The original incident isn’t quite current, but I wanted a lot of time to collect my thoughts before I specifically confronted this issue which, in my opinion, is a major one and needs to be dealt with in a far more effective manner.

I ran across this story about a gang assault on a young girl a few months back during my daily news reads. Although, in the story they refer to it as “pack beating.” The story is about a group of teenagers who lured a young classmate to their house, and proceeded to beat her up with no reason other than they wanted her to fight and thought it’d be funny. The victim eventually lost consciousness from the beating, and many of the students recorded the entire thing.

Sadly, I can relate to this type of assault from my childhood because I remember being assaulted by some of my fellow classmates simply because I was nerdy and fat and not very popular. I remember coming home covered in blood at least one time from the severity of the beating. I remember how people would watch and cheer as whoever was hitting me landed blows, and I remember that the violence generally got much worse if I bothered to fight back. There was no such thing as a phone cameras, so unlike for this young girl, no one recorded my beatings for posterity.

What bothered me most about this story, and the reason I wanted to meditate on it before reporting it was the video. In it you can hear the assaulters taunting the girl to fight back. You see, it’s not that they want to beat her up senselessly, they want a reason. I remember the same taunts from my middle school years. I remember the students who watched shouting, “fight back!” However, I also know that if she had fought back, someone else would have used that as an opportunity to join in and would like have left her with more injuries than she got from the simple taunts and hits. It’s an incredibly frustrating situation to be in, because you want to fight back, but you know that if you do, it will lead to something even worse. Even more frustrating is that many authority figures will tell you that you should fight back and “be a tough guy.”

While there were stories on and off when I was younger about these, the only reason these stories are making the news these days is because the aggressors are so confident about never being punished that they are recording their assaults for posterity and publishing on Youtube. They are flaunting the fact that they don’t expect to be punished for it, even if they record their crimes. Another example from Indiana shows that recording bullying like this is not uncommon.

How can we possibly deal with this? Previously authority figures were divided into two camps, that either the person being assaulted needs to toughen up and take it, or otherwise that they need to be protected from the aggressors in a way that makes them more of a pariah. This was commonly accomplished by punishing everyone en masse, publicly, for the incident. Neither of these work. First off, not everyone on those tapes is an aggressor, a lot of them are simply following the crowd, enjoying seeing someone get beaten up or egging them on. To punish everyone who is involved would be as pointless as to not punish anyone. Why? Because the student being assaulted will get further negative treatment as retribution for reporting the assault, otherwise known as “narcing.” This turns them into a pariah. However, without any punishment, these assaults can get worse and worse and will lead to disgusting crimes like the one from London where they swarmed a 37 year old woman for the fun of beating her up, or the one recently in Edmonton where they raped and murdered a 13 year old at West Ed, or the one in where the violence against Reena Virk escalated until she was eventually murdered.

Remember, these are the ones you are hearing about because the people involved either recorded it and the recording reached an appropriate authority, or because the violence was to such an extreme that someone either was seriously injured or killed. Most of these bullying attacks, better referred to as assaults, are not reported for two reasons: one, the aggressor is never punished in any meaningful way and the attacks become more fierce after the wrist slap, or two, the person being bullied is told that they need to toughen up and live with it. In both cases, the person being attacked ends up worse off than before.

Can anything be changed to deal with this? I think bullying needs to be recognized for what it is, assault, and punished to that effect. It’s not bullying and it’s not just a childhood thing; it is physical assault, and should be treated as such. If an adult were to beat up another adult at work they would not get a slap on the wrist, they would be fired from their job, and likely end up with a criminal record. If a student assaults another student, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law for that assault. Anything less is criminal negligence on the part of everyone involved, including the school and the local police.

In a gang beating like any of the above incidents, someone should be punished, but as discussed punishing the entire group is irresponsible and ineffective. The crime should be investigated, and the instigator(s) of the attack should be punished to fullest extent of the law and the rest of the group should be given both a stern warning and an example in their fallen comrade.

Instead of trying to develop new laws based around terms like bullying or trying to make bullying something less than it is, the current laws should simply be enforced. If a student assaults another student, they should be punished and rehabilitated accordingly. They are clearly showing antisocial and violent behaviour which should not be untreated.

