John Mortell’s blog

Really interesting part of Newswipe talking about how with the collapse of the Cold War, the narrative of the victim replaced that of ‘left vs right’. In particular, they mention how by making certain people the ‘good’ victims and others the ‘bad’ aggressors the ability to deal with complex politics became more difficult.

A recent example of the danger of the ‘victim’ narrative has been seen following the earthquake in Haiti. I do not think it is unreasonable to point out that at least part of the reason the damage was so extensive was down to Haiti being a non-functional state. Yet, Haiti’s political situation seems largely to have been ignored in favour of narrative about the ‘victims’ of the earthquake. Obviously, there are issues of time and what one can focus on, but I suspect what would help Haiti more than aid is a genuine discussion as to how Haiti could be made ‘to function’, something that the ‘victim’ narrative really cannot deal with.

The relevant part begins at 1.50 minutes into the video:

As an aside, anybody know how I can embed videos in a way so that it could begin at the point I want? Tried to do so but don’t quite understand the suggestions online.

From the Blasphemy.ie website:

“From today, 1 January 2010, the new Irish blasphemy law becomes operational, and we begin our campaign to have it repealed. Blasphemy is now a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine. The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.

This new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic States led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.

We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous.

In this context we now publish a list of 25 blasphemous quotes, which have previously been published by or uttered by or attributed to Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Mark Twain, Tom Lehrer, Randy Newman, James Kirkup, Monty Python, Rev Ian Paisley, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Frank Zappa, Salman Rushdie, Bjork, Amanda Donohoe, George Carlin, Paul Woodfull, Jerry Springer the Opera, Tim Minchin, Richard Dawkins, Pope Benedict XVI, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers, Ian O’Doherty, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and Dermot Ahern.

Despite these quotes being abusive and insulting in relation to matters held sacred by various religions, we unreservedly support the right of these people to have published or uttered them, and we unreservedly support the right of any Irish citizen to make comparable statements about matters held sacred by any religion without fear of being criminalised, and without having to prove to a court that a reasonable person would find any particular value in the statement.

We ask Fianna Fail and the Green Party to repeal their anachronistic blasphemy law, as part of the revision of the Defamation Act that is included within the Act. We ask them to hold a referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Irish Constitution.

We also ask all TDs and Senators to support a referendum to remove references to God from the Irish Constitution, including the clauses that prevent atheists from being appointed as President of Ireland or as a Judge without swearing a religious oath asking God to direct them in their work.

If you run a website, blog or other media publication, please feel free to republish this statement and the list of quotes yourself, in order to show your support for the campaign to repeal the Irish blasphemy law and to promote a rational, ethical, secular Ireland.

List of 25 Blasphemous Quotes Published by Atheist Ireland;

1. Jesus Christ, when asked if he was the son of God, in Matthew 26:64: “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” According to the Christian Bible, the Jewish chief priests and elders and council deemed this statement by Jesus to be blasphemous, and they sentenced Jesus to death for saying it.

2. Jesus Christ, talking to Jews about their God, in John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” This is one of several chapters in the Christian Bible that can give a scriptural foundation to Christian anti-Semitism. The first part of John 8, the story of “whoever is without sin cast the first stone”, was not in the original version, but was added centuries later. The original John 8 is a debate between Jesus and some Jews. In brief, Jesus calls the Jews who disbelieve him sons of the Devil, the Jews try to stone him, and Jesus runs away and hides.

3. Muhammad, quoted in Hadith of Bukhari, Vol 1 Book 8 Hadith 427: “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” This quote is attributed to Muhammad on his death-bed as a warning to Muslims not to copy this practice of the Jews and Christians. It is one of several passages in the Koran and in Hadith that can give a scriptural foundation to Islamic anti-Semitism, including the assertion in Sura 5:60 that Allah cursed Jews and turned some of them into apes and swine.

