The Swiss minaret ban is just the latest in a series of raspberries European publics have given to their mainstream political leaders. Lessons:
Social desirability bias is alive and well in Europe. Lots of Swiss apparently gave pollsters the 'right' answer, then voted their actual views.
If you relegate an issue to the fringe parties, it doesn't go away. All the 'mainstream' parties dutifully came out against the minaret ban, and apparently thought their work was done. After all, how could the people enact a law after being instructed by the respectable political elite that it was a bad idea? Looks like the Swiss political elite may have to elect themselves a new population.
Allowing the people to alter the constitution by referenda can make politics a wild ride indeed. The people often have decidedly non-salonfaehig (a great German word meaning 'worthy of discussion in a salon') opinions, and referenda let their id come out. Several American states brought back the death penalty by using referenda, and California passed an initiative requiring all tax increases to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature. This has, of course, rendered California state government dysfunctional. But once the people have spoken, it's almost impossible to ignore them.
Next on the agenda, perhaps: A Swiss referendum bringing back capital punishment for those who sexually attack and murder children. The mainstream elite would uniformly denounce it, but nevertheless (or perhaps for precisely this reason) it would pass with a majority.
I'm not saying the minaret ban is a good idea -- far from it. Nor do I think the Swiss vote is a 'crisis'. It's a normal incident of life in political systems which operate (either implicitly or explicitly) on a model of Burkean trusteeship. The people occasionally defy the political elites, but soon enough, things are back to normal. After all, what's the alternative?
George Packer has this analysis of Germany's participation in Afghanistan:
The country’s politicians refuse to call the war in Afghanistan a war. Germany’s participation was sold to the public here as peacekeeping and reconstruction, and that’s what it must remain to prevent any further erosion of support—even though it’s becoming more and more obvious that the war has come to the Germans in the north, the first real fighting the German army has seen since 1945. The German politicians and journalists I’ve spoken with want Germany to do more, not less, in Afghanistan, even if that means fighting. Public opinion in this amazingly pacifist country runs otherwise, though only the extreme left and right want an immediate withdrawal. This gap between élite and mass opinion is a dangerous one, since there’s so little attempt by German leaders to explain the country’s position in the war and why it might be necessary to do more than build roads and schools. A single mass-casualty blow against German forces in Afghanistan (or against a soft target here in Germany—the intelligence traffic has been unusually heavy recently) could significantly change the terms of this non-debate.
So far, reasonably persuasive. However, Packer continues:
Germans have a hard time accepting the narrow rationale for the war in Afghanistan, based on preventing another 9/11. For them, the reason to be in Afghanistan is to prevent a return to power of the Taliban and with it an enormous propaganda victory for Islamists all over the world. In other words, Obama’s turn away from Bush’s more ideological agenda and toward a narrow focus on national security is not necessarily persuasive here, in spite of the former’s huge popularity and the latter’s abysmal reputation. (How’s that for irony?)
Here, Packer should have continued to keep in mind the distinction he made in the first paragraph, between elite and public opinion. German elites (politicians, think-tankers, certain academics and experts) generally agree with the Taliban victory = Islamist victory argument, and it largely drives their continuing support of the war (which is not to say there isn't debate here as well).
The general public, as far as I can tell, simply does not care what happens in Afghanistan. They regard the fate of this dusty, tribal backwater on the other side of the world as having very little to do with their daily experience. They're generally on board with providing reconstruction and development aid, since that's a painless type of international engagement which fits in with the view Germans have of their role in the world. But as soon as large numbers of Germans soldiers begin returning in caskets, the government will have a very serious problem.
Packer speaks of government officials not doing enough to 'explain the country's position in the war,' but I don't think this really captures it. This is the oft-used German political concept of Vermittlung, roughly, bringing a message across in a convincing manner. Whenever German government officials feel the need to continue a policy of which the public disapproves, they will note the negative poll numbers, and then ruefully admit they haven't done a good enough job of Vermittlung.
