← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Avalanche
Thread ID: 10029 | Posts: 33 | Started: 2003-09-25
2003-09-25 13:42 | User Profile
Lots of links in the original: [url]http://www.americanvalues.org/html/under_the_roof.html[/url] From: Institute for American Values
When Fathers Aren't 'Under the Roof' By Tom Sylvester
This summer, BET (Black Entertainment Television) featured a series on the state of black families titled "Under One Roof." As part of the Father's Day portion of the special, BET's website invited users of its online message board to post "Happy Father's Day shout-outs" to "tell your father how much you love him and what he means to you." BET staff expected to, and did, receive heartfelt messages of love and thanks. But they were also flooded with heartbreaking messages of anger and pain.
[I] "I WANT TO THANK MY DAD FOR ââ¬Â¦ NOT BEING THERE FOR ME. I WANT HIM TO KNOW HOW MUCH I HATE HIM!!"[/I]
[I] "Thanks for leaving my mother to raise me all alone without me even having a clue of where the hell you are. Thanks for not coming around since I was 12 years old and having me beg God as a kid that you would finally come back home and just hug me. ââ¬Â¦You've given me the perfect example of how I should never be to my kids when I have them one day."[/I]
[I] "TO MY DADDY WHO HASN'T REALLY BEEN THERE FOR ME BUT STILL LIVES AT LEAST 10 MINUTES AWAY THANK YOU FOR NOTHING ..."[/I]
This outpouring of anguish shocked the BET staff, who did a follow-up story in which they interviewed National Fatherhood Initiative President Roland C. Warren. Warren, of course, was not nonplussed by what happened.
"The reality is that seven out of ten black kids are born out of wedlock and two out of three black kids live in a home without their biological father, Warren said. For these children, "[Father absence] is the first sense of rejection that you ever have," he explained, resulting in "pent-up frustration and anger-and more of it is hurt and resentment."
[I] "My father was not there for me when I was growing up and I don't hate him ... I just regret that he wasn't there because growing up I think having him there would have helped me... having a male role model as a child might have kept me from trying to find a "father" in relationships at such an early age."[/I]
To me, it's striking the BET staff admitted to being "surprised" by "the intense anger shown on the message board." In an earlier poll BET conducted, 92% of respondents agreed that "fathers are just as important as mothers." Yet two-thirds of Black children live in homes absent their fathers. Put these two facts together and you have a story about what is arguably the most pressing problem facing Black families today.
But BET's initial approach to their "Under One Roof" special is a perfect example of how the media often sidesteps the issue of fatherlessness. In inviting viewers to share their own family stories, BET specifically stated that they were looking for certain types of families, including "families who believe that vestiges of slavery affect them today" and "couples who have set up a household together but chose not to marry." Father absence-the elephant in the room-is ignored.
What are the lessons here? First, when fathers are absent, children suffer. Some adults may be able to sweet-talk themselves into thinking that father absence is no big deal, but children-Black, white, any color-almost always tell a different story.
Second, BET is to be commended for ultimately facing this issue squarely, even though it took a groundswell of user responses for them to do so. It leads one to hope that pundit Mickey Kaus is right, in writing, in response to the incident, "So much for any thought of glossing over the crisis of the black family." (And the crisis, of course, is not limited to black families, as the majority of children in fatherless homes are white.)
But old habits die hard. In the article about the Father's Day message board, the BET reporter writes, "...many of you used it as an opportunity to express your disappointment about the lack of a father figure in your lives." But that's not true. I didn't see anybody write, "I want a male mentor" or "I wish my uncle were more involved." Though thankful for men who stepped in, these young people didn't want "father figures." They wanted their fathers.
2003-09-25 16:25 | User Profile
It really isn't all that uncommon for sub Saharan Negroes to be raised by different members of their family. Some times children are shipped off for years to work on other relatives farms, or due to death (aids, tribal warfare, and starvation). I don't think the African environment was one that compelled a lot of fathers to stick around. Most African men viewed their children as a source of revenue, not an economic liability. Polygamy was a common practice to ensure that families had enough hands to till the soil and raise those yams.
I would be willing to wager a small bet that Jamal's father will return when he signs that big sports contractââ¬Â¦hehehe
2003-09-25 16:41 | User Profile
The black father, that's an oxymoron.
