« The Continuing Conversation | Main | Immigration and Inequality »

Stop Bitching, Start a Revolution

17 Jun 2007 11:43 pm

I've read a lot of "why liberalism is so screwed up" pieces, like this one by Matt Taibbi, over the last decade or so, and they've usually made me feel warm and fuzzy with schadenfreude. But enough is enough. At least until December 2008, I declare a moratorium on left-of-center whinging about how screwed up the left-of-center is. It's one thing to complain when you're down and out, getting smacked upside the head by Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman; it's quite another to complain, as Taibbi does, that your side of the political spectrum is "a skittish, hysterical old lady ... easily mesmerized by half-baked pseudo-intellectual nonsense, and quick to run from anything like real conflict or responsibility" when the world is actually going your way. And I say that even though I actually agree some of the substance of what Taibbi has to say about the tensions and contradictions with American liberalism; it's not that he's wrong, it's that his tone is all wrong for a political moment when his side happens to be winning.

Look, liberalism has a lot of problems. FDR isn't walking through that door. And so on. But America's liberal political party just scored an enormous political victory, taking back both houses of Congress from what was supposed to be an invincible GOP machine, and there are plenty of reasons - from electoral math to fundraising numbers to, well, the polls - to think that 2008 is going to be a banner year for liberals/progressives/whatever. The right had the left on the ropes for a long time, but for now, at least, it's the other way around. Public opinion is going liberalism's way on everything from gay marriage to taxes to health care to poverty to global warming, and the Iraq War has temporarily undone conservatism's long-running advantage on foreign policy. There's more money flowing into liberal coffers than ever before; the left is well ahead of the right in internet organizing; the rising generation is having its political views forged in the crucible of the Bush years, with predictable consequences - and for once, the right-wing coalition's intellectual contradictions are more pronounced than liberalism's divisions.

Obviously, all of this could turn on a dime. But at the moment, liberalism looks less like a "hysterical old lady," and more like a winning coalition, than it has in years or even decades. There will be plenty of time for bitching if the Democrats blow it in '08; until then, spare me.

Comments (51)

You'll never have a career as a conservative pundit if you keep saying things like this.

I appreciate Matt Taibbi's work--he has a Menckenian flair that makes his work really fun to read. Like Mencken, however, he is often short on depth. I think that Taibbi's problem is that he isn't after a political movement. What he wants is a religion. He will not be happy until liberalism has resolved the fundamental problems intrinsic to being a human being.

Oh, and Ross, keep writing well and using your mind and I'll be reading you, no matter what adjective they put before your name.

My only problem with Andrew and Ross referencing Taibbi's work is that the guy is basically a satirist who gets a kick out of ruffling feathers. I mean, this is the guy who wrote an article called "The 52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope". Pretty juvenile stuff.

The main gyst I got from his recent piece is that he doesn't like hippies. Searching for depth beyond his main desire (to insult) is probably a reach.

Ross can you please explain to me why global warming is conservative vs liberal issue? Why isn't it preserving the future human race vs corporations making profits?

Unless of course the conservative movement is nothing but corporatism wedded to bastardized traditional Christian social mores. I am no conservative but I do not understand why conservativism has decided to reject doing anything about global warming. It is not as if sticking your fingers in your ears and humming really loudly is going to resolve the issue.

Ross can you please explain to me why global warming is conservative vs liberal issue? Why isn't it preserving the future human race vs corporations making profits?

I am a liberal, but will take a shot at a serious answer. There are two reasons why Republicans have not yet embraced global warming. First, the business wing of the party has thusfar won the cost/benefit debate in terms of the effect reigning in global warming would have on the economy, businesses, jobs etc. The second reason is more tempermental. Conservatives simply have a strong personal distaste for environmentalists. Even if conservatives agree that global warming must eventually be addressed, they aren't about to ally themselves with a bunch of "tree huggers" when doing so would mean picking a fight with their own president.

The good news, I suspect, is that this situation probably won't last much longer. I would be shocked if Guiliani or McCain didn't take on global warming in a comprehensive way if they win the White House. I even think Mitt Romney would see the light. I just think that Bush and Cheney's unique closeness to the oil industry - and the very direct impact any kind of comprehensive plan to fight global warming would have on said industry - have stalled the issue in a somewhat unusual way. In fact, I don't think corporate America as a whole is all that opposed to reform. But the oil industry surely is.

