How can we all sleep at night knowing...

[bush_cheney2004]

It is about clean drinking water for us. Maybe our roots are more immediate, as my husband immigrated as a young adult, and still has family in Kenya. I don't really want my kids to feel guilty, but rather to have an awareness that there is more beyond their priveleged life in suburbia.

It's all relative for them, having never known a barefoot walk on broken glass or a life with biting flies. It's not so much privilege as the absence of scarcity, which is a good thing and sufficient motivation for some, but not all emmigres.

Opportunity is far more important than the plastic evidence of success.

Edited November 14, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Melanie_]

It's all relative for them, having never known a barefoot walk on broken glass or a life with biting flies. It's not so much privilege as the absence of scarcity, which is a good thing and sufficient motivation for some, but not all emmigres.

Opportunity is far more important than the plastic evidence of success.

Oh, I agree. I don't wish scarcity on my kids, who have grown up with an abundance that sometimes embarrasses me. I just want them to know that "there but for the grace of god go I", and to act on that knowledge. Is it such a bad thing to acknowledge that we have extra, and that we can give some of that extra to those who need it? And to acknowledge that the poor in Canada, because they ARE in Canada, already have advantages, so we can direct our efforts elsewhere?

Edited November 14, 2009 by Melanie_

[Guest American Woman]

Do you see affluenza where you are? I'm just trying to help my kids see that the world is bigger than Winnipeg, and that they have ties to other parts of the world where children not that different from them live in very different circumstances. My kids are visible minorities, with family in developing countries, so it's important to me that they see beyond the privilege they live in.

My children aren't "visible minorities," but I feel the same way you do. I always tried to help my kids see the world is bigger than our town, too, and that children around the world aren't that different from them-- and now that they're grown, I have the satisfaction/pleasure of seeing that I was successful (and that's a good feeling).

One way I did it was to expose them to different places and experiences through travel, another was by supporting their church missions both inside and outside the US, which they participated in. Another way was/is by sponsoring a child (I do it through World Vision). This makes it personal, and they can become involved in the child's life through letters and small gifts; their own birthday is a good time to give up getting one gift, and send the child a small gift instead.

Another was to have them choose a donation in lieu of stocking stuffers. I'll use World Vision as an example, since that's who I go through; they have a book of choices people can donate, and there are pictures, so that makes it 'more real,' and I would put this book in their stocking, and after the hustle and bustle died down, we would go through the book together and they would choose what they wanted to donate in their name. The choices are 'long lasting' -- fruit trees, chickens, (so the recipients can earn a living), an education for one child for a year, wells, etc. There are so many choices, every child is sure to find one that mirrors their interests.

As for our affluence and spending -- the fact is, if we didn't spend money and therefore support businesses (ie: other people), people wouldn't be earning money and there would be no money to help others. Even when our dollar suffered others suffered as a result as our charitable dollar bought less for them. So spending is necessary in order for there to be money out there in circulation. So the answer, I think, is to also do what you can for others, whether it be giving of time, money, or both.

So you have to enjoy and appreciate what you have, do what you can (as you raise your children/grandchildren to do the same), and really, that's all one can do.

[lictor616]

How can we all sleep at night knowing that many tens of thousands of people are dying every day due to preventable causes?

The fact that you are reading this now proves you live in an industrialized country. We, as citizens of 1st world countries have been a dismal failure to the rest of our brothers and sisters of the human race. I read this in a doctors office a few years ago:

This statistic disgusts me. So much so i ripped the page out of the magazine & brought it home with me. These numbers have only increased over the past few years. Where is our morality in all this? This holiday season we are busy buying Plasma TV's and Guitar Hero 3 for others, and for ourselves the rest of the year when at the same time people in 3rd world countries are dying at an alarming rate (and many living pretty pathetically in our own cities as well). Why don't we care much about people if they happen to live outside the artificial geographic borders we have constructed?

And please don't give me the "aid to 3rd world countries gets eaten up by corrupt dictators" B.S. excuse. If we wanted to, we could give the aid directly to most people who need it. I'm not very religious, but most of us in North America are Christian, and yet we are complete hypocrites in the teachings of Jesus. If he we alive today i'm sure he wouldn't be buying new rims for his truck or a Nintendo Wii while others are dying of disease & malnutrition not far away.