4. Mark Twain, describing the Christian Bible in Letters from the Earth, 1909: “Also it has another name – The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy – he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.” Twain’s book was published posthumously in 1939. His daughter, Clara Clemens, at first objected to it being published, but later changed her mind in 1960 when she believed that public opinion had grown more tolerant of the expression of such ideas. That was half a century before Fianna Fail and the Green Party imposed a new blasphemy law on the people of Ireland.

5. Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag, 1963: “Get in line in that processional, step into that small confessional. There, the guy who’s got religion’ll tell you if your sin’s original. If it is, try playing it safer, drink the wine and chew the wafer. Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate!”

6. Randy Newman, God’s Song, 1972: “And the Lord said: I burn down your cities – how blind you must be. I take from you your children, and you say how blessed are we. You all must be crazy to put your faith in me. That’s why I love mankind.”

7. James Kirkup, The Love That Dares to Speak its Name, 1976: “While they prepared the tomb I kept guard over him. His mother and the Magdalen had gone to fetch clean linen to shroud his nakedness. I was alone with him… I laid my lips around the tip of that great cock, the instrument of our salvation, our eternal joy. The shaft, still throbbed, anointed with death’s final ejaculation.” This extract is from a poem that led to the last successful blasphemy prosecution in Britain, when Denis Lemon was given a suspended prison sentence after he published it in the now-defunct magazine Gay News. In 2002, a public reading of the poem, on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, failed to lead to any prosecution. In 2008, the British Parliament abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.

8. Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath, in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, 1979: “Look, I had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.”

9. Rev Ian Paisley MEP to the Pope in the European Parliament, 1988: “I denounce you as the Antichrist.” Paisley’s website describes the Antichrist as being “a liar, the true son of the father of lies, the original liar from the beginning… he will imitate Christ, a diabolical imitation, Satan transformed into an angel of light, which will deceive the world.”

10. Conor Cruise O’Brien, 1989: “In the last century the Arab thinker Jamal al-Afghani wrote: ‘Every Muslim is sick and his only remedy is in the Koran.’ Unfortunately the sickness gets worse the more the remedy is taken.”

11. Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine – but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good – and cares about any of it – to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”

12. Salman Rushdie, 1990: “The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas – uncertainty, progress, change – into crimes.” In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie because of blasphemous passages in Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses.

13. Bjork, 1995: “I do not believe in religion, but if I had to choose one it would be Buddhism. It seems more livable, closer to men… I’ve been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists.”

14. Amanda Donohoe on her role in the Ken Russell movie Lair of the White Worm, 1995: “Spitting on Christ was a great deal of fun. I can’t embrace a male god who has persecuted female sexuality throughout the ages, and that persecution still goes on today all over the world.”

15. George Carlin, 1999: “Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!”

16. Paul Woodfull as Ding Dong Denny O’Reilly, The Ballad of Jaysus Christ, 2000: “He said me ma’s a virgin and sure no one disagreed, Cause they knew a lad who walks on water’s handy with his feet… Jaysus oh Jaysus, as cool as bleedin’ ice, With all the scrubbers in Israel he could not be enticed, Jaysus oh Jaysus, it’s funny you never rode, Cause it’s you I do be shoutin’ for each time I shoot me load.”

17. Jesus Christ, in Jerry Springer The Opera, 2003: “Actually, I’m a bit gay.” In 2005, the Christian Institute tried to bring a prosecution against the BBC for screening Jerry Springer the Opera, but the UK courts refused to issue a summons.

18. Tim Minchin, Ten-foot Cock and a Few Hundred Virgins, 2005: “So you’re gonna live in paradise, With a ten-foot cock and a few hundred virgins, So you’re gonna sacrifice your life, For a shot at the greener grass, And when the Lord comes down with his shiny rod of judgment, He’s gonna kick my heathen ass.”

19. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, 2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” In 2007 Turkish publisher Erol Karaaslan was charged with the crime of insulting believers for publishing a Turkish translation of The God Delusion. He was acquitted in 2008, but another charge was brought in 2009. Karaaslan told the court that “it is a right to criticise religions and beliefs as part of the freedom of thought and expression.”

