The Ministry of Minor Perfidy

Ministers

Chairman, Ministry Blue-Ribbon End-Times Parade Committee

Judge, Jury, Executioner, Avon Lady

Professional Stooge and Telephone Sanitizer

Dad wanted him to grow up tough, but 'Sue' was already taken

Wild at heart - deadly serious about personal finance

A Sheep in Sheep's Clothing

Minister Emeritus

Windy City Mike
social democrat, ca. 1930 trade-unionist, and professor of alleged history

Perfidious Advertising

This, too can be yours

Perfidious Merchandise

Perfidious Store Thingy

Most recent entries

Monthly Archives

Syndicate

Join our Mailing List

Calendar Thingy

<<	November 2003					>>
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30

Hosted by:
Bloghouse, a Home for Wayward Blogs

Powered by Expression Engine

Thursday, November 27, 2003

Dictionary.com/liberal

Dean Esmay looks at the definition of liberal, and it’s worth reading.

The Liberal I want to be:

libï¿½erï¿½al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl) adj.

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

Somehow I must find a way to become a bigger serving of potatoes, so I can complete my mission.

Posted by Ross on 11/27/03 at 04:47 PM
Just So You Know • Permalink

Wednesday, November 26, 2003

Fully citizens, but for being queer

My work as a historian (such as it is) has mainly concerned modes of belonging.

Put in plain english (riiiight), that means I’m interested in the ways that people use the materials available to them to order their worlds into communities that include and exclude them. Practically speaking, I am especially interested in the roots of American citizenship as articulated and spread in the early years of the 19th century and afterwards. The vexed questions of the status of women and freed slaves are especially interesting to me, and there’s whole roomfuls of music-history geekery on this question that I won’t even begin to elucidate here.

Why do I bring this up? Because, today, the day before Thanksgiving, Republican swine and infantile shitmongers (my non-partisan term of animadversion against Senators) introduced the “No Marriage For Inverts” Constitutional amendment proposal into Congress. [Buckethead: Exhibit A in why I will never again make the mistake of registering Republican.]

At the New Republic, Andrew Sullivan rips the amendment to pieces and demonstrates that it is finely calibrated to deny homosexuals, and only homosexuals, the benefits, rights, priveliges, and pleasures of union of any kind. In fact, he makes the case that it’s an attempt to deny homosexuals access to rights enjoyed by every single other citizen of the United States. Would that make gays less than full citizens, you ask? You bet your ass it would!

An excerpt and my analysis is below the fold.

More Perfidious Goodness...

This final clause was inserted by evangelical activist, Charles Colson, according to several reports. It would be the first time that the word “sexual” is inserted into the Constitution of the United States. And what it is apparently designed to do is to reassure people that the second sentence of the amendment does not indeed do what it seems to do, i.e. ban all forms of civil union or domestic partnership. The religious right would, it appears, be willing to allow civil unions between brothers, or an aunt and uncle, or a son and mother, or two college roommates--as long as it was assumed that no sexual activity was implied in the relationship. By this deft move, the amendment would apparently allow gay couples to get civil unions--but only if they pretended that they were not gay couples. Call it the Bert and Ernie amendment.

What it amounts to, however, is a constitutional acceptance of any number of social arrangements short of marriage, as long as those relationships are asexual. . . . It seems, on the face of it, to contradict the second sentence. But it doesn’t. It merely underlines the fact that no sexual activity between two people can be a basis for a civilly recognized relationship except heterosexual marriage. It would make civil unions for straight people void as well, if those straight couples had the temerity to be in love or want to have sex.

But it reveals something else about the real motives of those pushing this amendment. They claim to be defending marriage. But in fact the upshot of their Bert and Ernie provision would be effectively condoning all sorts of marriage-lite alternatives (under the pretense that they’re not sexual) and expanding their reach and number to an extraordinary degree. If the fundamentalist right actually cared about marriage as such, they wouldn’t want to open up any number of alternatives to marriage to heterosexuals. Multiplying “asexual” civil unions is exactly what marriage advocates have feared for years--an easy alternative to marriage that will, in fact, undermine the institution.