2003-09-25 16:57 | User Profile
What is better, not to have children, or to have children who suffer from the absence of a father?
Is not sometime better to just go ahead and have kids, even if you know you are never going to stay with the girl? For example, what if most other members of your race refuse to reproduce at level sufficient to maintain the survival of your people?
2003-09-25 20:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=iwannabeanarchy]What is better, not to have children, or to have children who suffer from the absence of a father?
Is not sometime better to just go ahead and have kids, even if you know you are never going to stay with the girl? For example, what if most other members of your race refuse to reproduce at level sufficient to maintain the survival of your people?[/QUOTE]
If you know you can't or won't be there, don't have the kids.
But I don't think many of these black "fathers" are thinking along the lines of reproducing for the sake of racial survival. They;re thunking with their penises and when their "hoes" get pregnant, they panic and run away.
2003-09-25 23:34 | User Profile
You don't offer any argument for your claims.
I don't know why blacks act the way they do; I tend to think genetic-based desires to swamp white-held territories play a strong role. But I am more interested in the ethics of white men fathering children more wildly.
[QUOTE=Rumblestrip]If you know you can't or won't be there, don't have the kids.
But I don't think many of these black "fathers" are thinking along the lines of reproducing for the sake of racial survival. They;re thunking with their penises and when their "hoes" get pregnant, they panic and run away.[/QUOTE]
2003-09-26 00:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=iwannabeanarchy]What is better, not to have children, or to have children who suffer from the absence of a father?
Is not sometime better to just go ahead and have kids, even if you know you are never going to stay with the girl? For example, what if most other members of your race refuse to reproduce at level sufficient to maintain the survival of your people?[/QUOTE]
Look at the general quality of children that result in the absence of a father. This is the way to produce anarchy if that is your desire, iwannabeanarchy.
2003-09-26 00:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=iwannabeanarchy]I don't know why blacks act the way they do; I tend to think genetic-based desires to swamp white-held territories play a strong role. But I am more interested in the ethics of white men fathering children more wildly.[/QUOTE] The black men are following a successful reproductive strategy; low parental investment combined with a high survival rate for their offspring (the state will provide everything the little tykes need).
2003-09-26 01:59 | User Profile
Precisely. And right now, quantity is more important for whites than social quality; so long as the racial quality is right.
Hence, if you have some good white blood, consider knocking up some fine white girls who might not otherwise have kids.
[QUOTE=Wayland]The black men are following a successful reproductive strategy; low parental investment combined with a high survival rate for their offspring (the state will provide everything the little tykes need).[/QUOTE]
2003-09-26 03:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=iwannabeanarchy]if you have some good white blood, consider knocking up some fine white girls who might not otherwise have kids.[/QUOTE]
Can this be the same person who links to the Vatican's website? :ohmy:
Seriously, you're right that the white birthrate must be increased. Wouldn't it be better to do so by both encouraging marriage, and for married couples to have children? Quantity is important, but the offspring produced in marriage tend to be of better "social quality" as well. Of course, a child born out of wedlock cannot be held responsible for the circumstances of his conception.
2003-09-26 03:27 | User Profile
So I go to confession a lot.... And I don't bind myself by the dictates as of the Vatican, merely turn to the Pope for guidance and ex cathedra announcements.
Yes, encouraging marriage is fine, but you can control who you have sex with more readily than you can control who others marry. Also, it is a lot harder to get married than to knock a girl up. Finally, plenty of people already encourage marry; I don't see some of these less orthodox ideas being promoted too often though (although VNN has a nice article on the subject recently).
QUOTE=Fernando Wood]Can this be the same person who links to the Vatican's website? :ohmy:
Seriously, you're right that the white birthrate must be increased. Wouldn't it be better to do so by both encouraging marriage, and for married couples to have children? Quantity is important, but the offspring produced in marriage tend to be of better "social quality" as well. Of course, a child born out of wedlock cannot be held responsible for the circumstances of his conception.[/QUOTE]
2003-09-26 03:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=iwannabeanarchy]Yes, encouraging marriage is fine, but you can control who you have sex with more readily than you can control who others marry. Also, it is a lot harder to get married than to knock a girl up. Finally, plenty of people already encourage marry; I don't see some of these less orthodox ideas being promoted too often though (although VNN has a nice article on the subject recently).[/QUOTE]
All true. And, I support an increase in the white birthrate, even if it means an increase in the rate of illegitimacy. Still, isn't the far lower white illegitimacy rate (which is not as low as it used to be), as compared to blacks and Hispanics, something that we can take pride in? Isn't the greater rate of white family formation something that sets us apart?
