BIO
Curt Cloninger is an artist, writer, and Associate Professor of New Media at the University of North Carolina Asheville. His art undermines language as a system of meaning in order to reveal it as an embodied force in the world. His art work has been featured in the New York Times and at festivals and galleries from Korea to Brazil. Exhibition venues include Centre Georges Pompidou (Paris), Granoff Center for The Creative Arts (Brown University), Digital Art Museum [DAM] (Berlin), Ukrainian Institute of Modern Art (Chicago), Black Mountain College Museum + Arts Center, and the internet. He is the recipient of several grants and awards, including commissions for the creation of new artwork from the National Endowment for the Arts (via Turbulence.org) and Austin Peay State University's Terminal Award.
Cloninger has written on a wide range of topics, including new media and internet art, installation and performance art, experimental graphic design, popular music, network culture, and continental philosophy. His articles have appeared in Intelligent Agent, Mute, Paste, Tekka, Rhizome Digest, A List Apart, and on ABC World News. He is also the author of eight books, most recently One Per Year (Link Editions). He maintains lab404.com, playdamage.org , and deepyoung.org in hopes of facilitating a more lively remote dialogue with the Sundry Contagions of Wonder.
Cloninger has written on a wide range of topics, including new media and internet art, installation and performance art, experimental graphic design, popular music, network culture, and continental philosophy. His articles have appeared in Intelligent Agent, Mute, Paste, Tekka, Rhizome Digest, A List Apart, and on ABC World News. He is also the author of eight books, most recently One Per Year (Link Editions). He maintains lab404.com, playdamage.org , and deepyoung.org in hopes of facilitating a more lively remote dialogue with the Sundry Contagions of Wonder.
Re: Re: RHIZOME_RAW Charles Simic:
Hi Ryan,
You are arguing with point 19: Abortion is an issue that takes precedence and primacy over all other issues.
You're suggesting that thousands of dead Iraqis should take precedence.
And with point 3: The Bible is God-approved.
You're suggestion that the intention of the Bible got lost in translation and subjective interpretation.
And you're throwing in the slippery slope fallacy ( http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm ) -- if I have religious convictions it could lead me to start a religious war. You seem to be saying that religious convictions are dangerous, suspect, and not to be acted on; but convictions arrived at otherwise are safe. Yet religious convictions can be arrived at through a great deal of intellectual rigor, experiential rigor, or whatever "safe" criteria you might happen to condone. If I discover a topographical map that proves accurate test after test after test ad infinitum, I'm hardly superstitious or illogical to trust that map.
I promised not to get into it point by point, and I won't. But my hypothetical voter certainly could and would get into it with you point by point. She would by no means hide behind her Bible. But I'm guessing it would still come down to her believing that a human fetus is a human, and you believing it's something less. Does a mother have the right to take the life of her three month old child? Y'all probably wouldn't be arguing about that. The fact that you mention the mother's human rights being infringed upon indicates you alread assume the fetus doesn't have those same human rights. So although dialogue is possible, it's probably going to come down to an issue of faith on both your parts (since verification of a human soul is beyond scientific province). The fact that your faith is based on something other than the Bible makes you no more or less de facto "right." You're either right or you're not. The point I hope to make is that her conclusions are perfectly reasonable given her ethical assumptions. You disagree with her foundational ethics, but that doesn't make her illogical or ignorant of practical, material issues.
To agree with you a bit -- many black Southern Christians traditionally vote democrat, not because they support legalized abortion, but because they believe fewer people will have abortions if poverty is decreased, and they believe the democrats can decrease poverty.
So yes, there are all sorts of angles and subtleties, and the dialogue is potentially endless, even amongst people who agree on the same basic ethical assumptions. It's the political implementation of those ethics that's often the rub.
peace,
curt
_
ryan griffis wrote:
> interesting discussion... and at least Curt attempts to position an
> antagonistic position.
> but as a christian, the "logic" that Curt lays out is what scares me.
> it's not logic - it's a logical analysis of someone's (hypothetical)
> motives. and materialism is not mutually exclusive to religious
> convictions. if you want to talk about policy that effects people
> based
> on a totally contrived shared political system (what else are
> borders?)