But the beauty--indeed the only rationale--of this contraption is that it alone ensures that gay couples get no recognition as gay couples. It’s an attempt to push gay people back into civic nothingness, a place where they are invisible, where their emotional and sexual needs are deemed as worthy as the financial arrangements of two asexual roommates. It’s a desire to recreate the fantasy that gay people do not exist--in the Constitution itself.

In this sense, it’s a perfect product from the religious right. They do indeed want gay people to disappear. They cannot achieve this in reality in a free society. But they can in their own words. Theirs is an America where gay citizens are actually straight citizens in need of either jail or therapy, where gay citizens’ loves are a form of sickness, and their relationships a threat. And they want to assert this image of an ideal 1950s-style society up by rewriting the Constitution to reflect it.

This amendment has therefore very little to do with marriage as such; and everything to do with homosexuality. If the social right wanted to shore up marriage, they could propose an amendment tightening divorce laws. They could unveil any number of proposals for ensuring that children have stable two-family homes, that marriage-lite versions of marriage are prevented or discouraged. But they haven’t. The amendment is simply--and baldly--an attempt to ostracize a minority of Americans for good. It is an attempt to write them out of their own country. It is an attempt to say that the meaning of America is heterosexual and heterosexual only. It is one of the most divisive amendments ever proposed--an attempt to bring the culture war into the fabric of the very founding document, to create division where we need unity, exclusion where we need inclusion, rigidity where we need flexibility. And you only have to read it to see why.

I can think of two instances when groups were specifically written out of the Constitution. The first was by the inclusion of the three-fifths clause, which of designated slaves as non-citizen ciphers. This clause and the conditions it implied were of course eventually overturned by Amendments XIII-XV to the Constitution.

The second example is perhaps more interesting today, concerns the appearance of the word “male” in the XIV amendment. This usage marked the first time what we pointy-heads call gendered speech was included any portion of the Constitution. The word “male” was used to specify that women were exempt the liberalization of voting rights that the amendment was granting all citizens of 21 years of age and older. I repeat: this amendment marked the first time that women were expressly prohibited from voting at the Federal level.

Why did the word “male” appear in Fourteenth Amendment, and not in the original document? Because by the 1860s, challenges by early feminists had begun to crumble the bulwarks of tradition. On the heels of the Seneca Falls Convention of 1845 and follow-up meetings from Maine to Indiana, certain women’s-rights crusaders argued that many women met the standards for voting eligibility (e.g. taxpayers, property-owners), and therefore should be granted the right to vote. I will point out that this group was a tiny minority of the women’s rights movement at the time, and were widely considered to be moonbats.

Nevertheless, the moonbats made an impression. The clash between women and voting laws was a confrontation centuries in the making, ever since Blackstone enshrined the concept of “coverture” in English law, and established that women had no legal existence whatsoever. Of course, circumstance and frontier improvisation softened Blackstone’s hard line in American jurisprudence, and by the late 17th century one can find plenty of cases of women running households, owning property, and otherwise participating in public life in ways that the law officially did not recognize. The pudding hit the fan when public life met voting rights. The first generation of American radical feminists realized that since those women who paid taxes, owned property, etc., met every legal requirement that a voter must meet, and demanded that women’s right to vote be made explicit in state Constitutions. This first effort was not well supported and was easily beaten back.

But the damage was done. Women’s rights advocates had made lawmakers realize that there was no good legal reason why women shouldn’t get the vote, and so they had to go and make one up. Citing women’s inferior intelligence, delicate constitutions, and manifest unfitness for the rough-and-tumble of public life, lawmakers hastened to clarify their State laws, and made sure to enshrine their cause in stone at the Constitutional level. The XIV Amendment, along with securing voting rights for former slaves, ensuring due process, nullifying slaveholder debts, etc. etc., was also a backdoor way to fully and completely bar women from full citizenship. That one single word, “male,” led to more than a half-century of further work to get women recognized as full citizens of the United States.