None of the major presidential candidates are closely aligned with big oil. Once Bush is out of office, the industry will lose its special and unique spot at the White House table, and I think reform will come somewhat swiftly.

Personally, I'm more curious about why the Democratic Congress hasn't said much about global warming. Last I checked, they were in the majority and were allowed to cast votes on such things.

"Why isn't it preserving the future human race vs corporations making profits?"

Uhhh, what? Let me try my hand at this: "Why isn't it doing trying to stop something that can't be stopped versus continuing to provide Americans with a decent quality of life?" Do you draw all your political opponents as crude cartoons?

Personally, I'm more curious about why the Democratic Congress hasn't said much about global warming. Last I checked, they were in the majority and were allowed to cast votes on such things.

Here is your answer: John Dingell (D-General Motors) Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Progressives have been bitter for decades about the perpetual inability of the Democratic Party to achieve any domestic policy goals more ambitious than raising money to keep the Republicans out of power. The corporate wing of the party and the activist wing of the party openly loathe each other. Backstabbing is par for the course, and expecting anything else from a center-left coalition is foolish.

Conservatives have been far more tolerant of the Republicans' inability to accomplish any domestic policy goals more ambitious than raising money to keep the Democrats out of power, presumably because conservatives expect the government to be inept and corrupt. They maintained a unified front for the better part of 15 years. But Iraq and the immigration issue have opened rifts in the party that won't disappear when the GOP eventually regains power.

The moral of the story: the recent bitching-free political era on the American Right was an aberration, and I don't expect the phenomenon will occur again anytime soon, in either party.

This would be a better post if Taibbi had touched on anything even approximating concerns about fears about future Democratic losses. Instead, he talked about something like moral embarrassment. I'm not sure how "winning coalition" is supposed to vitiate that feeling.

You can, in fact, be both a winning coalition and hysterical. This happens when a temporarily winning coalition does not provide a real program or sense of direction for the country it nominally leads. This outcome could plausibly be the fate of the current Democratic majority, and warnings against it are often valuable.

One of the reasons the Democrats (and the EU, and Canada, and Japan, and . . . ) aren't doing much about global warming is that while the issue is real the solutions on offer are also really costly, in terms of economic growth, and likely to be very unpopular. I mean you can't scream at the Republicans all day as being "in bed with the oil profiteers who make your gas expensive" and then turn around an slap on a carbon tax on that same gas, can you?

Ross can you please explain to me why global warming is conservative vs liberal issue? Why isn't it preserving the future human race vs corporations making profits?

Many corporations have embraced the global warming mantra. BP's tagline is now "beyond petroleum". Corporations are not rightwing or leftwing - they are opportunistic.

The liberal/conservative breakdown is over a) how severe any warming (and it's effects) is likely to be, and b) what policies to pursue. Liberals generally think that GW will have severe effects, and that the proper policy is large-scale reductions in production of CO2 via top-down tariffs/restrictions, while conservatives think the effects are more likely to be mild, and that the best way to deal with the problem is via technology development and adaptation.

I would dispute the notion that public opinion is moving in any serious way towards liberal solutions to GW. Kyoto would cost $225 per month per household (and would reduce warming by less than 1%), while people say they are willing to shell out $20 bucks per month to fight GW.

Uh, Ross, maybe references to Franklin Roosevelt "walking in the door." are in bad taste and should be avoided?

There is something you miss however. While the Democrats are ascendant their ideas are not. Do you detect elan in the Left? I don't. They have been stalemated in Germany, and trounced in France. Here in the United States even a President despised by them who is attacking his base on important matters has a higher approval rating than the Congress run by the Left.

There is the lack of seriousness and the "manliness" problem that still afflicts the Left. Cindy Sheehanism seems to aflict it more than Rham Emannualism bears it up.

Taibbi gave great rant. 2006 or maybe 20008 is the flood tide of their power. And this is as good as they are going to feel. Were I them I would be upset.

There is the lack of seriousness and the "manliness" problem that still afflicts the Left.