But there's always another diagnosis of the problem lurking behind the scenes: the public has understood the message, and simply disagrees with it. I think that's where we are with Afghanistan. Plenty of senior German politicians have explained why 'our freedom must be defended in the Hindu Kush', but voters, by and large, did not buy it. German mainstream politicians have understood this, which is why they constantly emphasize the reconstruction aspects of the mission, which is the only remaining rationale that any significant number of voters agrees with. What Packer fails to grasp is that the German public cannot be convinced that it is a worthwhile use of their tax dollars and lives to engage in a protracted fighting war in some remote third-world country. Any attempt to justify the war in these terms is doomed to fail. Which is why German politicians rarely attempt it.
If there's a terrorist attack on German soil, this could change the dynamics in favor of the Afghanistan mission -- possibly. It's hard to analyze, and let's hope we never have to find out. But if there are large casualties in Afghanistan, what little support there is in Germany for a long-term, explicitly military mission in Afghanistan will collapse. This will, incidentally, be a boon for the Left Party, who have always been strident critics of the Afghanistan mission.
Bryan Caplan on what American and European tourists get wrong:
Where American tourists go wrong:
1. In European countries, historic downtowns of the premiere cities like Paris or Stockholm are by far the best places to live. Most people in Europe don't live in these areas, and can't afford to.
2. Most of the Europeans who are lucky enough to live in the premiere cities can't afford to frequently eat in the nice restaurants that delight foreign visitors.
3. "Efficient public transportation" and bicycles may seem great to a tourist who eats in restaurants. They're not so great if you're a local who needs to get groceries home to make dinner. In bad weather, subways and bikes are downright awful.
Where European tourists go wrong:
1. They usually visit the most European places in the U.S. - especially New York City and San Francisco. Since NYC and SF are basically uglier, scarier versions of the premiere European cities, it's natural for tourists to go home with a negative impression.
2. However, very few Americans live in such cities - even if they can easily afford to. Why not? Because the natural habitat of the American - including most affluent Americans - is the suburb.
It's easy to see why tourists don't go to the suburbs, because they're places to live and work, not places to see. But almost no one in Europe lives in places as comfortable and convenient as American suburbs: The houses are spacious, the cars are huge, cheap Big Box stores and chain restaurants are nearby, and (to quote South Park) there's "ample parking day or night." Europeans can learn a lot more about the American psyche with a visit to a random CostCo than a visit to the Guggenheim.
...
Europe is a better place for most people to visit. But America is a better place for most people to live.
Consider this a riposte to Don Alphonso's dyspeptic mutterings (g). You might be expecting me to take issue with Caplan's points, but my response is mixed. (Caplan, by the way, defends himself against accusations of 'USA #1' jingoism in the post, and I believe him).
My preferences are clear: I've lived in the American suburbs and in European cities, and I prefer the latter. By a mile. But what Caplan is missing is the cultural preferences of Americans and Europeans. American suburbs might well be a better place for Americans to live, but transplant Europeans there, and many of them will be miserable, despite all that comfort and convenience. I am sometimes asked to consult with Europeans who are being relocated to places like Houston, Texas. I can usually tell within about 5 minutes whether that person's likely to adjust successfully to life in the American suburbs. Engineers and computer programmers and the like have no problems; in fact, they'll often beg to be allowed to stay. Nothing like having your own gigantic, cheap house, as many power tools as you want, and your own private pool whose chemicals you can adjust to your heart's content. Plus, Americans are task-oriented, unstuffy workers who are easy to deal with. Sure, there is less of a social safety net in the U.S., but these people don't care too much about that, since they have valuable job skills and will always get good benefits from their employers.
For Europeans of a less practical bent, though, the American suburbs are sterile, dull places. There are no cafes, no street life, no festivals just around the corner, no neighborhood bars, no beautifully-landscaped parks, no arthouse cinemas within walking distance -- in fact, no walking at all worthy of the name. In the vast stretches of America which are located in sub-tropical or desert climates, you will live 7 or 8 months of the year going from one sealed cubicle filled with artificial air to the next. The general cultural level of suburban Americans will strike these Europeans as desperately low. They are unlikely to meet very many people who have been well-traveled, know how to prepare a proper salad, or know the difference between a symphony and a concerto. (I remember an anecdote about Philippe de Montebello, once Director of the Houston Museum of Fine Arts, who said one of the things that irritated him about working there was all the museum visitors who put their cigarettes out in what was clearly a piece of modern sculpture right outside the front entrance.) Needless to say, these Europeans will regard the committee-produced gooey, salty offerings of American 'chain restaurants' as unfit for consumption by goats, much less humans. They will not perceive the suburbs as comfortable and convenient because maximizing comfort and convenience has never been a part of their world-view.