It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s a heck of a lot better than the wrist slapping we have been seeing with regards to these assaults, and maybe it will prevent another unpopular kid from being beaten to within an inch of their life.

1h

==

I don’t agree with Saskatchewan Government Insurance’s assertion that the biometric scanned and RFID embedded card will enhance trade with the USA. It’s just a shameful experiment with a form of technology that has dangerous implications for our privacy. It’s also a sham that it will enhance border security or keep trade more open, when the cost is much more than a $25 license, and lasts only a year compared to a passport which is good for five years.

As a joke I’ve carried my passport wrapped in foil, for years. It’s about to get to the point where it’s no laughing matter. SGI is wasting money by pursuing the Radio Frequency ID license. It’s already completely useless and dangerous that we have magnetic stripes on the back of our photo ID card. Here’s an explanation of why faceprint (or fingerprint) biometrics is a sham if we’re concerned about security.

–
Hat tip to SaskLibertyTrain - As one commenter correctly said over there, this ID is about “security theatre”.

–
Cross-posted to AbandonedStuff.com

Well, it’s been a while, but this link flood has the potential to top some of the worlds highest mountains. Sit back, put on your snorkel and get ready for 1h’s patented link flood!

• Surreal numbers, they have the real numbers in them, but also a whole lot more.
• Right Wing Cartoon Watch is an excellent overview and discussion of the bias and craziness of the right wing editorial cartoonists.
• Best ping pong match ever.
• Meet the new capitalist pyramid, almost the same as the old capitalist pyramid.
• Sales suicide, don’t commit it.
• On a darker note, speaking of suicide. Ways to understand, detect, and prevent it are important for everyone to know. And no, depression isn’t just chemical.
• McCain is a misogynist jerk. In case you didn’t already know.
• Science!
• Abstruse Goose, it’s like XKCD, but fresher.
• Push up the Web, get your browser up to date! Everyone should have this on their website.
• Physical Theories as men, and as women.
• Yet another reason why Canadian telecom law sucks so hard.
• For the techno-artists, here’s some very nice computer generated art.
• I enjoy beer, wine and whiskey from time to time, but I have to agree with Felicia when she asks “when did being drunk become something to be proud of?”
• Speaking of which, BEER RATINGS! CHUG! CHUG! CHUG!
• God may not be dead, but these are terrible arguments about it.
• A recent paper my name is on.
• If you didn’t understand that, perhaps you should take some free courses at the wikiversity, or MIT.
• This is a pretty spiffy paper on organic molecules in asteroids. Alien life? or just goo? Tonight at 7.
• It doesn’t matter though if we all are just living in a simulation.
• AAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaarrrrgh.

Wow, that was a lot of links. I hope everyone enjoyed this weeks link flood. Hopefully we’ll be able to get it back to a weekly basis soon.

Have fun,

1h

Or so the argument goes. I haven’t read Dawkins closely or recently enough to intelligently comment on his critique, but Hedges echoes serious concerns I have harboured about Hitchens and Harris for some time. Hitchens made the conversion from Trotskyite to neo-conservative cheerleader of the Iraq invasion far too comfortably for my liking (raising troubling questions about the authoritarian tendencies of some on the left,) and Harris likewise gets too giddy at the mention of torturing and killing Muslims for my taste. Harris in particular has an annoying tendency of reducing the issue of third-world violence to a mere matter of religion, handily ignoring the exploitation and profound human despair at the root and the West’s role in cultivating it. This is black-and-white thinking. This is intellectual suicide.

Both men offer myopic world views. Both seem to be driven by fear.

While Hedges’ critique makes for interesting reading on its own, my main interest in this passage has to do with Hedge’s invocation of Frederick Nietzsche’s “Last Men”. Nietzsche, for the record, totally called it.

—

We are sold items or experiences that, we are told, will make us unique and strong and confident and authentic individuals, even as we are stripped as citizens of real authenticity and individuality. Democracy, the corporate state tells us, is the product of economics. The free market means a free people. But democracy predated the industrial revolution. Democracy was, as [John Ralston Saul] points out, the political system that “made most of the economic events possible, not vice versa.” And so, in the name of freedom and progress, jobs are outsourced, benefits are cut, government assistance programs are slashed, and civil rights are curtailed. This, we are assured, is the cost of progress.