> - not on shared religious convictions, you have to talk about the
> material effects of that policy, not how it does or doesn't conform
> to
> some particular interpretation of a book that's been translated
> numerous times. you can't argue with conviction/faith... that's
> dangerous. You can talk about someone taking action based on
> religious
> beliefs all day, but when it comes down to it, their actions have an
> impact on others that may disagree - violently. A religious war still
> kills people, many innocent (and mostly poor on both sides). Where's
> the right to lifers carrying signs of dead Iraqi children (or the
> one's
> dying of preventable illnesses here)? Apparently the US christian
> right
> is way ahead of pomo theory when it comes to relativity. Legal steps
> to
> control something like abortion based on the belief that the fetus'
> life is more important than the person carrying it is a huge thing.
> the
> issue with life support and the state in Jeb's florida is similar. if
> you can't argue the logical contradictions with the policies and
> their
> effects, your left with what? Why can't we talk about the
> contradictions of a state's rights platform that endorses extreme
> control of reproductive rights and marriage law through centralized
> intervention? We can tax for a war that is saving no one's life (long
> or short term), yet a substantial, national health care program that
> would save thousands-millions is "communist!"
> i don't believe christianity is about ignoring the material effects
> of
> our actions, and i don't believe that the majority of that diverse
> group Curt mentioned do either. the leaders of the religious right
> certainly aren't ignoring them - just watch the 700 Club financial
> advice for preparing for the rapture!
>
You are arguing with point 19: Abortion is an issue that takes precedence and primacy over all other issues.
You're suggesting that thousands of dead Iraqis should take precedence.
And with point 3: The Bible is God-approved.
You're suggestion that the intention of the Bible got lost in translation and subjective interpretation.
And you're throwing in the slippery slope fallacy ( http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm ) -- if I have religious convictions it could lead me to start a religious war. You seem to be saying that religious convictions are dangerous, suspect, and not to be acted on; but convictions arrived at otherwise are safe. Yet religious convictions can be arrived at through a great deal of intellectual rigor, experiential rigor, or whatever "safe" criteria you might happen to condone. If I discover a topographical map that proves accurate test after test after test ad infinitum, I'm hardly superstitious or illogical to trust that map.
I promised not to get into it point by point, and I won't. But my hypothetical voter certainly could and would get into it with you point by point. She would by no means hide behind her Bible. But I'm guessing it would still come down to her believing that a human fetus is a human, and you believing it's something less. Does a mother have the right to take the life of her three month old child? Y'all probably wouldn't be arguing about that. The fact that you mention the mother's human rights being infringed upon indicates you alread assume the fetus doesn't have those same human rights. So although dialogue is possible, it's probably going to come down to an issue of faith on both your parts (since verification of a human soul is beyond scientific province). The fact that your faith is based on something other than the Bible makes you no more or less de facto "right." You're either right or you're not. The point I hope to make is that her conclusions are perfectly reasonable given her ethical assumptions. You disagree with her foundational ethics, but that doesn't make her illogical or ignorant of practical, material issues.
To agree with you a bit -- many black Southern Christians traditionally vote democrat, not because they support legalized abortion, but because they believe fewer people will have abortions if poverty is decreased, and they believe the democrats can decrease poverty.
So yes, there are all sorts of angles and subtleties, and the dialogue is potentially endless, even amongst people who agree on the same basic ethical assumptions. It's the political implementation of those ethics that's often the rub.
peace,
curt
_
ryan griffis wrote:
> interesting discussion... and at least Curt attempts to position an
> antagonistic position.
> but as a christian, the "logic" that Curt lays out is what scares me.
> it's not logic - it's a logical analysis of someone's (hypothetical)
> motives. and materialism is not mutually exclusive to religious
> convictions. if you want to talk about policy that effects people
> based
> on a totally contrived shared political system (what else are
> borders?)
> - not on shared religious convictions, you have to talk about the
> material effects of that policy, not how it does or doesn't conform
> to
> some particular interpretation of a book that's been translated
> numerous times. you can't argue with conviction/faith... that's
> dangerous. You can talk about someone taking action based on
> religious
> beliefs all day, but when it comes down to it, their actions have an
> impact on others that may disagree - violently. A religious war still
> kills people, many innocent (and mostly poor on both sides). Where's
> the right to lifers carrying signs of dead Iraqi children (or the
> one's
> dying of preventable illnesses here)? Apparently the US christian
> right
> is way ahead of pomo theory when it comes to relativity. Legal steps
> to
> control something like abortion based on the belief that the fetus'
> life is more important than the person carrying it is a huge thing.
