studies.

With color pictures, easy-to-understand vocabulary and entire sections dedicated to the trivial, how is this publication "elitist"?

As for reading material, the New York Times is often held up as the pinnacle of elitist journalism. Although the vocabulary level of the New York Times of today is nowhere close to what it was in, say, 1960, many believe that the Times utilizes a style that excludes the multitude. The Times is hardly impenetrable. As for the charge that it is "elitist," this would be valid if the editors began charging hundreds of dollars for a single copy, but as it stands, the New York Times, for all its flaws, is a very accessible publication that can be had for the same price as its competitors.

In my own lifetime of 37 years, these "elites," these individuals who show a fondness for foreign films, the New York Times and hybrid cars, are often not of the monied class, but are often academics who earn an income that is hardly staggering. The studio-dwelling San Franciscan with a boxed set of Ozu films and posters of Tosca and La Traviata on his walls is hardly an elite who poses a threat to the values of real Americans. The real threat comes from those who see exploitation, greed and violence as the necessary staples of our society.

On the persistent accusation of "America supported the IRA"

Frequently lobbed at American participants in chat forums regarding terrorism is the accusation "you Yanks supported the IRA for decades and now you want to lecture the world on how evil terrorism is!" Unfortunately, such an inane generalization has gained currency in the on-line community. As is the case with such accusations, they have a habit of being repeated to the point where they lodge themselves into the popular consciousness and cannot be extricated easily.

The recent revelations that Rep. Peter King had indeed given money to the Irish Republican Army has bolstered this accusation. Rep. King is, however, hardly representative of the entire House of Representatives. No person, when queried as to how the U.S. subsidized IRA terrorism, has been able to offer examples of legislation passed by both houses allocating money to the Irish Republican Army. Lacking proof of such official U.S. patronage, the argument often turns to two other venues: the existence of NORAID and the collections undertaken in bars in New York and Boston among the Irish diaspora.

Organizations such as Clan na Gael and Noraid have certainly existed and have provided succour of  sorts to those on the Republican side in Ulster; however, to believe that small organizations within a nation of over 300,000,000 people substantiate the claim that "America supports the IRA" is ludicrous. What should one then think of Britain, a nation that has shown itself via public demonstrations, to be the home of more than one would-be Jihadist? Of the nation's 1,500 mosques, what if 10 were found to be linked to radical movements abroad? Would that then make Britain a "supporter of Islamic fundamentalist terror"? Hardly. The actions of certain individuals outside of our lawful bodies of legislation (save for Rep. King, who appears to be an isolated case), hardly makes a nation a supporter of terrorism.

What also needs to be remembered is that the IRA bombing campaigns did not transpire in England until the 1970s. As the Troubles intensified in 1969, a great deal of sympathy was felt worldwide for the Catholic minority in Ulster. Many individuals offering material aid to those on that side of the divide acted in good faith towards those seen as oppressed unfairly. Thus, not all aid offered to the minority in Ulster was geared towards the advocacy of terrorism; in fact, a great deal of it was aid with day-to-day living, a strenuous undertaking for those often denied employment and suitable housing. Althougn NORAID is an agency that has advocated on behalf of the Catholic minority in Ulster, NORAID is hardly indicative of U.S. legislation or the charitable inclinations of the U.S. majority. As stated previously, the presence of those individuals who support radical Islam within Britain hardly makes the United Kingdom a state supporter of Islamic extremism.

One other factor to which attention should be drawn is the inordinate amount of attention drawn to the IRA itself. The IRA is not without its adversarial counterparts. One need only look at the UDA (Ulster Defence Association), active from 1971 to 2007, to see that bloodshed was not inflicted solely by the Republican side. In addition to the UDA, Royalist paramilitary groups have also included:
The Ulster Volunteer Force (responsible for over 400 civilian deaths during the Troubles)
Loyalist Volunteer Force (responsible for 18 murders)
Red Hand Commando (responsible for 13 murders)
Ulster Young Militants
Ulster Resistance
UVF Mid-Ulster Brigade

Whether it be murder, arson, or acts of petty hooliganism, Royalist groups have also perpetrated violence upon people in the United Kingdom. Such facts should not be marginalized when entering into an analysis of the IRA and its history. The actions of the UDA or UVF do not in any way exonerate the IRA, but it should never be forgotten that they do not work within a vacuum. The real issue here is not so much the IRA or its counterparts on the other side of the ideological/religious divide. What stands at the forefront is how persistent an absurd accusation has become, particularly in light of the diversity and sheer size of the U.S. populace.

A collection of the dumbest things you will always hear despite the truth being within reach

If I were to collect the number of declarations uttered as though they were truthful, it would go beyond the limits of what constitutes my knowledge of numbers. So often we hear the following questions or statements that can so easily be answered or discredited. What is disturbing is that in our information age when a question can be answered or a statement invalidated, these questions and statements have a way of popping up time and time again. These are some of the most persistent ones:

Actually, we can!

1. If man evolved from apes, how come we still have apes? No matter how many times this is answered, someone will ask it again and again. Evolutionary biologists do not posit that man evolved from apes; on the contrary, the theory of evolution puts forth that we share a common ancestor with our animal cousins. Now, asking questions is the first step towards eliminating ignorance, but this question has been asked and answered so many times now that you would think it unnecessary to bring it up as many times as it has been raised.

2. The only reason Canada can afford to have 'socialized medicine' is because we Americans provide all their defense for them? Really? Defense from what? The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. Even during the Cold War, did any rational person think that the Soviets were going to attempt a land invasion of Canada? Think of the logistics involved in trying to occupy a land mass that size. The Soviets could not subordinate Afghanistan, a much smaller nation. How would they have subjugated Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, the Yukon and other provinces and territories?

3. Canada's a neutral nation....they're like America, except they're not brave like us! Right, the country that entered WWI three years before the United States, entered WWII two years before the United States, fought in Korea, the First Gulf War and has undertaken some of the riskiest combat operations in Afghanistan is a nation of cowards. I am sure you could be a great hit at a Canadian comedy club by pointing out their neutrality.