Those who hold power justify it by seeking to make it part of the natural order. Global capitalism becomes the engine that drives human progress. It leads to the highest form of civilization. Advocates for global capitalism effectively promote this faith even as they move factories from the United States to Mexico, China and the Philippines, where wages are low and workers are denied basic rights, health care and benefits. They talk of a new world order as they build a new serfdom. The atheists and Christian fundamentalists, because they serve mechanisms of power, because they refuse to deal in complexity, reduce the rage and violence of the world’s dispossessed to human imperfections that can be eradicated. If the disaffected can be converted to Christianity or become endowed with reason, we will all be safe and happy. If not, we must do away with them. They do not investigate the brutality and injustice of imperial aggression, the callousness of totalitarian capitalism and the role of poverty and repression as triggers for violence and terrorism. They blame the victims.

Mohandas Gandhi, standing on the other side of this divide, understood how Western industrialized powers created glorious histories and moral crusades to obscure or justify slavery, massacres, despotism and the destruction of traditional arts, crafts and languages. He understood the lies we tell ourselves. The attack on the weak was not part of the necessary price for progress and the advance of civilization; it was part of a program of raw exploitation by unfettered capitalism. The stories used to defend this exploitation created a cult of history much like the cult of religion or the cult of science. It permitted immorality in the name of the noble and virtuous ideals. These visions of an emergent world of light and universal civilization are always employed by those in power to hide their tracks. As Albert Camus wrote, “We are living in the era of premeditation and the perfect crime. Our criminals are no longer helpless children who could plead love as their excuse. On the contrary, these are adults and they have a perfect alibi: philosophy, which can be used for any purpose—even for transforming murderers into judges.”

“The West does not like to admit this fact about itself,” wrote William Pfaff and Edmund Stillman, that it “has been capable of violence on an appalling scale, and has justified that violence as indispensable to a heroic reform of society or of mankind.” The atomic bomb, napalm, phosphorus raids, and indiscriminate area bombing were American and British techniques, used in “a mission of bringing liberty to the world.” The technological and scientific advances of industrialized nations made possible the conquests and the theft of natural resources in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. “To be a man of the modern West,” Pfaff wrote, “is to belong to a culture of incomparable originality and power; it is also to be implicated in incomparable crimes.”

The human race will not be redeemed by the domination of the globe by “civilized” and “rational” people. We cannot rise to moral and intellectual levels never achieved before in human history. Those who advocate this utopia seek to become Nietzsche’s new man, the Übermensch, the Superman. Übermensch, Nietzsche wrote, rejects the sentimental tenets of traditional Christian civilization. The Übermensch creates his own morality based on human instincts, drive and will. The will to power means, for Übermensch, that the modern man has gone “beyond good and evil.” The modern man spurns established, traditional religious values. He has the moral fortitude and wisdom to create his own values. This belief creates a human deity. Religion, which has failed humankind, will be banished. We will all become Übermenschen.

The absurdity of this human deity did not prevent Nietzsche from seeing where it could lead. Nietzsche warned that this new faith might, in fact, prefigure something else—a pathetic, middle-class farce. Nietzsche foresaw the deadening effects of the bourgeois lust for comfort and personal self-satisfaction. Science and technology might, instead, bring about a race of Dauermenschen, of Last Men. The Last Man would wallow in his arrogance, ignorance and personal contentment. He would be satisfied with everything he has done. He would seek to become nothing more. He would be stagnant, incapable of growth, part of an easily manipulated crowd. The Last Man would confuse cynicism with knowledge.

“The time is coming when man will give birth to no more stars,” Nietzsche wrote about the Last Man in the prologue of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. “Alas! The time of the most contemptible man is coming, the man who can no longer despise himself.”

“They are clever and know everything that has ever happened: so there is no end to their mockery.” The great causes of the human race lie defeated or reviled. The Last Man endows the empty banality of his private life with universal meaning. The Last Man withdraws from larger concerns, indulging “their little pleasure for the day, and their little pleasure for the night.”

Nietzsche attacked the pretensions and dishonesty of rational consciousness. He wrote: “Do not deceive yourselves: what constitutes the chief characteristic of modern souls and modern books is not the lying, but the innocence which is part and parcel of their intellectual dishonesty… Our cultured men of today, our ‘good’ men do not lie, that is true; but it does not redound to their honour. The real lie, the genuine, determined honest lie (on whose value you can listen to Plato) would prove too tough and strong an article of them by a long way; it would be asking them to do what people have been forbidden to ask them to do, to open their eyes to their own selves, and to learn to distinguish between ‘true’ and ‘false’ in their own selves.”