> the
> issue with life support and the state in Jeb's florida is similar. if
> you can't argue the logical contradictions with the policies and
> their
> effects, your left with what? Why can't we talk about the
> contradictions of a state's rights platform that endorses extreme
> control of reproductive rights and marriage law through centralized
> intervention? We can tax for a war that is saving no one's life (long
> or short term), yet a substantial, national health care program that
> would save thousands-millions is "communist!"
> i don't believe christianity is about ignoring the material effects
> of
> our actions, and i don't believe that the majority of that diverse
> group Curt mentioned do either. the leaders of the religious right
> certainly aren't ignoring them - just watch the 700 Club financial
> advice for preparing for the rapture!
>
Re: Re: understanding repubs?
beautiful.
_
t.whid wrote:
Of course we normal citizens interacting on personal levels should try to attain some
understanding of one another's views...
No, I'm sorry Fuck That.
I understand that they are perfectly mistaken and that's all I need to
understand.
_
t.whid wrote:
Of course we normal citizens interacting on personal levels should try to attain some
understanding of one another's views...
No, I'm sorry Fuck That.
I understand that they are perfectly mistaken and that's all I need to
understand.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Charles Simic:
Hi Jim,
In a nutshell, here's my difference with lots of folks who post to rhizome -- I'm not a marxist materialist. So when you describe a region in terms of its labor unions, its agricultural exports, its teacher salaries, its history of supporting this or that political party, and you expect to suss it all up based on those material indicators, I think you're grossly oversimplifying the "reality" of the region. I agree with what you say, that literature and art get closer to what's really happening in a culture, yet Simic's "literature" misses the mark because it's more like deductive fiction as essay. He finds what he's looking for.
You want to know why someone woud vote for Bush. That's why you're looking for an insight into the mind of Joe Southerner. Fair enough.
It's easy for me to understand why someone would vote for Bush, without me having to view them as brainwashed, ignorant, empoverished, pathetic, or from Mars. Oftentimes, it has to do with a difference in basic ethical assumptions. Let me try to explain at least one reason why somone would do it, an ethical reason. You are going to have to put yourself into someone else's shoes to understand this. You probably won't agree with it, but you should be able to at least understand it. Don't inject your own ethics into the situation. Just allow someone to have their own ethics, and follow the perfectly plausible logic that proceeds from those ethics:
+++++++++++++++++
1. God exists
2. The Bible is God-approved
3. The Bible says God knit each person together in the womb
4. A fetus has a human soul
5. A fetus is a human
6. To kill an innocent human is murder
7. Abortion is murder
8. Murder is wrong
9. 1 million murders occur per year in the US due to abortion
10. If abortion were illegal in the US, fewer abortions would occur
11. The supreme court has the authority to make abortion illegal
12. If more supreme court justices were against abortion, they would make it illegal
13. The president is the one who appoints new supreme court justices when the old ones die
14. Several current supreme court justices are old
15. Bush will appoint new supreme court justices that oppose legal abortion
16. Kerry will appoint new supreme court justices that support legal abortion
17. To vote for a third party presidential candidate would just be a wasted vote
18. 1 million human murders per year is a national debacle
19. Abortion is an issue that takes precedence and primacy over all other issues
20. I'm voting Bush for presdient in 2004
+++++++++++++++++
Again, the above line of reasoning is by no means a proof or even an argument. You could probably have a debate with someone point by point on each statement ad nauseum. For instance, point #19 is open to all sorts of debate, even if you agree with points #1-18. I'm simply saying that the above reasoning is consistent in and of itself given the a priori assumptions. The above person can logically vote for Bush without agreeing with his foreign policy, without believing he's a Christian, without even believing that he's ethical. They just have to believe that he would appoint a pro-life supreme court justice should the need arise, and that Kerry would not, and there's little debate about that.
That's the degree to which many voters value this one particular issue. If you believed that 1 million innocent humans were being legally murdered in the US each year, you could hardly call yourself a liberal activist and not consider how you might do something to stop it. Not that you DO believe that, but IF YOU DID. And these people do.
