:: 11/12/2002 ::

Chomsky on Iraq, great punch line

The crimes were well known at once, but of no particular concern to the West. Saddam received some mild reprimands; harsh congressional condemnation was considered too extreme by prominent commentators. The Reaganites and Bush 1 continued to welcome the monster as an ally and valued trading partner right through his worst atrocities and well beyond. Bush authorized loan guarantees and sale of advanced technology with clear applications for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) right up to the day of the Kuwait invasion, sometimes overriding congressional efforts to prevent what he was doing. Britain was still authorizing export of military equipment and radioactive materials a few days after the invasion. When ABC correspondent and now ZNet Commentator Charles Glass discovered biological weapons facilities (using commercial satellites and defector testimony), his revelations were immediately denied by the Pentagon and the story disappeared. It was resurrected when Saddam committed his first real crime, disobeying US orders (or perhaps misinterpreting them) by invading Kuwait, and switched instantly from friend to reincarnation of Attila the Hun. The same facilities were then used to demonstrate his innately evil nature. When Bush 1 announced new gifts to his friend in December 1989 (also gifts to US agribusiness and industry), it was considered too insignificant even to report, though one could read about it in Z magazine at the time, maybe nowhere else. A few months later, shortly before he invaded Kuwait, a high-level Senate delegation, headed by (later) Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole, visited Saddam, conveying the President's greetings and assuring the brutal mass murderer that he should disregard the criticism he hears from maverick reporters here. Saddam had even been able to get away with attacking a US naval vessel, the USS Stark, killing several dozen crewmen. That is a mark of real esteem. The only other country to have been granted that privilege was Israel, in 1967. In deference to Saddam, the State Department banned all contacts with the Iraqi democratic opposition, maintaining this policy even after the Gulf war, while Washington effectively authorized Saddam to crush a Shi'ite rebellion that might well have overthrown him -- in the interest of preserving "stability," the press explained, nodding sagely.

:: alan 13:48 [link] ::

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Deine Zauber binden wieder,
Was die Mode streng geteilt;
Alle Menschen werden Brüder,
Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

:: alan 13:38 [link] ::

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reicher Mann und armer Mann
standen da und sah'n sich an.
Und der Armer sagte bleich:
"Wäre ich nicht arm
wärst du nicht reich."

Brecht LRB: "The major contribution of the English theatre to last year's Brecht centenary was Lee Hall's dazzling version of Mr Puntila and His Man Matti, presented by the Right Size, a touring company led by the comic actors Sean Foley and Hamish McColl. Their prologue goes some way to explaining why the Anglophone response to the Brechtfest was so muted. Announcing that 'Before we start/this evening's art/we'd like to take you through a bit of theory,' Foley and McColl went on to outline the origins of Marxism, the theory of surplus value and the essence of Brechtian dramaturgy in 16 doggerel lines."

ok so far so good

[...]

If Brecht is merely the sum of stolen parts, it's a miracle he produced anything at all. Defending him against Fuegi's charges, Willett points out that collective work was part of the spirit of his times: a point put more aggressively in Fredric Jameson's Brecht and Method. For Jameson, Fuegi's attack is essentially political - a case of market-led individualism desperate to deprecate the 'truly revolutionary collective experience' that reached its apogee in the Sixties.

It is possible to be too romantic about Sixties collectives, as anyone who was in one knows. But thinking about 'Brecht' as a patchwork at least rescues us from the sort of art-collapsed-into-life biography by which the English-speaking world is presently plagued. Instead, we can think about the method and purpose of the Brecht we still see on the stage and the bookshelf, a Brecht who may be more profitably confronted when the fiftieth anniversary of his death comes up in seven years' time.

[...]