Oh, please. Shall we compare the seriousness of the Left to the "seriousness" of the people who invaded a mid-sized nation and left the post-war planning to the magic democracy fairies? Shall we compare the seriousness of the Democrats to the seriousness of a Party whose current front-runner quite obviously hasn't the slightest interest in learning any details about American foreign policy?

The Republicans engage in ritual exhibitions of testosterone that fall just shy of chest-beating and feces-flinging. They fall all over each other in debates to proudly announce that they'll "double Guantanamo" and they discuss war like it's a game of bloody knuckles that can be won with macho posturing and a refusal to concede defeat.

Now THAT is a "manliness problem."

JJV,
As much as I despise the guy, you spelled Rahm Emanuel's name wrong. Per the substance of your comments. You have to remember something. The left in the US is not the same as the left in Europe. In fact, a lot of the political parties on the right in Europe are barely right of center, if right(as we know it) at all. The left is not rising faster because the left doesn't have the media access the right does. Just look at the polls, and what America's views are.

Uh, Ross, maybe references to Franklin Roosevelt "walking in the door." are in bad taste and should be avoided?

Heh. It hould be corrected to read 'FDR isn't rolling through that door'.

Still, a good Pitino reference.

"The left is not rising faster because the left doesn't have the media access the right does. Just look at the polls, and what America's views are."

Huh?! Every time I turn on my TV I see some filthy-rich, airhead celebrity lecturing all of us middle class yahoos on how wrong our values and lifestyles are and why the capitalist system that made them multi-millionaires is evil.

Elite universities in this country are little more than centers for leftist political indoctrination in which political correctness always trumps factual correctness.

The mainstream media continue to frame all issues in a center-left perspective. All reports on immigration show only hard working, virtuous Mexicans and portray opponents of open borders and illegal immigration as racist yahoos.

Reports on education never question the liberal education establishment that achieves such appalling results with so much money. Instead the problem is always shown as a lack of money.

Ignorant race hustlers and shake down artists like Al Sharpton are given unlimited exposure and airtime for their racist and anti-Semitic views.

Do you really think that Fox News and AM radio trump all of this?

Still, a good Pitino reference.

I think it was a reference to the dream Democratic coalition--grave black man, hick from the Midwest, and NPR-lovin' (he's from Minnesota) goofball--represented by Parish, Bird, and McHale.

Look, I don't want to be childish but your "spare me" comment needs a response.

Conservatives have held the White House since 2001 and Congress for even longer (up until relatively recently). I never noticed a break in Conservative whining during that time.

If Liberal whining in times of success bothers you, take it as an opportunity to see how your side has looked over the past few years. If Liberals retain Congress, capture the White House and shift the Supreme Court in our favor, and still continue to whine, you'll see exactly how your side has behaved recently.

I'm not out to flame or start a pissing contest. But really, Conservatives have no ground to stand on when complaining about whining in times of success.

"Here in the United States even a President despised by them who is attacking his base on important matters has a higher approval rating than the Congress run by the Left."

Well, a Congress where the Senate has a one-vote Democratic majority dependent on Joe Lieberman may be your definition of a Congress "run by the Left." Actually, much of the recent decline in Congress' popularity comes from Democrats who are dissatisfied with Congress for not ending the Iraq war--and in that sense nor being *far enough* to the Left.

Note that while ratings for Congressional Democrats are low, ratings for Congressioanl Republicans are even lower. Compare http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm with http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm (unfortunately the ABC News/Washington Post poll is the only recent one there which rates both Congressional parties).

There's a very shrewd strategy under the surface in pieces like the Adbusters one you reference. He's taking a very important lesson from the rise of the right, and that is: no matter how powerful you become, you must always pretend to be an oppressed minority.

One of the main reasons the right wing talking heads are always going on and on about "the liberals this" and "the liberals that" is that the liberals are the big scary bogey-man who are out to trash the USA with their every action. They must be stood up to, and must be defeated, lest their evil ideology infect us all with AIDS, hand over the country to terrorists and illegal aliens, and wreck the economy with handouts to lazy, immoral poor people.

If the democrats have any brains, this whole liberal/conservative labeling issue aside, they'll be sure not to ever put on any other face than that of a coalition that's always on the verge of being overrun by the better-organized, better-funded, hopelessly corrupt, corporate-sponsored, serving-a-shadowy-cabal-of-rash-neocon-idealists, morally-suspect, willing-to-play-any-dirty-trick republicans.