20. Pope Benedict XVI quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor, 2006: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” This statement has already led to both outrage and condemnation of the outrage. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the world’s largest Muslim body, said it was a “character assassination of the prophet Muhammad”. The Malaysian Prime Minister said that “the Pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created.” Pakistan’s foreign Ministry spokesperson said that “anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence”. The European Commission said that “reactions which are disproportionate and which are tantamount to rejecting freedom of speech are unacceptable.”

21. Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great, 2007: “There is some question as to whether Islam is a separate religion at all… Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require… It makes immense claims for itself, invokes prostrate submission or ‘surrender’ as a maxim to its adherents, and demands deference and respect from nonbelievers into the bargain. There is nothing-absolutely nothing-in its teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption.”

22. PZ Myers, on the Roman Catholic communion host, 2008: “You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university… However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel.”

23. Ian O’Doherty, 2009: “(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other.”

24. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, 2009: “Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.” Because atheism is not a religion, the Irish blasphemy law does not protect atheists from abusive and insulting statements about their fundamental beliefs. While atheists are not seeking such protection, we include the statement here to point out that it is discriminatory that this law does not hold all citizens equal.

25. Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Justice, introducing his blasphemy law at an Oireachtas Justice Committee meeting, 2009, and referring to comments made about him personally: “They are blasphemous.” Deputy Pat Rabbitte replied: “Given the Minister’s self-image, it could very well be that we are blaspheming,” and Minister Ahern replied: “Deputy Rabbitte says that I am close to the baby Jesus, I am so pure.” So here we have an Irish Justice Minister joking about himself being blasphemed, at a parliamentary Justice Committee discussing his own blasphemy law, that could make his own jokes illegal.

Finally, as a bonus, Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.” Just months after Minister Martin made this comment, his colleague Dermot Ahern introduced Ireland’s new blasphemy law.”

Having quoted the Blasphemy.ie blog post in full have I now committed Blasphemy? Furthermore, do my previous posts here, here, here and here now count as Blasphemy? I know I use images of the Prophet Muhammad twice but please don’t read too much into that. I consider all religions equally nonsense and happily now point you to material taking the piss out of Christianity here and here . Does this mean the Irish state is going to hunt me down and charge me with offensives that will cost me €25,000? I don’t have the money to pay that kind of fine. Is the Irish state going to destroy my life (financially) because some religious lunatic doesn’t like what I have to say? Finally, here’s an XKCD strip taking the piss: Continue Reading »

Really good article here on how the media has taken incredible power without responsibility in terms of its ability to critique and question without having to deal with the ‘reality’ of governance and how this ‘morality’ can often undermine ‘good’ policies. Though I think the author is perhaps a little bit too harsh, and possibly overstates his case he has some good points and he article is well worth a read regardless.

This point on the mixture between the media’s moralizing and its effects on policy gives a good example:

Because the media confuse victimization with moral right, American troops in Iraq have had occasionally to contend with unsympathetic news coverage, which in an age of mass media has concrete tactical and strategic consequences. Last spring, I accompanied the first United States Marines into Fallujah. After several days of intense fighting, the Marines — reinforced with a fresh new battalion — appeared on the verge of defeating the insurgents. A cease-fire was called, though, snatching defeat from victory. No matter how cleanly the Marines fought, it was not clean enough for the global media, famously including Al-Jazeera, which portrayed as indiscriminate killing what in previous eras of war would have constituted a low civilian casualty rate. The fact that mosques were blatantly used by insurgents as command posts for aggressive military operations mattered less to journalists than that some of these mosques were targeted by U.S. planes. Had the fighting continued, the political fallout from such coverage would have forced the newly emerging Iraqi authorities to resign en masse. So American officials had no choice but to undermine their own increasingly favorable battlefield position by consenting to a cease-fire. While U.S. policy was guilty of incoherence — ordering a full-scale assault only to call it off — the Marines were defeated less by the insurgents than by the way urban combat is covered by a global media that has embraced the cult of victimhood.