4. Canadians are always coming to America to get their health care; in fact, everyone comes here for their health care! Actually, I won't answer this. I'll just allow you to access the data that is so easily obtained. Please desist from making this statement unless you have the actual statistics stating how many, out of the world's population, come to America for health care. Please look it up!

I am sure that the CEO of IKEA will be shocked to learn that the Swedish government owns all the means of production!

5. Sweden is a socialist nation! I am sure that the CEOs of Volvo, IKEA, Scania, Saab and several other industries will be surprised to hear this! Look up the dictionary definition of socialism, please!

Doesn't look suicidal to me, which puts her in the same category as the overwhelming majority of her fellow Swedes!

6. Sweden has the highest suicide rate on Earth! No, that dubious honor goes to Lithuania. Sweden's not even in the top ten; in fact, no Scandinavian nation is!

Yes, because if ever a man embodied Hitler's ideal, it's a Black American!

7. Hitler was a socialist! Just look at the name of his party, the National Socialists! All right, please tell us five economic policies pursued by Hitler once in power that proved him to be a socialist. Also, do you believe North Korea is democratic owing to its name which has the word "democratic" in it?

8. The French are a bunch of cowards! Just look at their military history....all defeats and surrenders! Why not get a book at look at the lengthy history of French victories in battle? If you want, here is one reliable source: http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp

Wonder what percentage of the "hate-France crowd" enlisted to fill in the French vacancies during the Iraq invasion

While I am thoroughly grateful to the American military for all that it has done for us, we have not been characterized by victory after victory either. As part of an international coalition, we had a stalemate in Korea, a defeat in Vietnam, we had thousands of men evading the draft during the Vietnam war, we did not achieve our ultimate goal of ousting Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War, we withdrew from Somalia and have been entangled in Iraq and Afghanistan for a longer period of time than we were involved in WWII. Also, has anyone noticed that the types who usually belittle France are often not war heroes themselves, but overweight couch potatoes who would probably flee if they were within 100 miles of a war zone?

Why these falsehoods and inane questions continue to prevail I will never understand. It is my hope that with greater access to reliable sources of information, people will stop repeating falsehoods.

Sorry, "conservative media" is not an oxymoron!

Repeated breathlessly and with little thought is the reminder that "liberals own the media," or that "conservatives have so little media representation." For many, this has become almost axiomatic. To take this lament seriously would be to acknowledge that conservatives are a marginalized group when it comes to representation in television, print and radio. The truth is quite different. No matter how many times the right decry the "liberal media," the fact remains that there are several sources of conservative information out there that are hardly underground.

To begin with, who can deny the power of that media colossus FOX News? Since 1996, FOX has given conservative Americans their much sought-after programming. Rupert Murdoch, the founder of FOX, is hardly a marginal figure in modern media. His reach now extends to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and several other media. In addition to Murdoch's channel, several of the pundits from FOX have branched out into publishing and produce regular columns for on-line publications. These include Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, hardly people one would consider to be on the margins of the political debate.

Further additions to conservative media are the numerous publications that have a rightist slant. These include:
1. The American
2. The American Interest
3. American Outlook
4. The American Thinker
5. Chronicles: a Magazine of American Culture
6. The Claremont Review of Books
7. Commentary
8. The Dartmouth Review
9. First Things
10. Front Page
11. Harvard Salient
12. Human Events
13. Imprimis
14. Jewish World Review
15. The National Interest
16. The National Review
17. The New Atlantis
18. The New Criterion
19. Policy Review
20. The Princeton Tory
21. The Saturday Evening Post
22. Southern Partisan
23. The Weekly Standard
24. World

These publications, combined with the ubiquity of Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, David Horowitz, Charles Krauthammer, S.E. Cupp, Michael Savage and several others, hardly lend credibility to the claim that conservatives are marginalized.

Conservatives have every right to media that reflect their views, just as their opponents in the ideological divide have every right to their own media. It would be a sad state of affairs if such publications were forbidden; however, the myth that conservatives lack a media is indicative of a victim mentality, something conservatives so often accuse the left of possessing. The publications and spokesmen that are mentioned within this article are hardly difficult to access. What conservatives need to do is to recognize that while several news' sources do have a progressive bent, conservatives are hardly lacking for an alternative.

Why can't criminals be called "job creators" too?

I have often heard the justification for tax breaks being given to corporations and to people of high incomes with: "rich people create jobs." While it is true that multi-national corporations employ numerous people, we seem to have overlooked another source of employment: criminals. Criminals not only employ people, they also generate employment outside of the criminal sector thanks to their illegal acts.

A job creator before his incarceration and a job facilitator afterwards. Just ask the men who are paid to guard him!

How inactive would our judicial system be without criminals? Think of how redundant judges and prosecutors would become. What would happen to law enforcement? How many would not be able to pursue a career in that very field if it weren't for criminals? Think also of the prison industrial complex. Look at the growth of private prisons! They would not be able to thrive if it were not for criminals. Criminals, because of their acts, generate much-needed employment. The millions of judges, guards, police officers and attorneys can attest to this fact.

The man's a job creator; how can you not love him?

If one's validation comes from being a "job creator," then it is about time we pay tribute to our nation's criminals? Without them, several sectors of our working population would see themselves destitute. If the thieving CEO of a corporation can be excused with the justification of "he's a job creator," why not apply it to the shoplifter or the stick-up man? Without them, a whole sector (law enforcement) would find itself "made redundant."

"Scandinavia has the highest suicide rates on Earth" and other mythology

Attempts to discredit the success of societies where relatively generous social-welfare programs are the norm are legion. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of Scandinavia. To many, the idea of applying tax dollars towards maternity leave, public transport, education and health care rather than overextending the military industrial complex about which President Eisenhower warned us is anathema. One such attempt to disparage the relative success attained by the countries of Northern Europe is with the introduction of the "fact" that those nations have the highest suicide rates on Earth. This is a patent falsehood.