Why do I bring this up? No reason. Just to show that twice before the Constitution has been used to exclude specific groups from the rights it grants, and each time it was later overturned.DuToitified conservatives aside, I can’t imagine very many people today who think it was a mistake to give women the vote, and the same goes for the demise of slavery. I simply mean to point out that each time the Constitution has been used to exclude specific groups from the full exercise of American citizenship, it has ended up being proven wrong and the exclusion left behind on the losing side of history.

If you want still more, I wrote a paper on this subject a few years ago that I will forward upon request. As if.

Too Goddamn Much Perfidy...

Posted by Johno on 11/26/03 at 07:32 PM
Unmitigated Gall • (1) Trackbacks • Permalink

Sweet, merciful smoke!

In an otherwise unrelated interview in Gawker, “Betty Pearl” (not his real name) observes that in New York City,

“when the smoking ban went in and the smoke cleared it was amazing how many places smelled like vomit.”

Um, eww. Ban the ban, pronto!

If you’re interested, the interview in question is a quick and dirty rundown of the best gay bars in New York. Based on my admittedly sketchy experience, it’s true: the Phoenix does have cute guys, and they do hedge their bets. Also, it has one of the greatest juke boxes in the history of juke boxes.

Posted by Johno on 11/26/03 at 05:45 PM
Entertainment • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

The Spin Is Unbearable

Good lord. Last night I read Josh Marshall, and he was reporting that Orrin Hatch had (quite rightly) shelved a staffer or two. If you read this Washington Post article, it seems like it’s no big deal. They just “leaked” the memos. CalPundit notes a few other vague mentions.

It turns out that the staffer in question actually hacked in or otherwise circumvented security in these systems and went hunting in the confidential information. He then released it to the press.

A “leak” implies that the leakee had a right to see the information, but did the wrong thing with it. This guy didn’t have that right.

Funny, but isn’t this a federal crime? There are quite a few hackers around the country who are in jail for exactly this sort of thing.

Plame gets outed, which is a crime. Nobody gives a shit; the story has no legs, and we have criminal in the administration, somewhere, “undetectable”. Now a GOP staffer commits standard-issue computer crime, for political advantage...Hatch has done the right thing by benching him, but will the same standards of prosecution apply? Or is this a “special case”, because he really didn’t “mean” to commit a crime?

All I can say is that if you have a staffer who has committed a federal crime and you want to bury the news, releasing that fact the day before Thanksgiving is probably a great way to do it.

Posted by Ross on 11/26/03 at 05:19 PM
Partisan Politics • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

In Bizarro World, “Market realities” trump actual realities

The body of swine and infantile shitmongers sometimes called the US Senate are considering a bill, introduced by Orrin Hatch, that would give the RIAA and MPAA-- get this--

Exemption from Anti-Trust Laws. Why? Because “market realities” are making it hard for them to stay in business!

O, how this poor heart bleeds.

In my world, when a business or business cartel sucks at what they do, they sink back into the common maelstrom that is the market and a new way of doing things takes hold. In the Bizarro World we live in (proof? Arnold friggin’ Schwarzenegger is governer of Cahl-ee-for-ni-uh), cartels that suck at what they do get permission from the government to suck harder and cut the legs out from underneath anyone with the temerity to suck less.

A while back, Buckethead levelled a challenge to me to submit a white paper on the state of the recording industry and what is to be done about the current problems of economics, intellectual property, and art(lessness) that face it. Well, I think a good start would be to get rid of all the bastards in charge by any. Means. Necessary. After that, I don’t really give a crap.

Buckethead, I know for a fact that land is very cheap in Newfoundland. Wanna go in on a compound? It’s remote enough that Canada doesn’t carry much weight up there, and we can cook chili, play music and distill corn liquor to our hearts’ content.

Posted by Johno on 11/26/03 at 05:11 PM
Perfidy Attacks • (1) Trackbacks • Permalink

Refuting the Cynics

This is a happy article, and just in time for my favorite holiday of the year. We are remarkably blessed in this nation, as anyone with the merest inkling of historical awareness can see. Compared to our entire recorded history, and to most of the rest of the world today, we have it better than any people has any right to expect. The only standard that exceeds our current accomplishment and success is that of our own ideals and hope for perfection. At least it keeps us busy.