The same thing goes for Americans who live in Europe. No doubt most Americans would find much to object to in living in a Plattenbausiedlung (public-housing project) in Rostock or in a Parisian banlieue. But that's not where most of them are going to end up. As to how they see European cities -- once again, a lot depends on temperament. A highly practical American who values "comfort and convenience" above all is going to find those things in short supply in most European cities. You'll find these people bitching and moaning -- usually in English -- at various Irish bars. But then again, many Americans who relocate to Europe do so voluntarily, precisely because it's Europe. They want the safe, lively parks and neighborhoods, the 120-year-old cafes, the Gothic cathedrals, restaurants which reflect the chef's personality and no-one else's, the fine regional orchestras, art-house cinemas and the gleaming, sophisticated museums. To them, not having to own a car is a kind of liberation.
However, cultures being what they are, most Americans are going to be happier in America, since they've absorbed American priorities and attitudes, and the same goes for Europeans. In fact, the very idea of measuring quality of life primarily by 'comfort and convenience' will seem -- to many non-Americans -- hopelessly American. Once you take into account these limitations, it's difficult to make any sort of meaningful cross-cultural comparisons.
Shamelessly copying Obscene Desserts' glorious custom of sharing pieces of socio-historical driftwood cast up during the long, soothing hours we academics (get to) spend in libraries, I give you a short piece from the Times of London, 19 December 1969:
Par Hazard
Management pundits, and businessmen suffering from the jargon gap in cross-Channel negotiations will soon be able to look towards Bath for help.
McKinsey & Company, Inc., the management consultants (societe de conseil en gestion, perhaps, or ingenieurs conseils) who have tidied up I.C.I., Shell, the B.B.C., and now the Bank of England, are awarding a £3000 grant to Bath University of Technology for researches into the terminology of management in France.
Evidently the unfortunate French are adrift in a mounting tide of British and American terms, and their British colleagues are inhibited by ignorance of when such familiar Anglo-Saxonisms as "le cash-flow" will serve, or when recourse to the old parleyvoo is the only way out.
"Le cost-effectiveness", yes; "le critical-path analysis", no, says Professor James Coveney, head of the university's school of modern languages, who intends to spend the McKinsey grant on a research officer who will eventually help to produce a glossary of management terms comprehensible to both sides.
-----------------------
A colleague swears the following is true: told that the managing director of an American firm was engaged, he was asked by the American secretary: do you want to ring back or shall I make an appointment for an inter-facial involvement?
Obscene Desserts links us to a recent video of Americans on a right-wing television station blathering on about Amsterdam, and a Dutch response to their calumnies:
I've always wondered why American conservatives feel the need to slag Europe. At first glance, it wouldn't seem a promising target: as politicians on both sides of the Atlantic remind us, America and Europe share "fundamental" values: democracy, free markets, similar cultural and religious traditions, etc. I can see why American conservatives would criticize European welfare states, or defend the superiority of the American approach to certain aspects of government regulation. But often, the critique morphs into a sort of frenzied scorn driven by unhinged exaggeration (see above).
I have two theories about this. First, right-wing Americans (truth be told, many other kinds as well) feel no compunction about opining on subjects they know absolutely nothing about. I remember turning on radio talk shows during a visit to Texas in early 2004, and hearing and endless succession of dentists, forklift operators, candle store owners, and accountants describing complex transactions by which Saddam Hussein shipped all of his weapons of mass destruction across the border to Syria. Or Iran (!). Or wherever. And then, they'd confidently predict the course of the remainder of the occupation -- "See, they're all gonna wanna get rich from all that oil, right? So they got every reason to compromise and stuff, even though they got different religions and all." Hundreds more recent examples can be found here. All the while, you're thinking: are these people joking? Who is going to take them seriously? The answers are (1) no; and (2) the other 10 million listeners to the radio show.