One may ask, "what is to be gained by the propagation of such a lie?" Much is to be gained. The idea that spending primarily on the general welfare of the populace leads to self murder has its benefits. People are conditioned to believe that such a society is one where the populace would rather die by their own hands than live under a form of capitalism that uses taxes to bankroll the necessary pillars of a civil society. In doing so, the American population are further conditioned to accept a negative status quo within their own society. What is disturbing is how five nations, where the free market, and not socialism, is the norm, are described as "socialist," which completely contravenes the dictionary definition of the term. Scandinavia is neither socialist nor does it feature the highest suicide rates on Earth. Not one Scandinavian nation is in the top ten for suicide rates. In addition, private industry thrives in Scandinavia and the free market is an integral part of those societies. The notion that the Scandinavian governments wholly control the means of production is ludicrous. Equally ludicrous is the perception that the Nordic peoples are killing themselves at the highest rate on Earth. Although I have found great faults with Wikipedia, the following statistics were culled directly from the World Health Organization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

It is my hope that this brief article will dispel the myth regarding Scandinavia. Such mythology is pernicious on many levels as it indicates an unsettling trend within our society. This trend, of course, is one where people can be led to believe something so utterly false when the facts are readily available.

I do not expect America to become a mirror reflection of Scandinavia. Such an aspiration is ludicrous given the differences in population and demographics. What I do hope for is that more people will reject lies proffered by the talking heads of our media and the self-proclaimed pundits of the Internet. For now, Scandinavia may have its imperfections as all societies do, but not one Scandinavian nation ranks in the top ten for suicide. One can hope, however naively, that the truth will grain traction and that the lies about suicide in Scandinavia will be swept aside by reality.

Why aren't people who watch hours and hours of TV told that they have "too much free time on their hands"?

Leisure time is a scarce commodity in American society; thus, how it is spent is of concern to many. For most, television watching is the preferred activity during idle hours. The individual who watches ca. 3 hours of television per night is hardly an anomaly. In fact, the nightly television viewer is hardly at a loss to find the like-minded within greater society. To discard television watching as an activity with absolutely no merit is myopic, to say the least. Although programming has been kept, for the most part, at a consistently low level since television's inception, certain networks have done us a service culturally and intellectually. In the modern era, viewers can opt to watch shows concerning history, travel, cuisine, classic cinema, diet and exercise, as well as art appreciation. However laudable these programs may be, they do not represent the bulk of commercial programming. One is more likely to come across inane sitcoms, tawdry reality shows, shallow reporting of current events, absurdly easy game shows, unintentionally funny soap operas and other detritus unlikely to stimulate the mind. Despite the dross broadcast over the airwaves, dedicating one's free time to immersion within this medium is more than accepted; in fact, it is encouraged.

The individual who dedicates three to four hours a night to watching that which provides no enrichment is hardly likely to see himself castigated for how he spends his idle moments. In fact, he will most likely find an eager group of like-minded individuals who will gladly join him in discussing the previous night's entertainment. The same cannot be said for he who spends his spare moments in study of that which is hardly remunerative. Let us compare a person who watches a nightly diet of sitcoms and reality shows to someone who spends his free moments studying dead languages, obscure literature or anything that is relatively arcane. The former is unlikely to be confronted with the accusation of "you have too much free time on your hands," whereas the latter, should he confess that his leisure time is spent engrossed in studying Sanskrit or cataloguing the greatest examples of dulcimer music, may find his use of his own time under scrutiny.

Likely to result in the accusation of "you have too much free time on your hands!"

Not likely to raise an eyebrow, even if your primary hobby is not only watching this show, but also contributing to its fan sites!

This is not to say that the "couch potato" is never subjected to criticism, but his inactivity and passivity are far more socially acceptable than one who expends much mental activity on that which is unlikely to result in monetary gain. The concept of dedicating one's mental abilities to something that has no financial reward is alien to too many. It is a distressing fact that many who indulge in activities of the mind that promise no compensation other than personal satisfaction are perceived as going against the grain in a negative way. This is an unfortunate feature of our modern society. How one spends one's leisure time is, of course, one's own business, but if the declaration of "you have too much free time on your hands," is given readily to he who spends his nights archiving medieval texts, why should it not be applied to someone who has spent the past hour immersed in "Jersey Shore" or some other inanity?

Should conservative celebrites "shut up and sing" also?

The indignation expressed by many on the right towards celebrities who offer somewhat left-of-center opinions is a curious one indeed. The exceptions taken by conservatives towards the actual opinions are, of course, understandable, but what is striking is the mantra espoused by those same guardians of traditional order: "shut up and sing." Thus Laura Ingraham, the conservative radio-show host entitled her best-selling book as such, and many on the right have taken to chiding celebrities who "overstep" their boundaries and offer political commentary. Outrage that Barbra Streisand, Matt Damon, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and Harry Belafonte deviate from their expected roles as entertainers and enter into the political fray is hypocritical when one considers the number of entertainers who have spoken in support of conservative causes.

The belief that an entertainer should stay within his chosen profession and express no political point of view is a misguided one. While the entertainer may offer an opinion that owes little to logic, he is exercising the right for which his forefathers risked all. Whether Mr. Damon or Ms. Streisand offer genuine insight is mostly irrelevant; they, like any other citizen, are expressing what is rightfully theirs: their thoughts on current events. Simply because they have attained fame through the entertainment industry does not negate their right to engage in the same activity enjoyed by those of us who live anonymously within society.