On a more personal note, I would like to apologize for my recent absence, and offer thanks for the marvelous interweb which makes this blog possible. For new friends like Geeklethal, and old friends like Ross and Johno, and of course for our legions of loyal readers. God bless, all five of you. You rock.

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving, and beware the the effects of tryptophan while operating heavy machinery.

Posted by Buckethead on 11/26/03 at 05:00 PM
Just So You Know • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Captain Avitar, your ship is ready!

Via Geekpress, I see that NASA has produced a project of worth that is neither mock-worthy or eyerollingly useless and expensive. And no, I’m not talking about freeze-dried ice cream or powder-blue velcro-clasped jumpsuits.

Check it out: a working ion-propulsion engine! The prototype was produced at Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, a facility I toured repeatedly as a child. The engine is destined for use in the Prometheus Project, which is an ill-starred mission to Jupiter that will never happen in my lifetime as long as NASA is in charge. In the long term, NASA intends ion engines for use in any missions that can’t rely on using planetary gravity wells as slingshots for long-distance propulsion, which is most of them. Good plan, hope it works.

At long last mankind will be ready when the Zentraedi, Gamilon, or Moties come for our women and mead. Can a giant ion railgun, huge transforming vehicles, and space cruisers that resemble Japanese WWII battleships really be far behind??

[wik] Special props to me for knowing how to spell Zentraedi without looking it up first. Not only am I in touch with my inner Geek, my Geek is in the drivers’ seat, with a 20-sided keychain and a Macross decal on the window, doing Möbius donuts on your lawn.

Posted by Johno on 11/26/03 at 04:47 PM
That Buck Rogers Stuff • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monday, November 24, 2003

The medication isn’t working

I dunno, doc… I’ve been having these messed up dreams lately… I have this one where the Terminator dude is governer of Cahl-ee-for-ni-uh… that’s how he says it, just like that: “Cahl-ee-for-ni-uh”... and a few years ago I hit my head really hard doing a keg stand and thought Jesse The Body was running, uh… Missouri or Mississippi or something. And I know it’s crazy, but I read the papers and it’s there, and I watch TV and it’s there, and I know it’s not real but I can’t help it. I’m delusional, doc. And the pills aren’t helping.

It’s happening more these days, too, doc. Just this weekend I ate a bunch of oysters and slammed a bottle of Moet et Chandon and when I woke up I was sicker than dog puke and positive I’d heard that the bassist dude from Nirvana was campaigning for proportional representation in Washington State.

I mean, what the hell… Nirvana? In politics? I can’t even imagine how that would look…

Can you help me? Because the way I feel I can’t help but think this is actually a really, really good idea.

Posted by Johno on 11/24/03 at 06:04 PM
Partisan Politics • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Calpundit: Fighting Terrorism

Armed Liberal and CalPundit are discussing the Iraq situation, which means the rest of us better sit and listen quietly.

CalPundit

My simple question (and I truly do not know the answer to this): Should America have withdrawn from Viet Nam when it did? If America had not withdrawn, what would probably have happened? Was it the right thing to do, at that time, irrespective of why the war was enjoined?

Posted by Ross on 11/24/03 at 03:23 PM
War • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

It lives!

Please direct your attention to the blogroll at left, for there are some additions.

First, I would like to point out ”I Must Not Think Bad Thoughts,” a weblog by “Nathanael” (his real name) who once labored alongside me in the idea mines. He is a self described “hyper-critical, anti-conservative, anti-centrist, anti-liberal who should be working on his own writings rather than complaining about the world so much.” With so many anti-s in his stance, one would think he’d be a ditherer like me… not so! Rather, Nathanael is a well-informed internationalist with a penchant for spirited defenses of his well thought out opinions on foreign and domestic policy, music, wine, and the Anaheim Angels.