Is believing in the God of the Bible insane or ignorant? Is it the result of being raised in poverty and superstition, of being poorly educated, of living in a rural area? Last time I checked, believing in the God of the Bible was more or less a global phenomena, spanning race, nationality, class, education, and economic status.
It's the high-minded condescension and bewilderment of the liberal left that so rubs me the wrong way (no less so than the loftly moral condescension and bewilderment of the religious right). "How can they be so easily misled?" Maybe not all the people who disagree with you are cattle. Maybe they just disagree with you.
On a lighter note, I'm not personally offended by southern stereotyping. I didn't mean to play the politically correct "I'm in that minority group" card. There are a lot of idiots down here living Socrates' fabled "unconsidered life." But not as many as you might suspect.
viva la peace, love, and understanding,
curt
P.S. For all others reading this post, I do not relish entering an online public debate with you (on a net art list, no less) on the "truth" of any of the above 20 points. I'm just showing a logical progression.
_
Jim Andrews wrote:
part of the value of
literature is that it usually does take such a closer look at things, and a
closer look at people and their struggles and victories of the spirit, which
tend to be the most important victories, arrived at usually despite more
than because of the surrounding 'cultures'. what makes art so improbable in
a particular place is usually strongly related to what makes it possible,
the rub, the edge, what is to be resisted and overcome.
In a nutshell, here's my difference with lots of folks who post to rhizome -- I'm not a marxist materialist. So when you describe a region in terms of its labor unions, its agricultural exports, its teacher salaries, its history of supporting this or that political party, and you expect to suss it all up based on those material indicators, I think you're grossly oversimplifying the "reality" of the region. I agree with what you say, that literature and art get closer to what's really happening in a culture, yet Simic's "literature" misses the mark because it's more like deductive fiction as essay. He finds what he's looking for.
You want to know why someone woud vote for Bush. That's why you're looking for an insight into the mind of Joe Southerner. Fair enough.
It's easy for me to understand why someone would vote for Bush, without me having to view them as brainwashed, ignorant, empoverished, pathetic, or from Mars. Oftentimes, it has to do with a difference in basic ethical assumptions. Let me try to explain at least one reason why somone would do it, an ethical reason. You are going to have to put yourself into someone else's shoes to understand this. You probably won't agree with it, but you should be able to at least understand it. Don't inject your own ethics into the situation. Just allow someone to have their own ethics, and follow the perfectly plausible logic that proceeds from those ethics:
+++++++++++++++++
1. God exists
2. The Bible is God-approved
3. The Bible says God knit each person together in the womb
4. A fetus has a human soul
5. A fetus is a human
6. To kill an innocent human is murder
7. Abortion is murder
8. Murder is wrong
9. 1 million murders occur per year in the US due to abortion
10. If abortion were illegal in the US, fewer abortions would occur
11. The supreme court has the authority to make abortion illegal
12. If more supreme court justices were against abortion, they would make it illegal
13. The president is the one who appoints new supreme court justices when the old ones die
14. Several current supreme court justices are old
15. Bush will appoint new supreme court justices that oppose legal abortion
16. Kerry will appoint new supreme court justices that support legal abortion
17. To vote for a third party presidential candidate would just be a wasted vote
18. 1 million human murders per year is a national debacle
19. Abortion is an issue that takes precedence and primacy over all other issues
20. I'm voting Bush for presdient in 2004
+++++++++++++++++
Again, the above line of reasoning is by no means a proof or even an argument. You could probably have a debate with someone point by point on each statement ad nauseum. For instance, point #19 is open to all sorts of debate, even if you agree with points #1-18. I'm simply saying that the above reasoning is consistent in and of itself given the a priori assumptions. The above person can logically vote for Bush without agreeing with his foreign policy, without believing he's a Christian, without even believing that he's ethical. They just have to believe that he would appoint a pro-life supreme court justice should the need arise, and that Kerry would not, and there's little debate about that.
That's the degree to which many voters value this one particular issue. If you believed that 1 million innocent humans were being legally murdered in the US each year, you could hardly call yourself a liberal activist and not consider how you might do something to stop it. Not that you DO believe that, but IF YOU DID. And these people do.
Is believing in the God of the Bible insane or ignorant? Is it the result of being raised in poverty and superstition, of being poorly educated, of living in a rural area? Last time I checked, believing in the God of the Bible was more or less a global phenomena, spanning race, nationality, class, education, and economic status.