Returning to the theme of hypocrisy, it is curious to see how it is almost always celebrities who express a dissenting point of view who are subject to this rebuke of "you're just an actor; it's not your job to lecture us about politics!" Although most Hollywood luminaries are admittedly left of center, several have shown themselves to be conservatives, and quite vociferous ones, I might add. If actors were to take the advice proffered so often regarding overstepping boundaries, would not conservatives have been deprived of their iconic statesman Ronald Reagan? Reagan, as you recall, was the star of films ranging from the masterly King's Row to the buffoonery of Bedtime for Bonzo. Reagan is hardly the sole exception among Hollywood stars. Several others, some of whom are no longer with us, have at some point shown themselves to be champions of conservative causes. Those actors include:

Steve Baldwin (prominent born-again Christian)
Kelsey Grammer (noted Republican)
Bo Derek (attendee at the GOP convention and supporter of George W. Bush)
Duane "The Rock" Johnson (George W. Bush supporter)
Scott Baio (Republican)
Jon Voight (Republican)
Charlton Heston (NRA spokesman)
Shannon Doherty (Republican)
Jason Priestley (publicly called on Americans to support George W. Bush at the start of the Iraq War)
James Woods (has shown himself to be aligned with conservative ideology on more than one occasion)
Dennis Hopper (shortly before his death, Mr. Hopper was known to have been a supporter of the Republican party although he did not vote for McCain in 2008)
Tom Selleck (promoted The National Review)
Dennis Miller (conservative comedian)
Chuck Norris (prominent conservative)
Ron Silver (prominent conservative during his lifetime)
Kirk Cameron (born-again Christian)
Pat Boone (prominent conservative and Christian)
James Stewart (Reagan supporter)
Fred Thompson (politician and actor)
John Wayne (proud supporter of the Vietnam War)
Jim Caviezel (political conservative and devout Catholic)
Patricia Heaton (noted advocate of family values)
Arnold Schwarzenegger (former Republican governor of California)
Ted Nugent (prominent Republican and champion of the NRA)
Jessica Simpson (supporter of George W. Bush)

Now, so many of the aforementioned celebrities have been honored guests on FOX and have been applauded for the opinions offered; yet, what is striking is that when their left-wing counterparts in Hollywood do the same on other networks, they are vilified. As pointed out, they are not just vilified for their viewpoints, but rather for having the temerity to speak them and engage in something outside the arena with which they are associated. The hypocrisy is flagrant. Although the viewpoints offered by Robert Redford or Tim Robbins may be distasteful to many, these actors are hardly required to limit themselves to the craft with which they are primarily associated. America is a society where freedom of speech is zealously guarded and the idea that only entertainers in favor of the conservative status quo should have a platform from which to express their views is a dangerous one.

All of us, whether celebrities or not, have the right to make our views known. Should one find the views of these media stars objectionable, you are in possession of the same right to let your dissent be known as well. Thanks to the Internet, you also have a stage from which you can make your thoughts visible to many. Whether it's Kelsey Grammer or Susan Sarandon is irrelevant, both are Americans and both have the right to express how they feel. To imply that the latter should silence herself while the former should go on network television to air his opinions is a ludicrous notion that brings nothing positive to our society.

Herman Cain and a step in the wrong direction

Herman Cain, the 2012 Republican aspirant, has been quoted as saying that people who are out of work and are poor have only themselves to blame. Assuming that Mr. Cain's words have not been taken out of context, one is left to ponder what a staggering blunder such an utterance represents at this time. The United States has an unemployment rate hovering near 10%. Those who have been out of work for prolonged periods of time often find themselves in a state of fear regarding the precarious existences. The fears can be attributed to the dissolution of benefits, the inability to find work and the loss of health insurance.

For Cain to make such a sweeping generalization at such a time shows a capacity for making terrible tactical errors. Cain is an American success story, and for that he should be applauded. The man advanced despite living in a time when racial discrimination was far more pronounced. He used his intelligence to further his formal education and maintained a strong work ethic that enabled him to succeed. In this regard he is a role model. It is also a fact that there are, of course, those individuals who are averse to hard work, hold an entitlement mentality and do expect more than they deserve. Where Cain goes wrong is his myopic take on the poor and the unemployed in 2011 America.

Cain's words offer a simplistic summary of the situation that confronts us today. Many hard-working individuals have lost their employment since the economic downturn began and are actively seeking to return to the workforce; however, for many, this dream, despite repeated efforts, has not come to fruition. It is, of course, possible to take any job that comes along (e.g., fast food, manual labor) and that is a temporary solution to the educated job seeker, but often those jobs do not come with medical benefits, often unaffordable on the private market for those with pre-existing conditions. The problem with taking jobs in fast food or manual labor for those who are qualified to do other things is that job hunting is a full-time job, working in a fast food restaurant or digging ditches does not necessarily advance the skills of someone trained in a specialized field nor is it particularly remunerative, especially for those with a family.

Misfortune has afflicted many within our population. Offering simplistic rationales is not a help. If Cain continues with such declarations, he will find himself among the many who are completely out of step with the average worker. The accusation that those on the left are out of touch with ordinary people due to an inherent strain of elitism is bound to descend upon the right as well. Cain has every right to criticize those who can work, but opt not to; where he is wrong is assuming that each person's misfortune is a result of his bad choices. Many among us get sick, are injured or find ourselves scrambling for new employment not due to bad decisions, but through an unfortunate destiny. It is true that many people have turned adversity around, but this is often not instantaneous. Cain needs to realize this before he alienates a large segment of the voting population.

Whose elitism?

The term "elitist" is one of the most commonly heard accusations put towards progressives. Along with "socialist," "anti-American," "immoral," and "overeducated," "elitist" is one of many terms used to discredit those who are in opposition to what they perceive as a negative status quo. Of course, progressives are guilty of invective as well. Often are heard cries of "redneck," "Bible thumper," "white trash," "warmonger," and other terms used to discredit their ideological adversaries.

Still, the term "elitist," is a particularly curious one that is used so often by the more reactionary members of the American right. What is curious is that the term "elitist" can apply not only to those on the left, but to those of a rightist bent for so many reasons.

Gross generalizations have a way of undermining rational discourse. To say that all people who identify with the more conservative element of the political spectrum share the same exact religious beliefs, for example, is a simplification; however, it cannot be denied that certain commonalities are pervasive among this side of the divide. What is seen most frequently among today's right is a widespread adherence to fundamentalist Christianity and a monopoly on what constitutes a "real American." This does not apply to every single member of the current right, but it applies to millions, millions who have made their voices heard thanks to protests and everyday exchanges on the Internet.