… Is a rather enjoyable short film by Kyle Higgins. Though a little bit simplistic in its plotting, and even though the ‘villains’ motivations don’t really make sense, it’s a great looking, well designed movie set in 1960′s Chicago about a superhero union. The link for the film is here and just to give you an idea of the ‘style’ of the film, here’s a poster for it:

So, pretty much every news-site has the nomination of Sarah Palin as Republican Vice-Presidential candidate as one of its main stories. While a lot of the coverage I’ve seen so far has been pretty positive (and my own reaction was initially positive) *I’ll come back to that in a minute*, the question that’s on everybody’s mind now is, ‘was it the right choice?’

No, it wasn’t.

There are a lot of reasons for this, but first I want to go back to my initial response to the situation. While I really have a strong dislike for the Republican Party, as my tongue-in-cheek ‘Republicans are evil’ tag on my blogging hopefully suggests, I initially saw a certain appeal to Palin. It didn’t mean that I thought the Republicans were suddenly ‘good’ or anything, it was just initially I thought she might be a good choice. She’s young (like Obama, but in contrast to McCain), conservative (in a way that ‘the right’ don’t feel McCain is), a ‘maverick’ (like McCain *is* {not really but we’el let the poor media analysis stand for a minute}), pretty and was a woman (to appeal to disaffected Hillary supporters) and so suggested ‘change’ as a general possibility on the Republican side of the election.

And then I started thinking again and the whole house of cards came crashing down.

Firstly, the female vote, which seems to be a big part of choosing her. While this a generalisation, and should be treated with the suspicion that such generalisations deserve, I doubt that many of the women who voted for Hillary support the kind of ‘small government, pro-life, anti-choice’ Republican politics that my reading of Palin suggests she has. A woman who is part of a group like ‘Feminists for life’ that is completely against abortion would have extremely limited appeal in my opinion to Democratic women for whom abortion rights (in some form) are a major issue. Hillary’s campaign featured a lot about universal health care and women’s rights in general. I doubt that Palin reflects either of those views. Furthermore, Hillary also ran on her *strong* foreign affairs and security experience and Palin completely lacks those. So, in that case, if the reasoning was to get Hillary supporters, it failed miserably and what’s worse looks like poor pandering to women in the hope that they’ll be stupid enough to vote for a woman purely becuase she’s there.

Secondly, there’s the ‘maverick’ thing. Now John McCain isn’t a maverick. A person that votes the same way as Bush 90% of the time is not that much of a maverick. As an aside the Economist covered where McCain actually *was* a maverick but notes that he’s since either repudiated those views or has endorsed views that run contrary to those same views. Hardly the actions of a Maverick.

But what about Palin’s supposed ‘maverick nature’? As far as I can see these are a result of her actions in exposing corruption in the Alaska oil and gas commission and her actions against fellow Republicans accused of corrupt behaviour in Alaska (and isn’t it sad that a politician being honest counts as them being a ‘maverick’?). As well as this there is the way she became governor in challenging the Republican party machine in Alaska. In terms of her attacks on fellow Republicans, once again I question how much we should read into an apparently honest politician attacking corrupt ones. While I don’t want to sound to cynical, a person with ambition challenging a famously corrupt political machine is a good way to get votes (and if genuine reflects well on Palin’s personal integrity). Beyond an apparent honest streak however, I don’t see Palin as being that much of a ‘maverick’.

This brings me to Palin’s conservative politics. Given that McCain has had a hard time connecting to those ‘value voters’ on the Republican side so far, choosing a woman who has (at the very least) endorsed creationism, is extremely anti-abortion, even in the case of rape and incest, supports drilling in Alaska (which appeals to those who feel environmentalism is a crock AND those who like ‘energy security’), is pro-NRA and so on. While I have very little to say on this, I will be curious to see how this plays outside of the Republican base. Will McCain gain ‘the right’ but lose ‘the Centre’ from this choice? Certainly, and going back to that Economist article I referenced earlier, that would seem to be the case.