It's the high-minded condescension and bewilderment of the liberal left that so rubs me the wrong way (no less so than the loftly moral condescension and bewilderment of the religious right). "How can they be so easily misled?" Maybe not all the people who disagree with you are cattle. Maybe they just disagree with you.
On a lighter note, I'm not personally offended by southern stereotyping. I didn't mean to play the politically correct "I'm in that minority group" card. There are a lot of idiots down here living Socrates' fabled "unconsidered life." But not as many as you might suspect.
viva la peace, love, and understanding,
curt
P.S. For all others reading this post, I do not relish entering an online public debate with you (on a net art list, no less) on the "truth" of any of the above 20 points. I'm just showing a logical progression.
_
Jim Andrews wrote:
part of the value of
literature is that it usually does take such a closer look at things, and a
closer look at people and their struggles and victories of the spirit, which
tend to be the most important victories, arrived at usually despite more
than because of the surrounding 'cultures'. what makes art so improbable in
a particular place is usually strongly related to what makes it possible,
the rub, the edge, what is to be resisted and overcome.
Re: Re: Charles Simic:
Hi Jim,
I actually grew up around Fairhope, Alabama, and have a bumper sticker that reads, "I brake for boiled peanuts." It's funny when the shoe fits. And yet in the next few months I'm lecturing on net art/design in Calgary, Sao Paulo, and Tel Aviv. So maybe the shoe doesn't fit. Because maybe the shoe is so multifaceted and cryptic that it's more like a labyrinth than a shoe. No cultural anthropologist worth her salt would presume to take a vacation to Bali, write up her initial subjective observations, and expect to be taken with anything other than a grain of salt; and yet Yankee pundits (and Holywood producers) continue in vain to search for that elusively discernible insight into the heart of "the South." After all, it's just "the South." How complicated can it be? Perhaps it's this presumptive condescentsion that causes most such pundits to come away thinking they've hit paydirt when they've only begun to scratch the surface.
cf: http://www.pifmagazine.com/2000/05/m_clon.php3
In a more "defensive" vein, there are two environments in which I get a heavily creepy, clubby, assumptive, we-all-know-what-the-true-perspective-is-wink-wink vibe. One is around trailer park racists who assume that because you're white you share their views. The other is around "tolerant" liberals who assume that because you're educated you share their views. Both groups are prone to speak with a lazy conviction about things of which they have limited experiential knowledge.
peace,
curt
_
Jim Andrews wrote:
> > i'd also challenge the originally quoted article's
> > reference to religion and the US South... while there are certainly
> > fundamentalist protestant ideologies there, religion is merely a
> > superstructure for more complex practices - religion is just too
> easy a
> > scapegoat to me. from living in the south most of my life, and
> having
> > lived many other places in the US (including the west coast and mid
> > west), i feel i can say that the South is no more "religious" than
> any
> > other part of the country (many would say metropolitan/rural
> > distinctions are more telling indicators). i would doubt that there
> are
> > more church goers, or people who can quote from the bible. Southern
> > California is extremely conservative, and highly conservative
> Christian
> > (you should see the Trinity Broadcasting HQ!). i know, it is called
> > "the Southland"... There are differences from the conservative
> > catholicism more prevalent in the NE and the informal dogma of
> southern
> > protestantism, but i'm not sure that they represent any kind of
> > geographic dominance.
>
> hi ryan,
>
> your response is very different from the defensiveness of
> http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/opinions/concerning_my_neighbors_the_
> hicks.php , which is a response to simic's piece.
>
> yours is more balanced, actually. the defensive reaction of the above
> url
> leads him into untruths, such as saying that simic "gives short shrift
> to
> mississippi's long and continuing literary tradition."
>
> i am interested to read you say that "the South is no more "religious"
> than
> any other part of the country." I heard on pbs a while ago that 2/5 of
> the
> adults in the USA consider themselves "evangelicals" and that, of
> those, 2/3
> are Bush/Republican supporters. that's 2/5*2/3=4/15 > 25% of the
> voting
> population.
>
> i myself remain rather curious about how bush and cronies might get
> enough
> votes to even be in the race. tis a puzzlement to me. where are all
> these
> people? as you say, southern california is extremely conservative.