Addressing these individuals, who have achieved increasing prominence, one such matter that deserves regard is their frequent use of the term "elitist" towards their opposites in the political divide. The term "elitist" is a dismissal of those who do not share "real" American values. "Elitist" is the term used to denounce those who reside in major cities such as New York and San Francisco, get their information from periodicals such as the New York Review of Books and The Nation, hold advanced degrees, have Europhile tendencies and are skeptical of organized religion. These habits, along with a tendency to question the status quo supported by the more traditional, earn them the charge of "elitism." Yet, what is not discussed frequently enough is how the term "elitist" can be used against the original accusers. Disdain for the provincial is an easy way to earn the title of "elitist," yet elitism can be found quite easily enough by the same "real" Americans who denounce these cultural elites. Let us take a look at two examples.

Among the more aggressive members of the right, fundamentalist Christianity is a common bond. This is not to say that every person who embraces the ideology of the Tea Party, for example, belongs to the Christian Right. What cannot be denied is that a large number of today's right wingers are Bible literalists who are increasingly vocal about their beliefs. The frequent denunciation of religious skeptics as "elitists," who "look down upon" the God-fearing is a curious one when one considers where an even greater form of elitism resides. To believe that one is saved from eternal torture owing to an accident of birth (i.e., being born into the "right" religion) or through choosing the "one, true religion," is quite a demonstration of elitism. Even more indicative of elitism are those who maintain that not only is there one true religion that will facilitate salvation, but there is only one true denomination within that religion that leads to a Heavenly kingdom. To buttress their claims, proponents demonstrate that their Holy Book has the one true message. This is a blatant form of elitism. The reason for this is that Holy Scripture is taken on faith, not reason, not scientific analysis, but whether or not one "feels" that this is the truth. To believe that one's gut feeling is better than the other man's gut feeling is as true a form of elitism as one can find. The obstinate evangelical Protestant will meet equally obstinate Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and several others who believe that they are the bearers of the truth. What differentiates the Evangelical from the other groups is that in American society, his voice is the one most often heard. Believing oneself to be part of a special elect who are the only ones who deserve something other than eternal torture is a genuine form of elitism, far more offensive than any other on display.

A second form of elitism often displayed by "real" Americans is the very definition of what is a real American. Holding themselves to be the true heirs apparent of the Founding Fathers, the right have often gone to absurd lengths to discredit their adversaries. It is not unheard of for those on the right to bring up how long their people have been in this country. What this amounts to is nothing. Having ancestors born in the nation does not make you a better American. Timothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald were multi-generational Americans yet they were hardly quality Americans. One's status as a good citizen is determined by his actions, not his ancestry. Pointing out that you have been in this country longer than someone else owing to the immigration patterns of your forefathers hardly makes you a better American than the loyal first-generation American. This form of "reasoning" is brought out repeatedly. It has seen its uglier side manifest itself in the Birther Movement where not only Obama is discredited partly because of his parentage, but others have their American identity called into question via their family background.

In closing, what one may also find ironic about the frequent use of the term "elitist" by the more reactionary elements of the American right is that the very same term was often used as part of a legal indictment in the societies they routinely denounce. One such example would be the former Soviet Union, where opposition to the standard party line often led to charges of "elitism," charges that sometimes had deadly consequences. To see the American right co-opt a term used to assail political enemies in totalitarian societies is a bitter irony worthy of further attention.

Malignant narcissism: seeing yourself in a candidate and voting accordingly

Today's declaration by Sarah Palin has left millions of her admirers crestfallen, to say the least. Her decision not to seek the Republican nomination has devastated many of her followers who have taken to airing their discontent on freerepublic.com and Yahoo News. The phenomenon of Palin is one that has galvanized the attention of media analysts since she made herself known to the majority of Americans in 2008. The appeal of Palin is often attributed to a few simple factors:

1. Despite being a university graduate, Palin holds a credential in something not seen as subversive (i.e., a degree in women's studies, ethnic studies, law, social work). In addition, her academic career is not a threat to those who view higher education with suspicion. As a graduate of the University of Idaho, not Berkeley or Columbia, there is less association with campus radicalism and associations with the "cultural elite." Also in her favor is the fact that Palin's formal education does not go beyond the bachelor's degree. As a result, she is not seen as "tainted" by further indoctrination in what detractors routinely describe as "centers of communist subversion." Had Palin attained a Ph.D. in humanities from Berkeley or a law degree from Columbia, she would be viewed as suspect by millions. As it is, Palin is not part of the countercultural threat that scholarships represents to so many "real Americans."

2. Palin's speech is plain. Rarely are polysyllabic words uttered and no listener has ever been driven to the dictionary after listening to Palin. This shows accessibility to her audience. No hint of superiority is given at any time.

3. Palin is seen as a person of action, not a person given to prolonged deliberation. The analytical are seen as ineffectual by many, and Palin benefits from being outside this categorization.

4. Palin is not "afflicted" with the cosmopolitanism of John Kerry or Barack Obama. No part of her childhood was spent in foreign lands; her parents have no immediate links to other countries and she does not show "disloyalty" through speaking the language of those outside the United States. As a result, her folksy demeanor is bolstered by these "all-American" characteristics.

5. Palin offers rejection of the status quo (i.e., condemnation of Obamacare, big government and a return to what is seen as "real America"), and this appeals to her constituents who rarely seem to object to negation without mention of what will take the place of the negated.

Palin is a figure who, despite her rapid rise to stardom, is easily identified with by those who see themselves as "real Americans," or "murcans." Of course, it would be unjust to label all her constituents with such a generalization, but it does hold true for the thousands of admirers whose comments I have been reading for over three years now. In recent history, one other politician has benefited from this association, however spurious, with the common man. That individual was George W. Bush. Despite being a scion of Connecticut blue bloods and a product of Andover, Yale and Harvard, Bush's handlers were adept at presenting him as anything but patrician. The Yankee aristocrat was widely perceived as a Texas rancher, a humble man of the people who shared their interests, eschewed such elitist activities as book reading and acted in accordance with the philosophy of that titan of industry, Jesus Christ.