Finally, there is Palin’s youth. This I feel is her biggest weakness. Certainly I feel there’s nothing in what I’m going to say next that she couldn’t overcome but in my opinion, it will be an uphill slog to do so. John McCain has largely run his campaign on the basis of ‘reliability’, ‘experience’ and other such words which suggest that he’s tested. His most convincing attacks have to been to suggest that Obama completely lacks experience and that his ‘change’ (especially given his recent choice of running mate) is largely superficial. Yet having Palin, who if anything is even less experienced than Obama, strongly damages that experience claim. Having been completely untested in national politics, she is going to have a steep learning curve in getting used to the limelight. In contrasting ‘experience’ with Obama, one can see that he at least, got that out of the way in running the primary campaign. Her complete lack of knowledge of foreign affairs is going to be an easy route of attack as is her lack of experience in running large government, especially when one considers that she has not even completed one term as governor.

While she could grow into this job, given that McCain’s health is a definite worry, one has to consider whether someone with such a wafer-thin resume is capable of assuming such office. While Presidents that lacked experience have definitely held the job – look at Bush jr., Kennedy, LBJ and Harry Truman, all of those men had at least had grown up in political families or had considerable experience before becoming VP. Palin, to me, seems a considerable risk to take when it is considered that her running mate is not exactly a picture of perfect health and is quite elderly. Her choice also casts doubt on whether McCain’s claim to be interested in serving the nation rather than his own ego is actually true as she seems a choice of a political machine rather than a choice of the best person for the job. It also shows a lack of clear vision on McCain’s part to his own health, which is hardly a sign of a responsible leader.

Probably the best summary of the whole ‘VP choice’ can in my opinion be best summed up by this cartoon:

But I have to admit that I love the Fox News analysis as to why Palin understands foreign affairs… Continue Reading »

This entire post is mostly just me shouting into the wind. Today’s Sunday Independent has as its main front page story something about Kathy French and her death. I haven’t read the story. I just don’t care. I mean, we all know the Sunday Indo is a complete rag, but why in fuck’s name can they not find something better to talk about than some drugged up tart that died over a year ago? There’s two things I find about the whole coverage of French really annoying. One the attempts to make her ‘important’ – politicians, scientists, people that make a difference in other people’s lives, these people are important. Secondly, what is so interesting about her that she’s still being covered so long after? This ‘deification’ of French and other ‘non-entity’ dead people really annoys me. I mean, if she was going to rise again, one would have assumed that it would have happened by now….

Al Gore speaking in DC at an environment conference 7.17.08:

Interesting video, and while there’s nothing in it that many haven’t heard before (Jonathan Hickman’s ‘The Nightly News’ comes to mind as a source of such discussions) it is still interesting to see such a big name talking about such things:

While I have to say the ‘yes’ side of the Lisbon treaty haven’t been very good at promoting their message, one of the things that has struck me is the general shadiness of the ‘no’ campaign. While I’m also somewhat wary of Indymedia, there’s an interesting article here on the Libertas group and why it exists:

So, at this stage we’ve established a few things. The figures behind Libertas are extremely closely connected to the US military and Intelligence community; their arguments appear to be clearly disingenuous; the US military and intelligence community are indeed opposed to the treaty. The facts are, by themselves, strong circumstantial evidence in favour of the idea that Ganley and McEvaddy’s connections to the US military provide the underlying motives for opposing Lisbon. But can we do any better? Can we turn up any positive evidence to support our tentative conclusion?

Ganley’s underlying message is clear – the more tightly integrated the EU is politically, the harder it will be for the US to influence it. The non-popularly elected president will be able to resist the ‘bad-behaviour’ of supporting US imperial adventures. Thus Lisbon does not “advance US national interests”.

The article is a bit long, and as I say, I’m wary of the source. But you can read it in full here