Conservative rhetoric at this point is extremely stale because so many of them are repeating the memes and talking points they hear every day on talk radio (which is a huge mind suck). Notice how conservatives love to be told what to think?

As for the "manliness" issue, it can be remedied by urging war supporters to enlist. Chickenhawk internet warriors are quick to shut up when you ask them to make a personal sacrifice to help save the world from the terrorists, etc.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com

"Public opinion is going liberalism's way on everything from gay marriage to taxes to health care to poverty to global warming"

Sometimes I worry about Ross. Although I read his pieces and they are often respectful; an example like this of him repeating a leftist meme reveals him to be another journalist beating his drum in the relentless drum line that is the main stream media.

Any cursory inspection of a social issue lake same-sex "marriage" will reveal it as anything but a grass roots populist movement. Only a single State (Connecticut) has adopted even civil union by legislative action.

Aside from that, its all courts twisting arms to force this issue on the population. It is advancing only in the sense that the media (and people like Ross) are painting it as inevitable. All the while ignoring the substative arguments against it, and the populist political movement it has created.


57-43 = Oregon, 59-41 = Michigan, 62-38 = California, 62-38 = Ohio, 66-34 = Utah, 67-33 = Montana, 71-29 = Kansas, 71-29 = Missouri, 73-27 = North Dakota, 75-25 = Arkansas, 75-25 = Kentucky, 76-24 = Georgia, 76-24 = Oklahoma, 78-22 = Louisiana, 86-14 = Mississippi, 56-44 = Colorado, 63–37 = Idaho, 74-26 = South Carolina, 52-49 = South Dakota, 82-19 = Tennessee, 57-43 = Virginia, 60-40 = Wisconsin.

If these numbers represented any issue dear to liberals they would be trumpeted daily as indicative of national consensus and painted with urgency and awe.

Historically speaking this is one of the largest and most successful legislative drives America has ever seen.

But to the press, it is not a mass reaffirmation of traditional marriage, but rather an insignificant aside in a larger narrative of "social progress" driven by a benevolent judiciary.

"...it's not that he's wrong, it's that his tone is all wrong for a political moment when his side happens to be winning."

So, it's not so much what he's saying as how he's saying it. Right.

"Public opinion is going liberalism's way on everything from gay marriage to taxes to health care to poverty to global warming, and the Iraq War has temporarily undone conservatism's long-running advantage on foreign policy."

I haven't noticed the Dems making all that many great strides in the above-mentioned areas, not to mention Katrina recovery efforts and immigration issues. And that's what's pissing Taibbi off: when you point out someone who's "liberal", the only people we have to point to are the ineffectual corporate puppets that are dithering madly over this stuff. I've never been a fan of a large government presence in daily life -- but there are some cases, like health care, energy and provision of basic services (water, emergency services) -- where private systems can not operate effictively enough to provide universal coverage. That's something for the public sphere alone, IMHO.

Fitz -- yes, but I think Ross is correct that the public is slowly growing less hostile to "gay marriage," and that younger people are more favorable to it than older ones. There is some reason to suspect the trends with younger voters will eventually win the day for gay marriage. In my own experience, among the more educated "yout", even the fairly religious and conservative ones are inclined to a semi-libertarian "well, it's not real marriage, but why's the state in this marriage business anyway, it's a religious thing." I'm an exception, but I'm a moderately young reactionary firebrand, and we're not common. Now, young people are always more attracted to loopy positions like libertarianism, and they tend to get less loopy as they age, but there's a bad trend here -- accelerated by the general openness about homosexuality, and people's reluctance to support any policy that seems unkind to their friends, even if they think it is a good policy. I mean, as far as I can tell, Luke Timothy Johnson isn't a true liberal and clearly knows and likes Scripture and the Nicene Creed -- but he's come to a total accomodationist view on homosexuality, acknowledging this is a rejection of scripture, on the basis of, well, "I've got gay friends."

In the end, E. M. Forster's nasty little dictum is applied by a lot of people even to their religion.

The abortion opinion trend doesn't look too bad, though.

I voted Republican in every election since 1984, but I sat out the last election due to disgust with both parties, and may do the same thing in 2008.