No such luck befell Bush's patrician counterpart John Kerry. Kerry, a contemporary of Bush's at Yale, was the "elitist" candidate, guilty of transgressions such as windsurfing, bilingualism and dangerously low levels of good-ol'-boy charisma.

What characters like Bush and Palin show us is the supremacy of image over substance. This is nothing new, but with more and more means of communication, it has gone from important to supreme. The appeal of Bush and Palin is that they have been packaged well and marketed to the masses as "one of us," no alien to the values of "real America." The danger is, of course, that voting for a candidate because he is an extension of you is ultimately detrimental to the interests of our nation. Who among us is so sure of his abilities that he would want his equal, and not his superior to govern? What people see in populist politicians is not a mirror of their virtues, but often a reflection of their weaknesses. Why anyone would want a candidate whose level of skills matches his own is a mystery. Great leaders are those whose virtues set them apart from the masses, not make them part of that mass. Until we start demanding more of our leaders than their ability to be "the guy you want to have a beer with," we face dire prospects for our immediate future. Accessibility is a wonderful quality, but when it is not coupled with genuine vision, it is not enough for those entrusted with the stewardship of our society.

Because I love this country too much to see it become a plutocracy, a kleptocracy, a theocracy or an idiocracy

I have been asked more than once, "why do you hate this country so much?" as well as "if you hate this country so much, why don't you just get out?" Typically in our society, a person who expresses dissatisfaction with the status quo is considered unpatriotic and deserving of exile to another land.

The notion is particularly venomous as it effectively crushes dissent, a necessary activity for a society to progress. I have come across very few Americans in my lifetime who genuinely hate the very foundations of America (i.e., our ideals, the goals we have set for ourselves as a nation). Discontent with certain factions of our society who wish to turn America into a place where workers are victimized, where an official state religion is a reality and where education is looked upon as a subversive activity unworthy of taxpayer dollars does not imply hatred of America. On the contrary, it shows a determination to preserve what is great about our society so that future generations may enjoy it.

The assault on education via religious fanaticism and pervasive anti-intellectualism is a tangible threat to our country. Attempts to undermine science education by efforts to introduce theology into this separate discipline are ongoing. Widespread hostility towards those who work in education is frighteningly real. To want to rectify this, one should hardly be looked upon as subversive. Instead, the person should be looked upon as someone rightfully concerned with one of the pillars of a civil society. Blatant falsehoods about public education in this country have gained ground. Accusations that students learn nothing but homosexual propaganda, Marxism and hatred for America are largely unfounded. Although today's history curriculum does pay more attention to those who were either neglected or persecuted and today's literature courses are more likely to include readings from members of minority groups, the accusation that public schools are a breeding ground for future revolutionaries is absurd. If anything, the overwhelming majority of students are further conditioned to be active participants in the capitalist structure through the socialization they encounter in school. Our public schools are indeed troubled, but the culpability is not always that of the educators themselves. One can point to parental neglect, a popular culture that disdains the learned and lack of self discipline as the primary culprits.

Regarding theocracy, the issue of evolution is only one that religious fundamentalists have addressed in American society. Although the Constitution does not specifically use the words "separation of church and state," nowhere is there a legal, binding document that establishes an official national religion. Americans are guaranteed the right to worship the deity in which they believe, but the right to impose that upon others is forbidden. Nowhere is this more evident than in the issue of school prayer. Contrary to accusations, prayer is most certainly not forbidden in our schools. What is forbidden is mandated, teacher-led prayer. Students are not prohibited from joining their hands and praying silently as a math test is being distributed; no student can be penalized for silent prayer in the minute before he bites into his lunch. What is being sought by too many is an educational system in which teachers must lead students in prayer, whether or not students are believers. False correlations are drawn between the so-called breakdown of morality and the abolition of mandatory school prayer in 1963. What is often overlooked is just how much less moral a society we were in the years prior to that owing to Jim Crow laws, institutionalized gender discrimination and open displays of racism. Public education, as pointed out in the previous paragraph, is indeed troubled; the solution, however, lies neither in its abolition nor with the imposition of mandatory prayer upon a heterogeneous student body.

These matters, along with the growing victimization of the American workers are matters of concern to those who love this country. To see America become a theocracy or a plutocracy is too tragic a fate to consider for this great nation. We must be vigilant against those who want to restructure this society along lines wholly contrary to what our Founding Fathers intended. An anti-intellectual society where religion is forcibly imposed on others and corruption in the financial sector is the norm is not a role model for other nations. America is an influential society; therefore, it behooves us to keep this influence as positive as possible.

On Bill O'Reilly

           Bill O'Reilly, through the continued support of his benefactors at FOX, has become a colossus within modern-day popular culture. Broadcast regularly on television, given syndication in several print journals and situated continuously at the top of the list of best-selling authors, O'Reilly is a name unlikely to slip into obscurity anytime soon. It is because of this, and his role as an authority on contemporary issues that he merits scrutiny.

          As mentioned in a previous posting, acerbic commentators are the norm, rather than the exception today. Although more civil than his conservative counterpart Ann Coulter, and more emotionally restrained than FOX's other societal analyst Glenn Beck, O'Reilly is a man who is no stranger to gutter language, physical intimidation and gross exaggeration. One can ponder which commentator's actions are the result of being merely obtuse or which ones act out of a knowledge that the more outrageous the demeanor, the more viewers are entranced.

            Bill O'Reilly is a character whose on-screen actions make one ponder their origins. O'Reilly's academic credentials are well documented. Unlike his conservative counterparts Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly is a university graduate. In addition, his formal education includes post-graduate studies at Harvard and Boston University. The mystery is whether or not O'Reilly betrays an actual intellect time and time again or if his extensive schooling does not correlate with the acquisition of wisdom. The latter scenario has been seen before and is a sad indictment of many of our educational institutions.