2003-09-26 03:45 | User Profile
Yes, this is true. But we ought to swallow our pride a bit. We aren't ever going to be in same ballpark as blacks when it comes to illegitmacy, so there is no as much to fear here as one might first think.
[QUOTE=Fernando Wood]All true. And, I support an increase in the white birthrate, even if it means an increase in the rate of illegitimacy. Still, isn't the far lower white illegitimacy rate (which is not as low as it used to be), as compared to blacks and Hispanics, something that we can take pride in? Isn't the greater rate of white family formation something that sets us apart?[/QUOTE]
2003-09-26 03:58 | User Profile
Fathering illegitimate children in the classic low-investment-parenting style is a pimp's game. It is not really an option for regularly employed white men. The halcyon days of going out for a pack of cigarets and never returning are over do to the advent of the computer. But if you want to become a wine and crack guzzing whigger down at the corner of 16th and Valencia, drawing an SSI check on the first, then having bastards is still an option. :holiday:
2003-09-26 04:06 | User Profile
Well, I don't think they can run paternity tests without good reason. You can still get away with a lot if you keep the evidence clean.
Also, consider just paying the child support. At least that leaves you free to marry a girl you would really want to marry and spend you life with, not just have kids with.
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Fathering illegitimate children in the classic low-investment-parenting style is a pimp's game. It is not really an option for regularly employed white men. The halcyon days of going out for a pack of cigarets and never returning are over do to the advent of the computer. But if you want to become a wine and crack guzzing whigger down at the corner of 16th and Valencia, drawing an SSI check on the first, then having bastards is still an option. :holiday:[/QUOTE]
2003-09-26 04:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=iwannabeanarchy] Also, consider just paying the child support. At least that leaves you free to marry a girl you would really want to marry and spend you life with, not just have kids with.[/QUOTE]
Then why not have the babies with the woman you love?
2003-09-26 11:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=iwannabeanarchy]Well, I don't think they can run paternity tests without good reason. You can still get away with a lot if you keep the evidence clean.
Also, consider just paying the child support. At least that leaves you free to marry a girl you would really want to marry and spend you life with, not just have kids with.[/QUOTE]
iwannabeanarchy, I suggest that you start with your daughter, mother, or sister, to form your irresponsible society. I want you to deal with the costs of raising another man's children when your female relatives get knocked up. I also want you to deal with the criminal behavior of the males in your family who grow up without a father and form gangs as a substitute for fatherhood. You are just a young man thinking with your hormones and not with your brain. Let's make all women whores and all men pimps and johns. Yes we will get losts of children but also lots of chaos.
The way to improve white society and increase its numbers is for more people to get married and have large families. Society starts with moral individuals ( Christian morals, of course), and then well ordered families, and then stable governments are formed.
Being a father is more than paying child support, you have to raise them. God created man after his own image and not to be animals. Paying the child support and alimony of keeping many women up is more expensive than having one wife and the children resulting from that union.
You need to grow up. Irresponsible boys like you are the root cause of crime in society. You don't think about the consequences of your selfish indulgences.
2003-09-26 17:07 | User Profile
Avalanche: You and the BET network laid out the problem(s). I didn't see a solution. Do you, perhaps, have one?
Surely you don't think that the absent dads are All Black, do you? More and more White men are neglecting their jobs as dads also. I doubt that the administration's Marriage Czar (name? I forget) is going to come up with any kind of solution, either.
Part of the problem is the fact that programs like Oprah's and the Judge Judy kind of programs treat single 'moms' as pariahs...they're heroes for raising the kids alone. I don't think we as a nation would want to censor programming like that, do you?
So, then: we accept what is and hope that things will improve.