> they may
> well be highly conservative christian, as you say; i gather the area
> is also
> deeply involved in military industry (which is another strong
> republican
> area, is it not?).
>
> > the historical opposition to union organizing is
> > a more important/oppressive distinction for me in the South - just
> find
> > a strong union in North Carolina - and one i don't think is based on
> > religious foundations.
>
> What is the basis of that opposition to union organizing?
>
> > anyway, just some not very thought out comments on an important
> topic :)
> > best,
> > ryan
> >
>
> thanks, Ryan. it's great to hear from someone from the South on this.
>
> ja
>
>
I actually grew up around Fairhope, Alabama, and have a bumper sticker that reads, "I brake for boiled peanuts." It's funny when the shoe fits. And yet in the next few months I'm lecturing on net art/design in Calgary, Sao Paulo, and Tel Aviv. So maybe the shoe doesn't fit. Because maybe the shoe is so multifaceted and cryptic that it's more like a labyrinth than a shoe. No cultural anthropologist worth her salt would presume to take a vacation to Bali, write up her initial subjective observations, and expect to be taken with anything other than a grain of salt; and yet Yankee pundits (and Holywood producers) continue in vain to search for that elusively discernible insight into the heart of "the South." After all, it's just "the South." How complicated can it be? Perhaps it's this presumptive condescentsion that causes most such pundits to come away thinking they've hit paydirt when they've only begun to scratch the surface.
cf: http://www.pifmagazine.com/2000/05/m_clon.php3
In a more "defensive" vein, there are two environments in which I get a heavily creepy, clubby, assumptive, we-all-know-what-the-true-perspective-is-wink-wink vibe. One is around trailer park racists who assume that because you're white you share their views. The other is around "tolerant" liberals who assume that because you're educated you share their views. Both groups are prone to speak with a lazy conviction about things of which they have limited experiential knowledge.
peace,
curt
_
Jim Andrews wrote:
> > i'd also challenge the originally quoted article's
> > reference to religion and the US South... while there are certainly
> > fundamentalist protestant ideologies there, religion is merely a
> > superstructure for more complex practices - religion is just too
> easy a
> > scapegoat to me. from living in the south most of my life, and
> having
> > lived many other places in the US (including the west coast and mid
> > west), i feel i can say that the South is no more "religious" than
> any
> > other part of the country (many would say metropolitan/rural
> > distinctions are more telling indicators). i would doubt that there
> are
> > more church goers, or people who can quote from the bible. Southern
> > California is extremely conservative, and highly conservative
> Christian
> > (you should see the Trinity Broadcasting HQ!). i know, it is called
> > "the Southland"... There are differences from the conservative
> > catholicism more prevalent in the NE and the informal dogma of
> southern
> > protestantism, but i'm not sure that they represent any kind of
> > geographic dominance.
>
> hi ryan,
>
> your response is very different from the defensiveness of
> http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/opinions/concerning_my_neighbors_the_
> hicks.php , which is a response to simic's piece.
>
> yours is more balanced, actually. the defensive reaction of the above
> url
> leads him into untruths, such as saying that simic "gives short shrift
> to
> mississippi's long and continuing literary tradition."
>
> i am interested to read you say that "the South is no more "religious"
> than
> any other part of the country." I heard on pbs a while ago that 2/5 of
> the
> adults in the USA consider themselves "evangelicals" and that, of
> those, 2/3
> are Bush/Republican supporters. that's 2/5*2/3=4/15 > 25% of the
> voting
> population.
>
> i myself remain rather curious about how bush and cronies might get
> enough
> votes to even be in the race. tis a puzzlement to me. where are all
> these
> people? as you say, southern california is extremely conservative.
> they may
> well be highly conservative christian, as you say; i gather the area
> is also
> deeply involved in military industry (which is another strong
> republican
> area, is it not?).
>
> > the historical opposition to union organizing is
> > a more important/oppressive distinction for me in the South - just
> find
> > a strong union in North Carolina - and one i don't think is based on
> > religious foundations.
>
> What is the basis of that opposition to union organizing?
>
> > anyway, just some not very thought out comments on an important
> topic :)
> > best,
> > ryan
> >
>
> thanks, Ryan. it's great to hear from someone from the South on this.
>
> ja
>
>