I have also made the decision to promote ”Happy Furry Puppy Story Time with Norbizness“ to the blogroll, since he’s had the grace to read, comment upon, and link to stories we have written here. Also, he’s funny, crass, (apparently) intelligent, provocative, and occasionally nonsensical. He’s like the id I wish I had, if my superego hadn’t beaten hell out of my id back in college and sent it into exile in Mongolia.

Posted by Johno on 11/24/03 at 02:38 PM
Perfidy • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Hands and Voices and Mouths

The Economist gives us this sobering look at deficits. The numbers are scary enough...the game just can’t work the way it does. Maybe our economies can pull themselves out—inflation can devalue the debt, growth can lessen it, and perhaps those are the restructuring mechanisms that will let us escape.

The dissolution of national finances brings us to a different place, where the common rules simply don’t apply any more. We’re left with nothing but hands and voices and mouths, demanding more than exists, and a great pent-up pressure inside all of us. In a sense it will break down society. Much of what we take for granted will disappear—the fundamental financial relationships beneath the structure of our lives will be disrupted.

What happens when a huge generation of retirees demands care and feeding a younger generation burdened by tremendous taxes, a generation that feels betrayed by their elders?

What happens when the gap between rich and poor becomes progressively more unsurmountable?

I think the barriers of civility that exist between us all are in some danger. And perhaps that is a good thing; our politeness and our deference prevent us from saying what needs to be said.

National problems are not being dealt with. They’re being swept under the rug. The youngest adults among us, those in their 20s, are the ones who will face the worst of this. Of course, sweeping problems under the rug is nothing new. The sheer scale of what’s going on right now is incomprehensible, though...which leads me to a question:

How have civilizations dissolved, in the past? What are the patterns we need to look for? What can we do to stop it?

The leading indicator, in my opinion, will be the number of states that are forced into financial default. California is disturbingly close to this situation...and other states may follow.

Will the governments of those states raise taxes to balance their budgets and make some headway against the deficits? I doubt it. Or maybe some kind of limit will be reached, eventually, where politicians will become sufficiently disgusted with their own behavior that they will once again find an ethical center within themselves, and begin to govern reasonably.

The carrion call of the conservative is the ineffiency of government. I believe it is better to have inefficient but honest government, than a government that is fundamentally dishonest about its intentions. Our current administration demonstrates this amply—the stated purpose of tax cuts is to “constraint cash flow into the government”, which presumably results in smaller government. This is the pretense under which we are sold smaller tax cuts for the friends of the administration—you know—the “Rangers” and “Pioneers” whose benefits from the tax cuts far outweight the “donation” costs involved.

The reality is that the current administration has not coupled its tax cutting efforts with any spending discipline whatsoever. And that tells you everything you need to know. It’s fundamentally dishonest to tax cut now, and then shove the problem of how to deal with the resulting financial mess into the future.

We once discussed the theme of the Greatest Generation. I am sad to be surrounded by its pale imitation, the Greediest Generation, slick with the sweat of its red-faced and self-righteous petulance, and mountains of debt-ridden possessions…

Posted by Ross on 11/24/03 at 05:30 AM
Unmitigated Gall • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

The Federal Marriage Amendment

Here’s a bit of analysis of the proposed FMA.

“Conservatives” say that this is nothing more than an attempt to ensure that states don’t have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. In other words, they want to be able to continue to discriminate against whoever they feel is the target group of the week.

Next time somebody says it, ask if Vermont can stop recognizing straight marriages performed between sufficiently close-minded religious conservatives from, say, Alabama.

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

If a marriage from Vermont isn’t recognized in Alabama, I’d say that ex-Alabamans in Vermont might want to consider their legal position carefully.

It’s a great example of what I call “telling other people what to do with their lives” hypocrisy.

Posted by Ross on 11/24/03 at 05:22 AM
It'll Be a Cold Day in Hell • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Saturday, November 22, 2003

The Truth About Private Medicine

Matthew Yglesias gives a tight summarization of some basic facts about medical care and costs.

Note the conclusions: Government health care is cheaper than private health care, and delivers better service. It’s pretty easy to see why this is so.