2003-09-26 17:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arjurg]
Part of the problem is the fact that programs like Oprah's and the Judge Judy kind of programs treat single 'moms' as pariahs...they're heroes for raising the kids alone.[/QUOTE]
Au contraire, mon frere; "single" mammies are right up there with "soccer" mammies on the elite list. They are the movers and shakers of the world while men are to blame for every iota imaginable. I don't consider mothers raising their children alone as heroines; in 2003 it is no different than what a nuclear family goes through. What makes them so special??
White men leaving their roles as fathers were a gift to our society from the Broad Brigade beginning in the early 70's. No longer did men feel obligated to supporting the wife and family. The Broad Brigade also took the "liberation" of men into consideration; that is what happened in the end.
2003-09-26 18:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=iwannabeanarchy]What is better, not to have children, or to have children who suffer from the absence of a father?
Is not sometime better to just go ahead and have kids, even if you know you are never going to stay with the girl? For example, what if most other members of your race refuse to reproduce at level sufficient to maintain the survival of your people?[/QUOTE]
Good Question. While the declining European birth rate is distressing. I DO think that it is imperative for a child to have an active father. This doesn't have to be trussed together by a marriage certificate, but the father should actively participate in raising his children. The cultural Bolsheviks have done a fine job at indoctrinating European women that men are totally irrelevant in raising children, but this is obviously fallacious. I would like to see European nations start up child birth friendly programs that reward women for what they are actually suppose to do, HAVE CHILDREN. I read a while back that some Eastern Russian towns were starting to reward large families (I think it was 5 children +) with a free house, and a monthly subsidy. Socialism does have some merit, and I would gladly support it as long as I didn't have to support the riff raff that our immigration policies are importing.
2003-09-26 19:04 | User Profile
Robbie: The "Broad Brigade"?
Please. You're blaming the situation on the Women's movement? That's ridiculous...I think the fact that single 'moms' (I hate that word) are being honored is more the problem.
Perhaps if accolades weren't presented to single mothers there would be fewer of them. We have all kinds of sex-education classes and it's apparent that many young women (and young guys) aren't paying attention.
Furthermore, I think that the Morning-After pill (no, not RU-46) PREVEN (there are others) should be available OTC...and promoted in the sex-education classes. IF, after that, there are still huge numbers of babies born out of wedlock, that would mean that engaging in sex sans contraception is deliberate. We're not going to let these babies go hungry...we're going to feed them. And, that is that.
That all said: I don't think the number of unwed mothers is rising and I don't think that unmarried women are having more than two babies for the most part.
But let's lose 'mammies' and 'Black Daddies' and 'Broad Brigade'.
2003-09-26 19:34 | User Profile
Have babies with her as well, Bard. Spread the white seed.
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Then why not have the babies with the woman you love?[/QUOTE]
2003-09-26 19:38 | User Profile
This idea that all fatherless children join gangs is nutso. White generally don't join any sort of gang.
I am not interested in arguing religion with you. I am interested in what works. Large, stable families work; but, also, to a lesser extent, fathering out-of-wedlock children works. Now perhaps in your fantasy land this is something that did not happen in the white past. But the fact is, some women aren't going to marry and have kids, so we need to get them raising children by other means. Your claims about turning 'all' women into 'whores' is just sanctimonius bile. And talking about my mother by anonymous web-name is very low indeed.
[QUOTE=skemper]iwannabeanarchy, I suggest that you start with your daughter, mother, or sister, to form your irresponsible society. I want you to deal with the costs of raising another man's children when your female relatives get knocked up. I also want you to deal with the criminal behavior of the males in your family who grow up without a father and form gangs as a substitute for fatherhood. You are just a young man thinking with your hormones and not with your brain. Let's make all women whores and all men pimps and johns. Yes we will get losts of children but also lots of chaos.
The way to improve white society and increase its numbers is for more people to get married and have large families. Society starts with moral individuals ( Christian morals, of course), and then well ordered families, and then stable governments are formed.
Being a father is more than paying child support, you have to raise them. God created man after his own image and not to be animals. Paying the child support and alimony of keeping many women up is more expensive than having one wife and the children resulting from that union.