The consumer culture, as Nietzsche feared, has created tens of millions of Last Men. Atheists such as Harris and Hitchens exemplify these Last Men. They are tiresome epicures. They promote, as Chalmers Johnson says, a “consumerist Sparta.” It is the poor and desperate who fight our wars. The impoverished, often without legal rights, do the dirty work for a bloated, self-asorbed oligarchy and its compliant middle-class managers. Curtis White in The Middle Mind argues that most Americans are aware of the brutality and injustice used to maintain the excesses of their consumer society and empire. He suspects they do not care. They don’t want to see what is done in their name. They do not want to look at the rows of flag-draped coffins or the horribly maimed bodies and faces of veterans who return home or the hundreds of thousands we have killed in Iraq. It is too upsetting. They do not want to read about the nation’s growing legions of underemployed and poor, or the child labourers in sweat shops who make our clothing and our shoes. Government and media censorship—increasingly common since the attacks of 2001—are appreciated. Most prefer to be entertained.

Those who promote the new atheists’ faith in reason and science offer an escape from moral responsibility and civic engagement. They express the dreams and desires of a morally stunted middle class. They promote, under a scientific veneer, the selfish lusts of the consumer society and the deadening provincialism of the petite bourgeoisie. Dawkins, in an example of this pedestrian vision, draws up his own list of commandments to replace the Biblical injunctions. He advises people to enjoy their sex lives as long as they don’t harm anyone else. He calls on parents not to indoctrinate their children but to evaluate evidence. His are hollow, liberal platitudes that casually deny the seductive lusts of violence, evil and abuse—lusts the biblical writers who wrote the commandments understood and feared. These atheists are suburban mutations. They are products of a moral and political landscape corrupted by too much television, rampant waste, unchecked self-indulgence, wealth, too little contemplation, the physical destruction of community and a loss of the sacred. They tell us we are good. They tell us we will get better. And they warn us not to get in the way of progress.

Democracy provides a non-violent method to deal with this scenario. Instead of having the left-wing and right-wing extremists try to kill eachother in the hopes of attaining power, they have a non-violent competition called an election instead. The basic social contract with regards to elections and democracy seems to be as follows: Both parties agree on a set of rules with determines what a vote is, the method with which they are counted, how to protect the process against fraud and what the basic requirements to determine a “winner” of the vote. In the most simplistic idea of democracy, the first three are accomplished by some variant on the secret ballot system, and the “winner” is determined by simple majority.

However, it is not impossible for them to change in a fashion to make a larger portion of the electorate happy with whomever wins the vote, and in fact many places have adjusted their rules to include caucuses, proportional representation, electoral colleges and regional representation as all parties in the country agreed was the best way to have what they considered a “fair” election. Note, however, that a democratic system is not a pre-defined, one size fits all system. Every country, every province or state and every municipality or county needs to determine for themselves what works best. Optimally, this takes many months, if not years, of backroom negotiations with all interested parties involved, until every party is satisfied with the rules of the system as they are laid out. This is what basically happened with the Democratic primaries, as all major candidates agreed to the rules before any votes were taken. Unfortunately though, these decisions commonly happen by having the current party or parties in power declare that this is the way the elections will be run and screw anyone who disagrees with them. This is the primary reason it is very difficult to get any real electoral reform because the party in power already likes the current system, since it’s the system that elected them. Why would they want to change it?

Now, once the rules are agreed upon by all parties involved then it comes to the electorate (however they are defined in the system) to step forward and express their choice with regards to who they would like representative to be, either by choosing a person (like in Canada) or a specific party (as in Israel) or both (as would have happened in Ontario if MMP had passed). The vote is protected by whatever measures were laid out and agreed upon and counted in a similar fashion. After the entire vote is counted, then according to whatever algorithm was agreed upon the winner or winners are declared. Once that happens, the social contract agrees that the losers will not become violent or fight the results in any fashion, except in the most absolutely exceptional case. Even then, the appeal will go through a pre-defined process agreed upon before the election took place. If that does happen, and they lose the appeals process, then they agree to not fight the results anymore.