I can understand why many Democrats are gloating right now, but I suspect they had better check their hubris. I am a political junkie and have been so for over 20 years. I scan everything from Daily Kos to Littlegreenfootballs. My own political evolution has gone from far left in my late teens and early 20s, to right /libertarian in my mid 20s. I am now 48, and even more convinced that the libertarian world view is correct.

My hunch is that the Democrats are currently winning by default, and not so much because of their ideas. The current largely odious Republican establishment notwithstanding, the idea that we are entering a new "liberal" or "progressive" era does not stand up to scrutiny, IMHO. Thanks to Democrats ( if "thanks" is the word ), we have Social Security, unemployment benefits, minimum wages, student loans, Medicare, Medicaid, etc etc. Yes we have some people who do not have needed medical care, but the vast majority of Americans do have health insurance. Our health care system OVERALL is the best on the planet. That is not debatable. We have an access problem with health care, NOT a quality problem. And the idea that a government takeover is the answer is laughable. We do not currently have free market health care. We have a distorted, corrupt mix of government and private health care with all sorts of perverse incentives. How about trying free market health care before we go to socialism ?

Bottom line is that thanks to the New Deal ( largely a mistake IMO ) and the Great Society ( a HUGE mistake ), Democrats have created a modern welfare / entitlement state. But one of the things most economists agree on is that the 70+% federal income tax rates in the 1970s were a bad idea. We know for a FACT that it is possible for taxes to be too high and government to be too big. Also, if Social Security is not restructured in some way, then we are facing either reduced benefits , higher taxes, or more likely, both. This is a fact that cannot be denied. We have enormous problems with public education, especially in the inner cities. But the AARP and the teachers unions have the Democrats by the throat, so no well-meaning Democrat can possibly advocating serious reform of either Social Security or education, because they would offend their constituents. And because politicians always take the path of least resistance, Democrats will not offer up anything except to raise taxes. Bottom line : Democrats may be riding high now, and even higher if they win in 2008, but they have little room to experiement or do anything bold. They are trapped by the very constituents they have created and stoked over the past 80 years, since FDR. Democrats cannot be truly innovative because they always want more government. Government by its very nature is inherently rigid and inflexible.

Republicans, on the other hand, are in trouble not because of their ideas, but because the Republican establishment has ABANDONED the right ideas. Most of the truly creative, innovative ideas are STILL coming from the right side of the political spectrum. The problems is that many of them have never been tried, largely because they are resisted by the very same constituent groups to which Democrats are beholden. The right proposes school vouchers. The left proposes more money for failing schools and leave the teacher unions in control of schools. Oh of course, the left dresses their "new ideas" up in flowery language, but it is still the same old failed approach - Washington knows best. The right wants to decentralize decision-making.

The central problem of the left, as I see it, is that they are still tied to the coercive redistributionist, centralized, top-down social engineering model. Regulate. Redistribute. Coerce. Ban. Prohibit. Dont't believe me ? Just look at their policy proposals. They want to empower bureaucrats, not citizens. They want a strong central bureaucratic government, not a strong civil society. Most people on the left do not even understand what "spontaneous order" means. Civilization is not "created". It occurs from the bottom-up, without any central direction. The reason America is such an incredible, vibrant, wonderful place is because there is NO central direction. Leftists are control freaks. They see society as silly putty and they want to get their hands on it. This is not the road to greatness. In the 1960s the left was on the right side of history with regard to civil rights, and the right was on the wrong side. Today, I believe many "conservatives" are on the wrong side of history with regard to the rights of gay people. But in almost every other respect, the left takes a completely wrong-headed approach to the world.

So all of you Democrats go ahead and gloat. But I suspect that if you gain the White House in 2008 and keep Congress, you will quickly discover that the very governmental programs and mechanisms which you have spent the past 80 years cultivating will come back to haunt you. If you want GENUINE reform then you have to understand that it can ONLY occur by getting power OUT of Washington and back to the states, local communities and civil society. But in order to do that, you will have to piss off the base of your own party.

Washington is UTTERLY broken. And no amount of Republicans, Democrats, campaign finance reform or national health insurance will fix it. It will only concentrate even more power in DC.