You need to grow up. Irresponsible boys like you are the root cause of crime in society. You don't think about the consequences of your selfish indulgences.[/QUOTE]
2003-09-26 20:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=iwannabeanarchy]Have babies with her as well, Bard. Spread the white seed.[/QUOTE]
I appreciate that you are not serious with the position you are staking out on this thread, but in the spirit of the thing, for the sake of argument, I'll point out that most men cannot afford (I'm working class) to pay child support for illegitimate children (chillun?)and have money left over for raising legitimate children. The low investment parenting style of pimps only works if the fedgov, or in Africa the extended village, picks up the tab for the the bastards. Your argument fails for lack of practicallity. Nice try though.
2003-09-26 22:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=iwannabeanarchy]Precisely. And right now, quantity is more important for whites than social quality; so long as the racial quality is right.
Hence, if you have some good white blood, consider knocking up some fine white girls who might not otherwise have kids.[/QUOTE]
And then what? As soon as the pregnancy test comes back positive, take off running?
I can't afford kids at this point in my life, so I am not going to be irresponsible enough to have them.
2003-09-26 23:55 | User Profile
Ok, yes, this works best if you are making some good money. And that's precisely the sort of person who needs to consciously consider having illegitimate children.
[QUOTE=Bardamu]I appreciate that you are not serious with the position you are staking out on this thread, but in the spirit of the thing, for the sake of argument, I'll point out that most men cannot afford (I'm working class) to pay child support for illegitimate children (chillun?)and have money left over for raising legitimate children. The low investment parenting style of pimps only works if the fedgov, or in Africa the extended village, picks up the tab for the the bastards. Your argument fails for lack of practicallity. Nice try though.[/QUOTE]
2003-09-27 01:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=iwannabeanarchy]This idea that all fatherless children join gangs is nutso. White generally don't join any sort of gang.
I am not interested in arguing religion with you. I am interested in what works. Large, stable families work; but, also, to a lesser extent, fathering out-of-wedlock children works. Now perhaps in your fantasy land this is something that did not happen in the white past. But the fact is, some women aren't going to marry and have kids, so we need to get them raising children by other means. Your claims about turning 'all' women into 'whores' is just sanctimonius bile. And talking about my mother by anonymous web-name is very low indeed.[/QUOTE]
Weak response, boy. You are the one living in fantasy land, a male pornographic fantasy land, more exactly. Not all women who get "knocked up" are going to raise the children they bare, they will turn them over to relatives, orphanages, or to the streets. And most men would not pay support unless the law makes them.
My claim about turning all women into whores and men into irresponsible sprem donors is the logical outcome of your scheme. The only reason that this scheme of your is working among blacks and welfare recipients is because the state is "rewarding" them fortheir irresponible behavior. When the money stops, the number of illegitimate children will go down.
By the way, mother's boy, if it is good enough for other women to get "knocked up", then it is good enough for your mother also. Your mother is a woman also, so why not consider how your scheme would effect her also.
Also, without a father's presence, who is going to model proper manhood? It certainly isn't going to be you.
If you don't want to be a Christian, then that is your right, but Christian morals are the basis of the laws of this country.
2003-09-27 01:57 | User Profile
Skemper, your logically flawed reply involves numerous insults that do not meet the standard appropriate for this board.
2003-09-27 02:12 | User Profile
[SIZE=4][QUOTE][B]Q: What is the definition of mass confusion? A: Father's day in Harlem [/B][/QUOTE][/SIZE]
:dung: :afro: :dung:
2003-09-27 02:20 | User Profile
skemper,
You are most Right Forication is destroying our Civilization.
2003-09-27 04:13 | User Profile
Instead of us trying to out-breed non-Whites, maybe we could de-populate them.
("[url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=12917]Gene bomb[/url]," anyone?)
Overpopulation threatens the the entire world -- not just the White world. Of course, trying to explain to Negroids the dangers of overpopulation would be like trying to ask a cockroach in your kitchen to stop breeding. They are selfish, stupid, impulsive beings who care only for themselves, and live only for the moment. They don't understand the consequences of their actions. This is where forced sterlizations and abortions come in. If they won't control their numbers voluntarily, they must be forced to do it.
[img]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/images/promos/promo_slumhell.jpg[/img]
(the state will provide everything the little tykes need).