              To begin with, it would be unrealistic to think that any public figure is incapable of making gaffes from time to time. What becomes alarming is when the gaffes become a staple of his everyday speech. O'Reilly is not an intermittent bungler. Through his books and on-screen affirmations, the man has become a near parody of himself. To illustrate, one need look no further than the written words of the man.
 
               Evidence of this allergy to reason can be found in O'Reilly's recent attack of a survey that ranked Finland as the number one country in which to live. O'Reilly, instead of figuring out how our country can either achieve parity with or superiority to Finland in the categories surveyed, took the chance to unleash an "indictment" of the peaceful Nordic nation. O'Reilly "debunked" the lofty status of Finland by pointing out that one does not see a mass exodus of Swedes from their own homeland to the utopia next door. The rebuttal could only work on the most muddled of minds. Swedes are not immigrating en masse to Finland owing to the fact that they have also attained an enviable standard of living; thus, there is no need to flee. What would be more revealing would be what would have transpired if Finland had kept an open border with its other neighbor Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In addition, Finland is a small nation with a population of only 5,000,000, strict immigration laws, a nearly impenetrable language consisting of 15 noun cases and a brutal climate. That hardly makes it a top destination for immigrants.
     
          
           More of O'Reilly's writings reveal the absence of genuine thought. Writing in "Pinheads and Patriots," O'Reilly takes to task those individuals who can be categorized as "pinheads" rather than patriots. What O'Reilly disregards is that a well-intentioned pinhead can hold a genuine love for his country; therefore, the either/or designation is a ludicrous one. Within the category of pinhead is Madonna. This can be attributed to Madonna's decision to live as an expatriate within the United Kingdom and affect an English accent. O'Reilly, indignant over her speech patterns and expatriate status, takes the ageing pop star to task, reminding her of how America afforded her the chance to thrive in her industry. The reminder is absurd given how countless British people of humble origin have risen to stardom despite that country's well-publicized class system. Madonna could just as easily have become a rich pop star had she been born and raised in London rather than Michigan. No Etonian pedigree is required for success on the British stage and screen. As for the rigidity of the British class system, one could conjecture that we spend an inordinate amount of time in America focusing on it as a distraction from the fact that we have one as well.

         O'Reilly knows that establishing oneself as a patriot is hardly a difficult task in a less-than-analytical society. This honor is bestowed upon O'Reilly by O'Reilly time and time again. Its affirmation comes from those who are taken in by style, not substance. After leafing through numerous columns and two monographs by O'Reilly, it is hard for me to believe that such analyses could have passed through an editor unless the editor himself is as obtuse as the writer or if he and the writer are aware that such thoughtless declarations are marketable. In the case of O'Reilly, one can ponder for a long time. Either O'Reilly is a clever, shameless opportunist who knows how to capitalize on the disposable income held by the thought averse or he is a sad reminder that an academic degree is not what it used to be.
        

When did we all become experts on evolution, global warming and international health care?

Giving equal time to different views does not mean that equally intelligent viewpoints are being presented. Consider the case of a Ph.D. evolutionary biologist vs. a man whose faith in God is predicated upon the tides going in and going out.

                 Any society where electoral success is predicated upon dismissal of evolution as "just a theory," global evolution as "pseudo science," and universal health care as a "communist abomination," probably has little to look forward in regards to future governance. Yet this is the situation we confront in America today, one where that which is accepted and promoted by the majority of educated citizens is vehemently rejected by elected officials.

              The outward rejection may or may not be done for political expediency. It is indeed hard to believe that any individual who can attain power through hard work, education and interaction with greater society could hold the myopic viewpoints of those who have abandoned reason and scholarship.

              Whether politicians are sincere or not, one fact remains: elected officials have gained power by pandering to millions for whom the theory of evolution, global warming and universal health care are anathema. A consensus does not always signify absolute truth; however, an affirmation reached by the best minds within a particular field possesses far more credibility than one reached by those who deem book learning as an elitist frivolity. Nowhere is this more apparent than in modern society where some of the most vitriolic attacks against the aforementioned are led by the most uninformed.

             All of us at some point are guilty of weighing in on matters where we possess little, if any expertise. It is an impossibility, given the limitations of the human life span and the human intellect, to become a true polymath. No individual, no matter how gifted, can count himself an expert in all the major disciplines. Owing to these restraints, there are times when we defer to the best and brightest among us. Being mechanically inept, I defer to my auto mechanic; being unschooled in Latin and Greek, I defer to the expertise of a classical scholar regarding translations. These limitations cause me no shame as I am aware that the totality of human knowledge is unattainable for even the most enlightened. What is puzzling is how so many who are so proudly unenlightened across the disciplines have stepped forward as experts regarding matters as thoroughly researched as evolution and global warming. Further confusion is added to the mix when one sees how a matter such as health care  in other nations, which can be researched with ease by anyone, can be so misrepresented. What it all comes down to is how people with no expertise, and no ambition of attaining any level of expertise, seen it fit to weigh in on issues above their professional training. This form of "punditry" is on full display thanks to the information age and it is disturbing.

             There is no reason why a society as advanced as ours should have people who see fit to "refute" the theory of evolution with "if man evolved from apes, how come we still have apes?" This is not a call to eliminate people who ask such questions, as the paranoid might accuse, but rather to find means by which such an embarassing assault on the intellect would be a thing of the past. Willful ignorance is the worst form of ignorance. In a society where the works of experts are freely available and often made more accessible to the layman, one would expect fewer occurrences of such simple-minded "refutations." Yes, discord exists among evolutionary biologists and proponents of anthropogenic climate change, but this discord is not over whether evolution or climate change exists, but rather minor matters within the accepted consensus. These matters are hardly refutations of evolution and climate change in and of themselves.

               Scientists do not expect the layperson to understand the complexity of their entire corpus of work, but efforts are made all the time to simplify and bring the fundamentals of their research to an audience not schooled in this discipline. That such guides for the layman are ignored in favor of hysterical rants by the obstinate and excessively proud is revealing. How exactly does someone who gets his "education" from mainstream news and newspapers scarcely above the level of a tabloid become a leading authority on the "hoax" of global warming? How can someone with no background in science become a leading spokesman against the theory of evolution?