This holiday season enjoy that warm fuzzy feeling when you give $50 to the local homeless shelter or Unicef, and enjoy the splendor afterwards when you go home to watch "Its a Wonderul Life" with your family on your 50" Plasma TV while an ocean away babies are drinking black water laced with human feces.

The Industrial Revolution has given us the wealth and the technology to do something to stop this. Poverty is the #1 problem facing humanity today, not empty paranoid nuclear threats, because people are ACTUALLY dying. I believe we have absolutely no excuse for this B.S. to continue. It is fundamentally unethical. It is Nazi Germany x 1000.

I want to know:

- do you care?

- If not, why not?

- If you do care, what heck are you going to do about it?

I'd sleep far less if the world would be polluted by 10+ billion anatomically human creatures...

Do you not realize that the world is overpopulated? why assume that human quantity is more important then human quality? There is poverty in the world mainly due to excessive breeding...

Saving one malnourished child in the third world, merely creates 8 more mouths to feed in a generation... and also diminishes available resources and drop life quality too!

I find it so maddening that the same liberal "green" crowd always so smug and endlessly talking about "climate change awareness" always fail to realize that the one pollution we need to rid ourselves of is the billions of vocal anthropoids who are breeding like guinea pigs and stretching our already exhausted resources further every day.

wake up for god's sake!

Edited November 14, 2009 by lictor616

[Guest TrueMetis]

I'd sleep far less if the world would be polluted by 10+ billion anatomically human creatures...

Do you not realize that the world is overpopulated? why assume that human quantity is more important then human quality? There is poverty in the world mainly due to excessive breeding...

Saving one malnourished child in the third world, merely creates 8 more mouths to feed in a generation... and also diminishes available resources and drop life quality too!

I find it so maddening that the same liberal "green" crowd always so smug and endlessly talking about "climate change awareness" always fail to realize that the one pollution we need to rid ourselves of is the billions of vocal anthropoids who are breeding like guinea pigs and stretching our already exhausted resources further every day.

wake up for god's sake!

We produce more than enough food to feed the world and as agricultural science gets better that will increase more. We aren't even close to "overpopulated" There is an infinite amount of resources in the universe time to get the space agency's to figure out how to get at it.

[lictor616]

We produce more than enough food to feed the world and as agricultural science gets better that will increase more. We aren't even close to "overpopulated" There is an infinite amount of resources in the universe time to get the space agency's to figure out how to get at it.

That's disputable, we can at present, but please know that (for instance) 68% of Europe's arable land is over fertilized, and that many areas of the world are running out of of the precious commodity... please understand also that the earth is not an infinite trash can, producing food, produces waste... much waste and consumes enormous amounts of energy (in india, most of the billion+ strong population (58%) cook on open fires, which is disastrous for global warming...

Most "agricultural scientists" agree that we can continue produce food at this rate for ALL of 20 to 40 years... after that... world famine.

There is no reason to expand the human population... we should focus on LIFE QUALITY... not human stock quantity.

As for exploring space to colonize other world and use THEIR resources... that's not within the next 200 years... we don't have that kind of time... we definitely should aim for space conquest... but that isn't a practical solution at all for the time being.

Our food crisis is actually much more dramatic... science actually is ENDANGERING our food supply, synthetic fertilizers are polluting water, and wasting lands... also mass farming is creating a lot of "monoculture" (ie: cultivation of small varieties of produce- for example: 3 types of potatoes constitute 98% of North American production... it used to be 80 20 years ago, and 300 a century ago).

then there's the dread BT corn soya and tomatoes, who may singlehandedly wipe out our entire food source.

I understand that its more pleasant to look at the world with rose tinted glasses, but we're not playing with our live here... do you really think we need 3 +billion more humans? what if there's a 10% chance that we may self destruct by doing so?

I really have a hard time understanding the humanitarian lunacy of wanting to feed the wretched refuse of the third world to help them multiply

[Guest TrueMetis]

That's disputable, we can at present, but please know that (for instance) 68% of Europe's arable land is over fertilized, and that many areas of the world are running out of of the precious commodity... please understand also that the earth is not an infinite trash can, producing food, produces waste... much waste and consumes enormous amounts of energy (in india, most of the billion+ strong population (58%) cook on open fires, which is disastrous for global warming...