This has the decidely useful effect of preventing people from going to the streets and killing each other to gain political power, leading to streetfights similar to those between the fascists and communists in Germany during the Weimar Republic. Unfortunately, it only works if two conditions are maintained: One, the losing party generally agrees to accept the results of the election and, if necessary, appeals process, including encouraging their supports to accept said results and concentrate on winning the next election. Two, the process at the beginning is signed off by all participating parties, groups and persons involved in the electoral process. If either of these are violated, then the democratic system ends up being either a sham, or useless. Why? If the losing party takes to the streets in violence or protest, well-founded or not, they cause social unrest and defeated the primary reason for having an election in the first place, and if the rules at the beginning are not agreed upon completely by all participating parties, the game is rigged to begin with.

Thus, you reach the main problem with modern democracies. This is the problem that led to the riots in Kenya, Mugabe’s post-election crackdown in Zimbabwe, Venezuela’s election violence, and Russia’s various issues. The social contract required for a democracy to function properly is either faulty (not agreed upon by all parties) or being outright violated (the losing party refuses to step down). The states, while their elections do have issues, in general obey this social contract. When the Democrats lose based on the current rules of the system, which they felt were unfair after the fact, they still stepped back and instead worked on revising the rules for what they considered would be more fair election.

As an example, Gore actually lost in 2000 based on the agreed upon rules at that time; he may have been able to fight it through various loopholes in the system, but that would be a flagrant violation of the agreed upon rules. It is also arguable that Bush didn’t win the election based on the rules at the time because of the major discrepancies in Florida. However, I think it is reasonable to argue that the system was already broken before Bush got there otherwise those discrepancies would have been investigated. In general, the election was shady at best, a complete sham at worse. However, since elections are based upon an agreed upon set of rules, whether those rules are broken or not, from the perspective of maintaining the democratic contract, Gore did do the right thing in stepping down once he lost based on those rules.

It is fairly clear to me, that once it is realized that this specific social contract must be agreed upon, it should become possible to resolve these problems.

First, all interested parties needs to sit down at the table before an election and agree upon an explicit set of rules. If they cannot get the ruling party to agree to changes that are neededm they they must debate that in public forums and in closed door meetings to push those rules through. This must happen before the election season starts. This is because once the election season starts it will appear opportunist. However, if after all efforts are expended, the contract is still strongly flawed, the parties can use that as a election plank to get elected and force change as needed. This is the standard saw about finance reform that most politicians run under.

Second, in any election, the losing parties need to accept their losses, and work on winning during the next election by adjusting their platform, getting better candidates, etc.

Third, it needs to be realized that there is no one system of democracy that works for everyone. Some places work better with open caucuses where people can directly talk and work with eachother in finding a common ground. Other places absolutely require secret ballots and strong policing since there exists primitive elements in the society which will violate the contract and hurt people if they don’t vote the way they desire.

Finally, if it is impossible to find an agreed upon system for an entire region because that region has too disparate of tastes and desires, then simply break the region up. Have each subdivision of the region elect representatives which will go to a higher level conference and vote in a more refined fashion as needed. It is again not necessary to find a one size fits all system for everyone. It is possible to mix and match as needed.

By starting with the realization that a democracy is a human construct, in fact, a human game, it becomes easy to see ways of improving it and preventing the massive amounts of violence that are seen. The democracy you were born into does not need to be the democracy you die in. It should evolve and change as the citizenry evolve and change. If anything, the worst thing that could ever happen in a democracy is for the system itself to never change, even if the parties in power do.

1h

Blub blub blub, the link waters are rising, ready to seed the land with URLy goodness. Watch out, here comes the link flood!

• I love sushi, I love art, therefore I must love SUSHI ART!
• If you have already taken the dive into Firefox 3, here is a great video showing some of the coolest new features. If you haven’t, you should try it out.
• The alarm clock, reinvented!
• After seeing so much of the absurdity in politics these days, I think people need to reread Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.
• Normally, I have no problem with atheism or atheists, but I just found this guy’s terrible attitude to be as bad as (or worse than) religious fundamentalists.
• Finally! The USA decides to place some real investment into passenger rail.
• earthTV, your daily Earth.
• Pictures of people based on their height and weight.
• A postmodern perspective on the Democratic primary.
• At the end of the day, no one makes you shop at WalMart.
• A pretty spiffy somewhat mathematical look at oil prices. They are high because they should be high, oil is currently a non-renewable resource.
• A lot of programmers need to gain a pair.