That's a big part of the problem. Not just in the US, but throughout the world. Mother Nature has ways of keeping non-White populations in check -- such as disease and famine -- but foolish White do-gooders keep trying to subvert her...
[url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/22/1064082923505.html]Gates announces malaria grant[/url]
[img]http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1064082924871_2003/09/22/bill_gates_malaria,0.jpg[/img] "See? I'm not just another evil rich White racist capitalist! I love Black people! So please buy more Microsoft products, so I can donate even more millions to help non-Whites."
Stop subsidizing your extinction, White man.
2003-09-27 06:18 | User Profile
The state provides numerous incentives for unmarried women to have children. Remove the incentives and this problem disappears. Cut off the "make a baby, get a monthly check from the government" program. And no more turning whichever sex partner it was that impregnated you into an indentured servant for 18 years.
In 1960 just 2% of children in the US were born to unmarried mothers, black or white. And this was before women had access to safe, effective birth control or safe government-funded abortions (100% funded in countries like Canada). Clearly women are able to control their reproduction when society demands it. So what changed? In the sixties courts began ruling that unmarried women had the same right to have their children supported by the biological fathers as married women. And the state would pick up any slack. The results were predictable as large numbers of women decided to maximize their economic opportunities. In the US, about 30% of white kids are born to unmarried women, as are +70% of black kids. There are many different government programs to help support these kids, especially if the mothers don't work.
Unfortunately, in a democracy with universal suffrage (i.e women voting) this is unlikely to ever change.
The father's link to the family is the weak one, and strong, dominant cultures will have traditions that strengthen and support that link. The West was once like this but now we do everything we can to undermine the traditional father-headed family and that is a great source of our weakness.
Compare the average Iraqi with your average Western man. The Iraqi is the undisputed authority in his family and he derives status, prestige, and pride from this position. His wife and children OBEY him. His culture SUPPORTS him. His RELIGION supports him. And virtually every Iraqi gets married.
Western man is constantly threatened from within and without. The state gives his wife the power to evict him from the family at any time. He can be arrested for discplining his children, or have them removed from his care altogether. Pop culture routinely portrays fathers, especially white fathers, as stupid bumbling fools. Many young men just say to hell with it altogether.
If you had to bet on the clash of cultures, on who will be standing on top 200 years from now, where would you put your money?
2003-09-27 14:13 | User Profile
iwannabeanarchy [QUOTE] Is not sometime better to just go ahead and have kids, even if you know you are never going to stay with the girl? For example, what if most other members of your race refuse to reproduce at level sufficient to maintain the survival of your people? and But I am more interested in the ethics of white men fathering children more wildly. and Precisely. And right now, quantity is more important for whites than social quality; so long as the racial quality is right. Hence, if you have some good white blood, consider knocking up some fine white girls who might not otherwise have kids. and Yes, encouraging marriage is fine, but you can control who you have sex with more readily than you can control who others marry. Also, it is a lot harder to get married than to knock a girl up. and But we ought to swallow our pride a bit. We aren't ever going to be in same ballpark as blacks when it comes to illegitmacy, and Well, I don't think they can run paternity tests without good reason. You can still get away with a lot if you keep the evidence clean. Also, consider just paying the child support. At least that leaves you free to marry a girl you would really want to marry and spend you life with, not just have kids with[/QUOTE]
Oh fer cryin' out loud! Talk about a contaminated little boy (doesn't matter how many years he's lived -- this is a CHILD writing!)! Where in all your 'let's just knock 'em up' idiocy do you even THINK about the WHITE WOMEN you're using to fulfill your dreams!? HELLOOOO!!!! The WHITE race INCLUDES the white women! MEN are supposed to protect, guide, and HONOR their women! The biggest problem in this destroyed society is the destruction of MEN'S responsibility to their women and children!
Creating lots of little white bastards will NOT "fix" society! And it differentiates you NOT AT ALL from the black animals who are breeding us into extinction! It's NOT just skin color that makes a society, a culture, a civilization! Breeding white babies (just like the black animals do black babies) will NOT create or continue our civilization -- it will merely destroy whatever remnants of the white CIVILIZATION we have left!