Hydorponics and multiple story farms. There land problem solved. Keep it in a closed system and you deal with any worries about polution to.

Most "agricultural scientists" agree that we can continue produce food at this rate for ALL of 20 to 40 years... after that... world famine.

source?

There is no reason to expand the human population... we should focus on LIFE QUALITY... not human stock quantity.

You right but there is no reason to stop it's expansion either.

As for exploring space to colonize other world and use THEIR resources... that's not within the next 200 years... we don't have that kind of time... we definitely should aim for space conquest... but that isn't a practical solution at all for the time being.

who said other worlds? I'm talking asteroids and meteors, besides the iron they have many other resources in them that could be used water being one of them. That's possible now.

Our food crisis is actually much more dramatic... science actually is ENDANGERING our food supply, synthetic fertilizers are polluting water, and wasting lands... also mass farming is creating a lot of "monoculture" (ie: cultivation of small varieties of produce- for example: 3 types of potatoes constitute 98% of North American production... it used to be 80 20 years ago, and 300 a century ago).

synthetic fertilizers are no more dangerous than "natural" fertilizers, except for less parasites and other desease causing agents. What's wrong with using only a few varieties of potato? Apparently they the best to grow, the obvious worry is a disease could wipe them out be with genetic engineering we could make them resistant to any disease fairly quicky.

then there's the dread BT corn soya and tomatoes, who may singlehandedly wipe out our entire food source.

BT?

I understand that its more pleasant to look at the world with rose tinted glasses, but we're not playing with our live here... do you really think we need 3 +billion more humans? what if there's a 10% chance that we may self destruct by doing so?

No we don't but there is no reason to lessen the amount of people either. As for the 10% chance to self destruct we do a lot more dangerous thing everyday anyway.

I really have a hard time understanding the humanitarian lunacy of wanting to feed the wretched refuse of the third world to help them multiply

Educate them and they become exactly like people in first wolrd countries.

[lictor616]

Hydorponics and multiple story farms. There land problem solved. Keep it in a closed system and you deal with any worries about polution to.

source?

You right but there is no reason to stop it's expansion either.

who said other worlds? I'm talking asteroids and meteors, besides the iron they have many other resources in them that could be used water being one of them. That's possible now.

synthetic fertilizers are no more dangerous than "natural" fertilizers, except for less parasites and other desease causing agents. What's wrong with using only a few varieties of potato? Apparently they the best to grow, the obvious worry is a disease could wipe them out be with genetic engineering we could make them resistant to any disease fairly quicky.

BT?

No we don't but there is no reason to lessen the amount of people either. As for the 10% chance to self destruct we do a lot more dangerous thing everyday anyway.

Educate them and they become exactly like people in first wolrd countries.

you are indeed very clueless and very arrogant in your ignorance.

see this for biotechnology, and where its taking us:

http://www.imdb.com/video/snag/vi273285913/

even the hopelessly liberal crs: has issued countless warnings about an impending food crisis (deemed IMMINENT):

http://crs.org/egypt/worldwide-food-crisis/

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=213343

what's wrong with having only a few varieties of potatoes what are you a high schooler? HAve you ever heard of the Irish famine!?

Having few varieties means that if a plant disease pops up (as it always does) it eradicates your food source!

go ahead and remedy the inadequacies of your knowledge on the subject before you go and spew your nonsense...

[Guest TrueMetis]

you are indeed very clueless and very arrogant in your ignorance.

see this for biotechnology, and where its taking us:

http://www.imdb.com/video/snag/vi273285913/

Tryed to watch it in the link it provided said it was unavalible.

even the hopelessly liberal crs: has issued countless warnings about an impending food crisis (deemed IMMINENT):

http://crs.org/egypt/worldwide-food-crisis/

First of it's a biased source, second this is only effecting countries that don't really produce there own food so much of the increase can be attributed to cost of gas, third it says itself "If immediate needs are not met, and if resources and policies supporting increased agricultural production are not put in place soon, we are heading for a cascade of hunger the world over."

They think we can increase production to meet demand

http://www.financial....html?id=213343

from the article

Mr. Coxe said crop yields around the world need to increase to something close to what is achieved in the state of Illinois, which produces over 200 corn bushes an acre compared with an average 30 bushes an acre in the rest of the world.