So that's factor number one: nobody cares whether these hacks are describing Amsterdam fairly, because neither they nor their audience knows enough to make that judgment. The station doesn't care; it will broadcast whatever gets ratings, and nothing does that like hypercharged moralizing.
Now to theory two. Conservatives slag Europe, I'm convinced, because they know that European policies -- clearly and straightforwardly explained -- might prove highly tempting to Americans. They haven't forgotten the end of World War II, when Britons threw out Churchill the war hero, voted in Labour, and erected a welfare state. One reason for that was the millions of British servicemen who had just returned from the Continent, where they'd been able to see functioning welfare states in person, and wondered why such things didn't exist on the island. U.S. politicians have already enacted many isolated bits of welfare state, including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and unemployment insurance. Without exception, these programs prove highly popular once installed, even if they don't work perfectly. This recent New York Timesarticle give a revealing first-person perspective of an American slowly coming to realize the benefits of a European-style welfare state:
[Y]ou don’t have to be a Fox News commentator [!] to sneer at what, in the midst of a global financial crisis, seems like Socialism Gone Wild. And stating it as I’ve done above — we’ll consume half your salary and every once in a while toss you a few euros in return — it seems like a pretty raw deal.
But there’s more to it. First, as in the United States, income tax in the Netherlands is a bendy concept: with a good accountant, you can rack up deductions and exploit loopholes. And while the top income-tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, the numbers are a bit misleading. “People coming from the U.S. to the Netherlands focus on that difference, and on that 52 percent,” said Constanze Woelfle, an American accountant based in the Netherlands whose clients are mostly American expats. “But consider that the Dutch rate includes social security, which in the U.S. is an additional 6.2 percent. Then in the U.S. you have state and local taxes, and much higher real estate taxes. If you were to add all those up, you would get close to the 52 percent.”
But to ponder relative tax rates is only to trace the surface of a deeper story. In fact, as my time abroad has coincided with the crumpling of basic elements of the American economic and social systems, and as politicians, commentators and ordinary Americans have cast about for remedies or potential new models, I have found myself not only giving the Dutch system a personal test drive but also wondering whether some form of it could be adopted by my country.
Especially in times of economic crisis, Americans could be quite open to programs that shift the risk of financial or medical catastrophe onto broader shoulders than theirs. Americans also increasingly find U.S. drug laws (especially those against marijuana) absurd and the 'war on drugs' unwinnable and not worth fighting. There are even indications of a vestigial debate about whether America's prohibition on prostitution is the best approach.
The only way to hold up the rear-guard against such wet thinking, American conservatives apparently have decided, is to paint Europe, the near and tempting example, in the blackest terms possible. Thus the hysterical finger-pointing, and ludicrously counter-factual claims.
P.S. The cultural trivia contest? Identify the source of the title of this post.
Accumulating Peripherals has some thoughts on conservative resentment in the U.S. and in Europe:
But in fact disdain for cosmopolitan elites and Europe is constitutive of conservatism in a wide range of countries besides the US. Russia and its Slavophile proxies, obviously, but also the UK and Israel, most of the Muslim world, and, for that matter, Europe. In European countries, obviously, “Europe” means the EU, and antipathy to the supranational bureaucracy in Brussels is probably the single most coherent constitutive element of modern European conservatism. More generally, disdain for cosmopolitan elites and Europe has been at the core of conservatism since the dawn of nationalism in the 19th century, and it’s not surprising that it’s still at the core of American conservatism. What is surprising, I would think, is how locally concentrated such conservatism is in the US; it’s a sign that the rest of the US, apart from the South, is becoming quite encouragingly cosmopolitan.
Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.
Like many commonly used words in our political discourse, "socialism" isn't very well-defined. If the Right defines it as Obamaism, then we may yet get our government health and SUPERTRAINS. People like the skinny black guy.
According to Indiewire, Dieter's successor will be called Brüno [h/t JR]:
With just two days to go until the 2009 SXSW Film Festival, a special event has been added that’s sure to be the talk of the fest. “Brüno,” or as its rumored to have been titled, “Brüno: Delicious Journeys Through America for the Purpose of Making Heterosexual Males Visibly Uncomfortable in the Presence of a Gay Foreigner in a Mesh T-Shirt,” will be previewed as part of new section Fantastic Fest at Midnight.