The cash flow in the medical system goes something like this: Government pays doctors. Patients pay co-pays to doctors, and insurance premiums to insurance companies. Insurance companies pay (sometimes) doctors absurdly low amounts for services. Doctors pay massive amounts for malpractice to insurance companies. Insurance companies pay out roughly 25% of that in claims.

So, while bitching endlessly about the spiralling costs of medical care (which they pass on to patients, resulting in the world’s most expensive health care system), insurance companies are quietly pocketing a big chunk of the money on the back end.

US health spending per capita is $4287. Canadian spending is $2433. Using lifespan as a measure of basic health system efficacy (which seems quite reasonable), the Canadian system delivers better results for around 56% of the money.

Our Minister of Supply-Side Economics, Buckethead, has maintained over and over that the US system is just better. By what measure? The tired saw of “access to health care” comes out over and over again. Yes, if you are a wealthy person, your access to health care is better here. And I’ve said over and over again that if the Canadian system spent anywhere near what the US system spends, there would be limousines to pick patients up and bring them to the hospitals.

The real question here is why the American system is so shitty, given the rather incredible levels of funding. It’s time for a sober dollars-in, dollars-out analysis. Exactly how much of our health care dollars are being siphoned out of the system by lawyers and insurance companies? They are responsible for the situation. They bleat and whine about the benefits of “private medicine”, while they hold guns to the heads of sick and dying people all over this country, denying every benefit they can in a pure expression of one of the sickest forms of profitability.

Let’s summarize; the American health care system:

1. Delivers poor results, relative to other countries.
2. Is dramatically more expensive.
3. Is ANTI-BUSINESS. Why should a small business have to provide health insurance to its employees? That’s just stupid.
4. Is full of insurance-company corruption. Ask any doctor.

If this goes on much longer it will be a serious impediment to the competitiveness of this country. If you want to make the American worker more productive in a global economy, you have to make health care more efficient. The current system is utterly broken.

Posted by Ross on 11/22/03 at 02:37 PM
Just So You Know • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Friday, November 21, 2003

Matthew Yglesias: Libertarians for Single-Payer Lite

Thought-provoking commentary from Matthew. Here’s my take:

1. Catastrophic insurance universally. Paid for out of the general government fund.

2. To encourage preventative care, qualifying preventative visits would be pair for, on a sliding scale, based on income, on a fixed government price scale. So if you’re real poor, you can get preventative care that will save the government money on the catastrophic stuff.

3. Likewise, a sliding scale for a drug plan.

4. Late-life health care costs are accrued against a senior’s estate. The government can step in and take back a percentage of the health care cost. How’s that for evil?

5. Generic, across-the-board exemptions for all doctors from any form of medical malpractice suit. The appropriate mechanism for these complaints is the revocation of license, not the payment of damages. We can sweep the whole stupid problem away if we do this.

Posted by Ross on 11/21/03 at 11:05 PM
Just So You Know • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Mr. Lileks Learns About Ingratitude

OTB summarizes reactions to Lileks’ post about Salaam Pax...no sir, Lileks doesn’t like him.

Lileks requires abasement from those he has helped, apparently...and is unable to see the irony in the righteous anger derived from reading about the deaths of _three_ of his fellow Minnesotans, who gave their _lives_ helping people who’ve suffered the deaths of hundreds of thousands of their citizens, at the hand of a madman, and several thousand more deaths at the hands of their liberators.

Are the Iraqis permitted melancholy? Is a bittersweet taste not in their apple-pie deliverance?

Lileks demonstrates with those words that in his mind, each of those American lives was worth a few hundred, or a few thousand, Iraqi lives. And when confronted with this observation, in his opinion, an Iraqi may not have outwardly say anything to an American other than “Thank you, Sir. My Mother died in a bombing for us all, Sir. My heart is full of joy.”

Sounds goddamn communist to me.

Freedom of speech is a bitch, ain’t it? Get used to the ingratitude. There’s a lot more coming.

What, did you think that everyone would magically start liking you? Grow up.

Posted by Ross on 11/21/03 at 10:36 PM
War • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Page 1 of 7 pages 1 2 3 > Last »