"That will be done with more fertilizer, with genetically modified seeds, and with advanced machinery and technology," he said.

This guy seems to think we will be able to cope with the oncreased food demand to.

what's wrong with having only a few varieties of potatoes what are you a high schooler? HAve you ever heard of the Irish famine!?

Having few varieties means that if a plant disease pops up (as it always does) it eradicates your food source!

Did the Irish back then understand genetic engineering? It possible to make those potato's desease resitant pretty quick. with

go ahead and remedy the inadequacies of your knowledge on the subject before you go and spew your nonsense...

and end with an Ad Hominem attack, typical

[lictor616]

"That will be done with more fertilizer, with genetically modified seeds, and with advanced machinery and technology," he said.

all of which are temporary band aid solutions with pretty drastic consequences...

machinery equals energy, genetically modified foods are terribly unsafe (for both human consumption and the environment) and unviable (and can actually destroy an entire eco system), sythetic fertilizers pollute enormously and do not allow for the earth to regenerate naturally (look up over fertilization... )

these are not solutions so much as new problems... potentially fatal unsolvable problems... none of which will see us through the coming disaster that people with your mindset are bringing to all of us.

you don't understand the reality of our plight... and I shouldn't have to educate you... seek the answers yourself.

your comment on making potatoes "immune to disease" would be funny if it weren't so utterly dangerously absurd.

here's part 1 of the Future Of Food:

Edited November 15, 2009 by lictor616

[Guest TrueMetis]

all of which are temporary band aid solutions with pretty drastic consequences...

machinery equals energy, genetically modified foods are terribly unsafe (for both human consumption and the environment) and unviable (and can actually destroy an entire eco system), sythetic fertilizers pollute enormously and do not allow for the earth to regenerate naturally (look up over fertilization... )

these are not solutions so much as new problems... potentially fatal unsolvable problems... none of which will see us through the coming disaster that people with your mindset are bringing to all of us.

you don't understand the reality of our plight... and I shouldn't have to educate you... seek the answers yourself.

your comment on making potatoes "immune to disease" would be funny if it weren't so utterly dangerously absurd.

here's part 1 of the Future Of Food:

Do you also think Monsanto is trying to take over the world? Energy is easy to solve, nuclear power plants, GM food is no more dangerous than the foods we have been growing and altering for hundreds of years, The make them starile so they don't get into the eco system, "natural" fertilizer can pollute just as much, but your right we need to return to crop rotation so the earth can regenerate.

I understand the problem completely I'm more worried about the extinction of the honey bee though.

They've been makeing GM foods for a long time in fact every thig we grow now can be considered GM becuase there is not a single thing we eat that humans haven't modified. Potatos starty to die because of a disease isolate the disease and add in genes to make it resistant. They can put fish genes into a tomato so desease resistance should be easy.

[lictor616]

Do you also think Monsanto is trying to take over the world? Energy is easy to solve, nuclear power plants, GM food is no more dangerous than the foods we have been growing and altering for hundreds of years, The make them starile so they don't get into the eco system, "natural" fertilizer can pollute just as much, but your right we need to return to crop rotation so the earth can regenerate.

again, you simply don't know what you're talking about... BT corn and other GM crops cross-pollinate and create genetic monsters all around the eco system in which they are introduced. its extremely unstable..

Edited November 15, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

They've been makeing GM foods for a long time in fact every thig we grow now can be considered GM becuase there is not a single thing we eat that humans haven't modified.

utterly false, biotech crops (cell invasion biotechnology) are about 14 years old...

the only BT crops that are largely cultivated are corn, cotton, soya, canola, tomatoes and a few other minor crops...

the rest is still normal agriculture that is not genetically modified.

again, just educate yourself.

Edited November 15, 2009 by lictor616

[Guest TrueMetis]

again, you simply don't know what you're talking about... BT corn and other GM crops cross-pollinate and create genetic monsters all around the eco system in which they are introduced. its extremely unstable..

Want to show me an example? GM crops are created sterile.

utterly false, biotech crops (cell invasion biotechnology) are about 14 years old...

the only BT crops that are largely cultivated are corn, cotton, soya, canola, tomatoes and a few other minor crops...

the rest is still normal agriculture that is not genetically modified.

again, just educate yourself.