The film, which is Sacha Baron Cohen’s follow up to “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan,” centers on one of the three characters Cohen created for his HBO series “The Ali G Show” (the others being Borat and Ali G). Bruno, a flamboyant Austrian fashionista, comes to America in the film to, as its alleged title suggests, for the purpose of making heterosexual males visibly uncomfortable in the presence of a gay foreigner in a mesh t-shirt.
[emphasis added]. As Germans often say when reminded of certain other Austrians, don't forget he's Austrian.
On question I occasionally ask myself is: 'Why are so many German professors so unnecessarily boring?' Of course, there are exceptions, many of whom I know personally, yadda-yadda. But the observation still holds.
I use the word "unnecessarily" advisedly. Of course, all professors have to be sort of 'boring'; they're experts after all, and tend not to express themselves in the black-and-white certainties beloved of the tabloids and the pub debate. But in Germany, there's a further joy-killer at work: the expected 'habitus' (roughly, code of conduct) of German professors. Take it away, Greg Nees:
In a Diskussion one is expected to be as impersonal, serious, and objective as possible. This, of course precludes any banter or attempts at humor, which are considered inappropriate. In the German education system similar behavior and attitudes are expected in class, resulting in a more intellectual atmosphere. A German friend, while training as a graduate teaching assistant at a major American university, told me how shocked he was upon being instructed to intentionally use jokes in order to loosen up the classroom atmosphere. Such behavior went against all he had learned as appropriate classroom protocol. (p. 78)
This is not unique to profs: it ties into notions of discretion and dignity deeply coded into German social life. Pick up any book for how to get along with Germans, and it will tell you to speak in as deep a voice as possible and not to smile or make jokes, lest you be considered "unserious" by your hosts / colleagues. That's right -- even one joke can brand you forever as a lightweight.
Note that this blot often cannot be dispelled by actual talent. Again and again, I've seen Germans give the job / position to a candidate of average abilities who has demonstrated mastery of unwritten behavior and dress expectations: who 'conducts himself properly,' uses the expected formal phrases, and 'fits in.' Candidates who display much more talent -- but who appear unconventional in dress, speech, or manner -- are quickly processed out of the system. Their intelligence may be grudgingly acknowledged, but a consensus quickly forms that they might 'rock the boat,' or otherwise prove themselves 'uncomfortable' (unangenehm). As soon as they're declared unangenehm, they're toast.
I'm not saying that Germans won't tolerate eccentricities in extremely gifted people -- they certainly will -- but once you exclude candidates at either extreme of the talent spectrum, Germans will definitely sacrifice some additional talent to obtain a higher level of conformity. Thus, many German professional and academic settings end up as the worst of all possible worlds: they're stuffed with mediocrities who aren't even funny.
Sure, once you get a few drinks into some of these people, they 'lighten up'. But it's important to understand exactly what that can mean. Many Germans have simply never developed a talent for inventing their own witty observations or discerning genuine wit in other people. These are skills they have never been called upon to develop, and which can be positively dangerous in many German professional settings. Once these people lower their inhibitions (invariably through massive alcohol consumption), their version of humor often turns out to be reciting boorish pre-fabricated jokes, often targeting women and minorities. And yes, I have encountered this among German professors as well. Oh boy, have I ever.
If you're getting the idea that I try to avoid socializing with Germans in stiff formal / professional settings, you're right on-target!
Now let us turn to the United States.
To keep myself apprised of the financial meltdown, I sometimes surf over to the blog written by Princeton economics professor Paul Krugman, where he offers analysis of the latest numbers and thoughts on Obama's new economic team. But right in the middle of all this high-flown analysis -- complete with charts and graphs -- I find that Krugman has linked to the following photo:
This is, of course, a Fedcat, which is a parody of a Lolcat, the captioned pictures of cats that are perhaps the Internet's most welcome innovation (Krugman himself captioned this photo "cats are cuter"). After reading Krugman for a while, I turn to Brad DeLong, tenured professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley. Among the graph-heavy, extremely high-level discussion of the financial crisis that I certainly don't understand, I find that he's linked to this Monty Python video:
Don't these professors realize that they are undermining their sacred honor and the dignity of their entire profession by linking to frivolous, superficial 'humorous' commentaries? Don't they see that they are pandering to the basest impulses of the complacent bourgeoisie, who crave the political pacifier of light entertainment? Don't they realize, as Adorno has over and over patiently explained to us, that laughter and jokes have immanent fascistic implications? And DeLong has compounded his sin by even linking to a 'humorous' video that openly mocks the very fundaments of the monotheistic tradition, which even the unchurched must take terribly seriously!