               The fact that so many are so proud to the point where they can second guess experts in various fields is revealing. To which source do we attribute not only this willful ignorance, but a tendency to take on subjects about which they have neither expertise nor interest in gaining even basic competency?

                Moving from the somewhat demanding discipline of science to a subject where information is easily digestible at all levels, one can find find the same mentality applied to the subject of universal health care. Universal health care is the standard for all free, rich nations on this Earth. Despite this universality and our ability to look up statistics, we have a sizable portion of our population who insist on retaining what they have gathered from soundbites. A quick glance at an almanac, a W.H.O. table or a report by the OECD would easily answer all the questions regarding health care in other countries, yet so many rigidly stand by the blatant falsehoods proferred by talk-show hosts with an agenda. This is distressing owing to the fact that many will vote based on what they "know" about health care in countries they cannot even find on a map.

               To some, this article may come across as insufferably elitist. I think that it is the opposite. I believe it to be an invitation to all those who have sealed their minds to seek out credible witnesses and learn truth rather than propaganda. As stated before, scientists are far from infallible; however, what they offer is far more substantial than charlatans with an agenda. Have there been frauds in the scientific community? Absolutely, but they have almost always been relegated to the dustbin of intellectual history. The same treatment should be afforded those without any expertise who nonetheless try to shape public opinion for their own limited gains. Do your mind a favor, seek out those who have studied extensively in a particular field. If you are seeking refutation of a particular theory, find someone who is at the very least educated in the traditional sense of the word. Information conveyed by the ignorant has a way of lodging in the collective consciousness and the result is never a pretty one.

             

Vitriol in political discourse

       

          The tragic shootings in Tucson back in January of this year brought to the forefront just how acerbic political discourse in America has become. What was overlooked is that the assailant appeared to be linked with no militant organizations. As a result, attention was brought to an issue that, although not associated directly with the gunman, is worthy of analysis in today's political climate.

             Political discourse in the modern age is facilitated by the Internet. In the past, only a privileged few had the power to disseminate information to a wider audience. News' journals had the right to be selective about who published content within their periodicals and fringe characters could only dream of taking to the airwaves, particularly on the major networks. Today, gutter discourse has been taken from the bar stools and the dinner tables and spread to millions of potential readers on chat rooms, websites and commentary sections.

               The toxicity of the speech is evident on both sides of the political spectrum. Widespread opposition to Obama's administration by the right has certainly engendered rage, vociferated by ideologues who never lack for followers. What should not be forgotten, however, is that toxic discourse is not limited only to the right. Both sides are clearly culpable in this matter.

                The Bush administration, more so than the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, brought out widespread discontent among the progressive faction of American society. Such discontent was consistently verbalized. Attempting to break what was seen as the hegemony of rightist radio, Air America began syndication in the early part of the 21st century. The radio station featured one Randi Rhodes who suggested that the 43rd president be removed in a fashion similar to the one employed by a certain member of the Corleone family. In addition, street protests frequently featured placards of George W. Bush dressed in Nazi regalia, as curious a characterization for one of the most ardently pro-Israel presidents as is Obama, a man of African ancestry, being represented as a member of that now defunct racialist organization. In addition to caricatures of the president implicating ideological alignment with the SS, we were also treated to a mockumentary concerning the assassination of George W. Bush. While never a supporter of George W. Bush, the incendiary rhetoric of his opponents struck me as macabre, to say the least. Even though an ardent supporter of free speech, I nonetheless felt that a certain boundary had been crossed, one where the ability of the conscience to delineate true dissent from sheer vulgarity and menace had become blurred. While eager to see Bush move into retirement, I at no time ever wished to see the man a victim of physical violence nor be linked, in however ludicrous a fashion, to one of the most monstrous regimes of the 20th century.

             Moving along to the third year of the Obama administration, one can see that the malcontents on the other side are equally as adept at spreading hatred and fear as their counterparts on the left. Whether it be birthers, racists, extremists, conspiracy theorists, the two-minute hate of Orwell's 1984 has been extended to a period of limitless dimensions. What differentiates the left from the right in one respect is that the latter have mastered talk radio whereas the left have met either abject failure (think Air America) or the ability to retain the like-minded, but not draw new converts (think NPR). Prominent among the rightists are the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity. Outside the medium of talk radio, but equally prominent in writing and television, is Anne Coulter. Few "pundits" have managed to consistently spew the sheer hatred as Ms. Coulter has. Accusations of insanity and an intelligence level more befitting a victim of cretinism have been levelled at Coulter time and time again. The accusations are naive, to say the least. Anne Coulter is neither insane nor stupid. Anne Coulter's CV reveals her to be an alumna of Cornell, one of the most selective institutions in the United States. Now, it can be argued that many people of sub-standard intelligence have been granted admission to the nation's most prestigious universities, but these people are often legacies, something Anne Coulter is not reported to be. Coulter also possesses a law degree from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, a feat that is not to be taken lightly. No, Ann Coulter is far from intellectually deficient and far from deranged. What Coulter is is a canny, shrewd, self-marketing opportunist who has found the path to fame. This path includes giving voice to the yearnings of the insane and ignorant. With a built-in audience desirous of more and more, there is no want of employment. Even after dismissal from the National Review for her declaration of "invade [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity!" steady work was well within reach via other outlets.

               Ann Coulter is not the real problem in this country, nor are her ideological counterparts in print and television media. The real problem lies in the fact that millions of people are willing to empower her and several others like her. A more discerning population would eschew the likes of Coulter and her peers whether they be of the left or the right. Insanity sells and the sane have come to realize this. Until the population start demanding civil discourse from both sides, and the use of reason, we can expect the Coulters and the rest to flourish for a long time.

Addendum: for additional details concerning the views put forth by Ms. Coulter, try a Google search combining "Ann Coulter" with "Canada," "9/11 widows," "Timothy McVeigh," "The New York Times," "liberals," "Arabs," and "John Edwards." It is sobering, to say the least.