"normal" agriculture consists of plants we have selectivly breed for hundreds if not thousands of years they are nothing like they used to be, GM is just increaseing the pace at which it happens. Look at the banana or corn they look nothing like there wild counterparts, and guess what some of these crops have had huge effects on local ecology, but that doesn't compare to the effects that introduced species have caused.

[lictor616]

"normal" agriculture consists of plants we have selectivly breed for hundreds if not thousands of years they are nothing like they used to be, GM is just increaseing the pace at which it happens. Look at the banana or corn they look nothing like there wild counterparts, and guess what some of these crops have had huge effects on local ecology, but that doesn't compare to the effects that introduced species have caused.

you have no idea once again what you are talking about: GM crops are crafted by attacking the cells and GENES of plantlife: they achieve this by compromising the plants immune system (injecting it with various bacteria and viruses) and then putting foreign DNA directly into the genetic structure of the plant.

Cell invasion is nothing like normal plant evolution... it really is a completely different thing.

btw, you should know that the latest outbreaks of salmonella and e-coli have been shown to be caused in part by GM crops...

again please learn more.

[Guest TrueMetis]

you have no idea once again what you are talking about: GM crops are crafted by attacking the cells and GENES of plantlife: they achieve this by compromising the plants immune system (injecting it with various bacteria and viruses) and then putting foreign DNA directly into the genetic structure of the plant.

Cell invasion is nothing like normal plant evolution... it really is a completely different thing.

btw, you should know that the latest outbreaks of salmonella and e-coli have been shown to be caused in part by GM crops...

again please learn more.

Actually your completely wrong. They do not need to comprimise the plants immune system.

Genetic enginnering has five main steps

1) Isolation of the genes of interest

2) Insertion of the genes into a transfer vector

3) Transfer of the vector to the organism to be modified

4) Transformation of the cells of the organism

5) Selection of the genetically modified organism (GMO) from those that have not been successfully modified

They occasionally use viral vectors and Bacterial conjugation but there are other methods, they usually used plasmids or even direct insertion using a gene gun but the most important substance used in makeing rDNA and then genetically modifiying a plant is restriction enzymes.

Try at least reading the wiki article.

ETA and I'm still waiting on that example.

Edited November 15, 2009 by TrueMetis

[ToadBrother]

And if you really want to help impoverished people, encourage globalization.

Watch the WTO talks closely and hope they all agree to reduce tariffs.

Indeed, one of the chief causes of economic duress in many Third World countries is First World protectionism, particularly in agriculture.

[Riverwind]

2) Insertion of the genes into a transfer vector

3) Transfer of the vector to the organism to be modified

I have heard this process described as the equivalent delivering a statue to a museum by putting it into a cannon, shooting the it through the window of a museum and hoping that it lands upright without damaging anything else. IOW, the process relies on a lot of luck.

I don't fear GMOs as some people do but I think one cannot compare it to natural selection techniques since natural selection does not bypass any of the safety mechanisms provided by nature.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest TrueMetis]

I have heard this process described as the equivalent delivering a statue to a museum by putting it into a cannon, shooting the it through the window of a museum and hoping that it lands upright without damaging anything else. IOW, the process relies on a lot of luck.

True enough but as techniques improve it will get better, this is why when they GM something there doing it to hundreds of organisms at a time.

I don't fear GMOs as some people do but I think one cannot compare it to natural selection techniques since natural selection does not bypass any of the safety mechanisms provided by nature.

I wouldn't either becuase natural selection uses the cards it's dealt, It more like selective breeding and hybridization on steroids.

[lictor616]

Actually your completely wrong. They do not need to comprimise the plants immune system.

Genetic enginnering has five main steps

1) Isolation of the genes of interest

2) Insertion of the genes into a transfer vector

3) Transfer of the vector to the organism to be modified

4) Transformation of the cells of the organism

5) Selection of the genetically modified organism (GMO) from those that have not been successfully modified

They occasionally use viral vectors and Bacterial conjugation but there are other methods, they usually used plasmids or even direct insertion using a gene gun but the most important substance used in makeing rDNA and then genetically modifiying a plant is restriction enzymes.

Try at least reading the wiki article.

ETA and I'm still waiting on that example.

reread the article yourself.