And yet, somehow, their occasional jokes or ironic comments haven't destroyed their reputations. Indeed, Krugman just won the Nobel Prize in Economics. There appears to be at least one country on the face of the earth in which you can be respected for your intellect without bolting yourself into an exoskeleton of stuffiness. Kind of makes me homesick, to tell you the truth...
That is the title of an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. Now, when I read a headline like that, I picture things like more sidewalk cafes, topless sunbathing, and a general increase in scarves and berets. However, in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, Europe can mean only one thing...socialism! (cue ominous string glissandi).
Don't let the author's suspiciously European name -- Pierre S. du Pont IV -- fool you! This millionaire chemical-company heir has taken up his quill to defend, not condescend. After their inevitable November 4th shellacking, Republicans must regroup to oppose Obama's sinister plan to sissify America (otherwise known as his platform), which includes such wicked machinations as withdrawing troops "quickly and substantially" from Iraq, strengthening labor unions, increasing "federal regulation of the economy," and subsidizing college tuition, child-care expenses, and clean cars. If this Eurasian existentialist...this epileptic Negro Buddhist is not stopped, we'll all end up speaking French one day. No, wait, -- every state will have its own bloody language!
Of course, this prediction of Europeanization is completely wrong in at least one respect: European countries have no plans to remove troops from Iraq.
Minor campaign gaffes happen a lot, generate brief flurries of news, and generally aren't worth much attention. But McCain's latest misstep seems to be turning into something interesting. Here's an interview with John McCain on a Spanish-language radio station in the U.S. (The interview was simultaneously interpreted into Spanish, but this is the original English audio).
The interesting part starts at around 2:58, when McCain is asked whether he would meet with Spain's center-left Prime Minister, Jose Luis Zapatero:
"I would be willing to meet with those leaders who are friends and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion," McCain said, throwing in words of praise for the Mexican government.
The reporter asked a second time: "Would that invitation be extended to the Zapatero government?"
McCain repeated his talking point: "I can assure you I will establish closer relations with our friends and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America."
The interview leaves the definite impression that McCain didn't recognize Zapatero's name. Is McCain is reallynot sure whether Spain -- a NATO ally -- just might "want to do harm to the United States of America"? Although Spain's rapid 2004 pullout of troops from Iraq angered the Bush Administration, McCain has promised to improve relations with US allies abroad. So, this seems like a minor gaffe. Blame it on a bad connection, or X hours of non-stop campaigning, and move on. (The radio host does have a slight Spanish accent, but any U.S. politician who can't deal with that is toast on that count alone). Maybe stage a phone call with Zapatero, just to be on the safe side.
But a new development throws a rather large wrench in that ointment, as a friend of mine used to say. A McCain aide now says McCain did understand the question, and was intentionally "refusing to commit to a meeting" with Prime Minister Zapatero. This turns a minor gaffe into a intentional slight against Zapatero, and has predictably driven Spanish newspapers into a frothing tizzy. I could be wrong, but I don't think we've heard the last about this.
Gulf Regional Advocacy Center (GRACE) GRACE is a private, non-profit organization in Houston, Texas that provides quality legal representation to people facing the death penalty. They're innovative, feisty, and stunningly successful. You can help keep their doors open by setting up small monthly donation at their website.
Zbigniew Herbert: Barbarian In The Garden The Polish poet travels through Western Europe in the early 1960s. He's got no money, no guarantee he'll be let back into his country, and a prodigious knowledge of European history. "If the gods protect one from organized tours (through insufficient funds or strong character), one should spend the first few hours in a new city following a simple rule: straight ahead, third left, straight ahead, third right. One can follow the curve of a sickle.... I have been walking for over an hour without coming across an historical monument."
Recent Comments