When something comes under the control of government, it becomes a "political issue". And when it becomes a political issue it becomes impossible to have a rational national discussion about it. Conflict grows, corruption becomes institutionalized, we become divided, and call each other names. Hence, political campaigns become nothing but mud-slinging festivals. Goverment grows and it becomes even worse. Rinse and repeat. The ONLY way out of this prison is to RADICALY downsise Washington.

How many people think any Democrat will do that ?

Recommended reading : The Future and Its Enemies by Virginia Postrel

edomphcwk whjmybsp rjbaocg lcpwrhqtn lyxsf eilwfc dtgreqbi

Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!

http://1.poshlo.com >suzzane russo brass

Sorry, but what is kimerikas?

Jane.


http://index2.erotom.com >sexy large size bras http://index1.erotom.com >koa campground in south dakota http://index3.erotom.com >virtuous woman skit

http://index2.zinimi.com >female haircut styles wearing glasses http://index1.zinimi.com >hot teen movies http://index3.zinimi.com >sweet sixteen gaelic


http://index2.erotom.com >sexy large size bras http://index1.erotom.com >koa campground in south dakota http://index3.erotom.com >virtuous woman skit


http://index2.erotom.com >sexy large size bras http://index1.erotom.com >koa campground in south dakota http://index3.erotom.com >virtuous woman skit

http://index3.xovits.com >my pretty mouth will frame the phrases that will disprove your faith in man http://index1.xovits.com >posters of women in bikinis http://index2.xovits.com >breast enlargement centers south bend


http://index2.vogasl.com >teen night at the roxy http://index1.vogasl.com >14 year old girl panties http://index3.vogasl.com >manga porn

http://index3.xovits.com >my pretty mouth will frame the phrases that will disprove your faith in man http://index1.xovits.com >posters of women in bikinis http://index2.xovits.com >breast enlargement centers south bend

http://index3.xovits.com >my pretty mouth will frame the phrases that will disprove your faith in man http://index1.xovits.com >posters of women in bikinis http://index2.xovits.com >breast enlargement centers south bend


http://index2.vogasl.com >teen night at the roxy http://index1.vogasl.com >14 year old girl panties http://index3.vogasl.com >manga porn


http://index2.vogasl.com >teen night at the roxy http://index1.vogasl.com >14 year old girl panties http://index3.vogasl.com >manga porn

http://index1.elnlco.com >white miu miu sunglasses http://index3.elnlco.com >hot cheerleader sex http://index2.elnlco.com >healthy cooking classes in palm sprongs

http://index1.elnlco.com >white miu miu sunglasses http://index3.elnlco.com >hot cheerleader sex http://index2.elnlco.com >healthy cooking classes in palm sprongs

http://index1.elnlco.com >white miu miu sunglasses http://index3.elnlco.com >hot cheerleader sex http://index2.elnlco.com >healthy cooking classes in palm sprongs

http://index1.elnlco.com >white miu miu sunglasses http://index3.elnlco.com >hot cheerleader sex http://index2.elnlco.com >healthy cooking classes in palm sprongs


http://index2.otivom.com >blanket patterns for plymouth encore chunky yarn http://index1.otivom.com >teenageviolence in the philadelphia area http://index3.otivom.com >hot 12 year old girls

http://index1.elnlco.com >white miu miu sunglasses http://index3.elnlco.com >hot cheerleader sex http://index2.elnlco.com >healthy cooking classes in palm sprongs


http://index2.otivom.com >blanket patterns for plymouth encore chunky yarn http://index1.otivom.com >teenageviolence in the philadelphia area http://index3.otivom.com >hot 12 year old girls


http://index2.otivom.com >blanket patterns for plymouth encore chunky yarn http://index1.otivom.com >teenageviolence in the philadelphia area http://index3.otivom.com >hot 12 year old girls


http://index2.otivom.com >blanket patterns for plymouth encore chunky yarn http://index1.otivom.com >teenageviolence in the philadelphia area http://index3.otivom.com >hot 12 year old girls


http://index2.otivom.com >blanket patterns for plymouth encore chunky yarn http://index1.otivom.com >teenageviolence in the philadelphia area http://index3.otivom.com >hot 12 year old girls

You guys are all pussies because you are hypocrites. Start a fuckin revolution.

You guys are all pussies because you are hypocrites. Start a fuckin revolution.


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.