"cell invasion that use bacteria and viruses to forcefully break a cell's natural defences to allow foreign genetic material to enter and create the ‘genetically modified organism'.

And then there's the antibiotic markers inserted into the cell to confirm that the new genetic sequence is working. Underlining this violent process is the 40-year-old outdated ‘science' and false belief that the selected and inserted single gene controls the one unique and desirable trait. Researchers now know that one gene expresses many traits and can recombine when released to the wild with unknown outcomes."

for a nice explanation of how cell invasion is done:

pause this film at 25 minutes and watch on:

http://www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/gmo_food_genetically_modified.php

[Guest TrueMetis]

reread the article yourself.

"cell invasion that use bacteria and viruses to forcefully break a cell's natural defences to allow foreign genetic material to enter and create the ‘genetically modified organism'.

And then there's the antibiotic markers inserted into the cell to confirm that the new genetic sequence is working. Underlining this violent process is the 40-year-old outdated ‘science' and false belief that the selected and inserted single gene controls the one unique and desirable trait. Researchers now know that one gene expresses many traits and can recombine when released to the wild with unknown outcomes."

Except it doesn't say that anywere in the article

for a nice explanation of how cell invasion is done:

pause this film at 25 minutes and watch on:

http://www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/gmo_food_genetically_modified.php

First most GM plants are sterile, second I said that they use viral vectors and bacterial conjugation but those are only to possible methods, third that is a far cry from your

GM crops are crafted by attacking the cells and GENES of plantlife: they achieve this by compromising the plants immune system (injecting it with various bacteria and viruses) and then putting foreign DNA directly into the genetic structure of the plant.

bullshit. They do not comprimise the plants immune system and they usually use plasmids to insert new DNA.

Finally you have still yet to provide a single example of any of your claims

[lictor616]

bullshit. They do not comprimise the plants immune system and they usually use plasmids to insert new DNA.

Finally you have still yet to provide a single example of any of your claims

oooh pooh pooh language!

clearly you didn't watch the clip of what happens to GMO cell invasion... its a pretty straightforward diagram.

[Guest TrueMetis]

oooh pooh pooh language!

clearly you didn't watch the clip of what happens to GMO cell invasion... its a pretty straightforward diagram.

It's also wrong.

[lictor616]

It's also wrong.

aahahahahaha oh what the hell, i'll ask: link?

[Guest TrueMetis]

aahahahahaha oh what the hell, i'll ask: link?

My link

There are a number of ways through which genetic engineering is accomplished. Essentially, the process has five main steps.

Isolation of the genes of interest

Insertion of the genes into a transfer vector

Transfer of the vector to the organism to be modified

Transformation of the cells of the organism

Selection of the genetically modified organism (GMO) from those that have not been successfully modified

Isolation is achieved by identifying the gene of interest that the scientist wishes to insert into the organism, usually using existing knowledge of the various functions of genes. DNA information can be obtained from cDNA or gDNA libraries, and amplified using PCR techniques. If necessary, i.e. for insertion of eukaryotic genomic DNA into prokaryotes, further modification may be carried out such as removal of introns or ligating prokaryotic promoters.

Insertion of a gene into a vector such as a plasmid can be done once the gene of interest is isolated. Other vectors can also be used, such as viral vectors, bacterial conjugation, liposomes, or even direct insertion using a gene gun. Restriction enzymes and ligases are of great use in this crucial step if it is being inserted into prokaryotic or viral vectors. Daniel Nathans, Werner Arber and Hamilton Smith received the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their isolation of restriction endonucleases.

Once the vector is obtained, it can be used to transform the target organism. Depending on the vector used, it can be complex or simple. For example, using raw DNA with gene guns is a fairly straightforward process but with low success rates, where the DNA is coated with molecules such as gold and fired directly into a cell. Other more complex methods, such as bacterial transformation or using viruses as vectors have higher success rates.

After transformation, the GMO can be selected from those that have failed to take up the vector in various ways. One method is screening with DNA probes that can stick to the gene of interest that was supposed to have been transplanted. Another is to package genes conferring resistance to certain chemicals such as antibiotics or herbicides into the vector. This chemical is then applied ensuring that only those cells that have taken up the vector will survive.

What part exactly says anything about what happened in the clip you gave me?