That’s good for today. I hope you enjoy.

1h

1h

Image by jimpg2 via Flickr

From the Edmonton Journal (Actually dose.ca, but it’s the same article I read in the Edmonton Journal):

Mental health experts have coined the term “affluenza” to describe a newly recognized cause of depression in children and youth, delegates to the Canadian Paediatric Society conference here heard this week.

“When people have everything in a material sense, they may have perfectionistic expectations and unrealistic goals,” said B.C. Children’s Hospital psychiatrist Jane Garland in an interview, following her presentation to delegates at a session on mental health problems in children and youth.

“Children keep hearing the message that they can ‘do anything,’ but if they are constantly given everything, they may not know how to achieve their goals and when they fail, they may have poor coping skills, and an intolerance for discomfort,” she said.

Telling children they can achieve all their dreams and goals sets them up for low self-esteem and low self-worth when things don’t go their way, said Garland, who is head of the Mood and Anxiety Clinic at Children’s Hospital.

…

As to clinical trials of medications, she noted that patients often have a more “robust” response to medications in such trials, while in real life, medications may not be the magic bullet. So to elicit the same kind of therapeutic response as that seen in research trials, she advises doctors to ensure they set up frequent appointments with depressed patients.

“It gives them a future and you are part of it, and it can make a huge difference.

To be honest, this is an issue we’ve known about since pre-roman times. Alain de Botton discusses in his book Status Anxiety this very “Affluenza” problem, when he repeats the old maxim Self-Esteem (or Happiness) = Accomplishments / Expectations. While most of us realize that through increasing accomplishments we can be happier, we can also drastically increase out happiness by simply lowering expectations. Now, another problem which is ignored is that to achieve high expectations requires large amounts of extra work, more so than to achieve slightly lower expectations.

For example, while it requires a moderate amount of work to find a local recreational sports team and play with them on a regular basis, it requires a much higher amount to play professionally, and even more to get up to the very top. Arguable, since every little bit counts in the major leagues, this is why the push towards using steroids or to cheat is so strong. Freakonomics has an entire chapter dedicated to this. There is a similar phenomena in academia where people will both falsify results and take ritalin and similar drugs to gain the tiny advantage needed to move from 2nd to 3rd place. These moral sacrifices have the effect of lowering the felt value of the accomplishments and commonly drive people who use them further into a depressive state.

I have heard of this very problem with some of the students my friends have taught in the past. While the significant majority of them are good students and work hard to accomplish their goals in life, there are a few who don’t comprehend that gaining mathematical skills and intuition requires long hours of studying and contemplation. Math is like any other skill, it requires work to build it up. However, for some people who have not found any aspect of their life difficult due to the luck of being born to a rich family in affluent times, this extra work to deal with their higher expectations simply leads to anger, frustration and in some cases alcohol and drug abuse.

Sadly though, in the paper, the researchers discuss the possibility of a “magic bullet” to deal with this problem rather than fight the deeper sickness within the society as a whole. In a way this “magic bullet” approach is exactly the source of this problem to begin with. Instead of realizing that things should require work and effort in life, they hope to find a pill to swallow or a needle to inject which will make everything good again right away.

My thoughts on a potential way to treat this is to attempt to get the children involved in some sort of hard physical labour based job where they can enjoy the fruits of their labour afterwards. So, for example, a farm or working in a soup kitchen. While the doctors feel that simply having appointments and such is good and provides a feeling of some support structure for this style of depression. I don’t think it’s enough. I’d almost argue inviting them out to work on a farm for a summer would be far better for their health and self-esteem. They would get the chance to see what they can actually do if they work at it, and enjoy the fruits of their own labour. Giving them an opportunity to gain perspective on their abilities, liabilities and accomplishments.

A perspective which will tell them, the world doesn’t revolve around them. Things will not just fall into their lap because they say so. However, if they work towards their goals in a genuine fashion. They will see the fruits of their labour, or if they fail, learn from their failures to succeed next time.

1h

1h