If current Brechtology has a subject, it is Brecht's relationship to that process. Elizabeth Wright's Post-Modern Brecht (1989) sought simply to claim him as an embryonic Post-Modernist, on the superficially bizarre basis that the Marxist-Leninist playwright was 'sceptical of what Lyotard called the great narrative, the great danger, the great hero, the great wrong, the great goal'. Jameson takes a much more elliptical view of Brecht's contribution to a way of looking at the world which arose out of the collapse of most of what Brecht believed. 'Is there not,' he asks, "something itself profoundly un-Brechtian in the attempt to reinvent and revive some 'Brecht for our times', some 'what is living and what is dead in Brecht', some Post-Modern Brecht or Brecht for the future, a post-colonialist or even post-Marxist Brecht, the Brecht of queer theory or of identity politics, the Deleuzian or Derridean Brecht, or perhaps the Brecht of the market and globalisation, an American mass-culture Brecht, a finance-capital Brecht: why not?"

noooooooooooooooo!

Despite this, and while acknowledging that Brecht's commitment to activity and change poses a considerable challenge to the current stasis brought about by globalisation (??? "and what does 'Nam have to do with anything?"), Jameson admits that his project is in part to welcome Brecht into Post-Modernity (you are now part of meaningless-team. welcome). Like Elizabeth Wright, he relies on the 'decentred structure of Brecht's theatrical writings' which allows one 'to wheel them around in various directions', and as part of this wheeling and dealing he seeks to enlist both the early anarchic Brecht and the stern didactic Brecht of the so-called 'teaching plays' in a more profoundly disjunctive - and open - aesthetic than is admitted by conventional criticism (or conventional readings). And he employs a Brechtian binary paradox to argue that minimalism and excess are dialectically related, and that the fondness of the two great mid-century European playwrights for the fabular emphasis of the definite article - The Woman, The Tree, The Soldier, The Leaf, The King, The Rope - implies that Brecht and Beckett are in essence two sides of The Same Coin.

[...]

Like Jameson, I welcome (i wouldn't)the retranslation of Brecht's Verfremdungseffekt not as 'alienation' but as 'estrangement', the nearest possible equivalent to Shklovsky's ostranenie. For Shklovsky, 'art exists that one may recover the sensation of life; it exists to make one feel things, to make the stone stoney,' which is clearly close to Brecht's definition of the Verfremdungseffekt as 'a representation . . . which allows us to recognise its subject, but at the same time make it seem unfamiliar'. In this sense, the device doesn't set out to make things clear, but to make them odd. But odd for a purpose: to make us want to find out how they work (one of Brecht's examples has to do with driving a Model T Ford, and being reminded that a car essentially proceeds by explosion). Brecht broke things down in order to understand how they fitted into a pattern obscured by rhetoric, sentiment and familiarity. For Post-Modernism, the point of breaking things down is to find out that there isn't a pattern at all.

cook-pass-hell.. this is disgusting. having inspired socialist element to 60s cultural revolution (factor we're trying to eradicte from history of period.. black panthers etc), he is now, and again posthumously, being reinterpreted P-Mist by the idiotic angloamericans! terrible affliction!

That Brecht's methods have been put to uses that can be very different from those for which they were intended is shown by his practical legacy in Britain - the country on whose theatre he has had the greatest influence (apart from his own). As Willett points out, it is hard to take Brecht's favourite aphorism ('the proof of the pudding lies in the eating') entirely seriously: 'nobody is all that much of an Anglo-Saxon empiricist whose theoretical writings can occupy six or seven volumes.' On the other hand, Brecht's contribution to British theatre has been immeasurable ever since the Berliner Ensemble's propitious 1956 British debut.

As with Pinter, Brecht's lasting impact has been dramaturgical. True, there is an important, consciously Marxist strand of British postwar playwriting - from John Arden and Edward Bond in the Fifties and Sixties to John McGrath and Howard Brenton in the Seventies and Eighties - which has sought to renew and develop the Brecht project as a whole. But just as there is hardly a line of dialogue in the post-Caretaker British theatre that does not owe some thing to Pinter, so Brecht's major legacy is the transformation of the vocabulary of dramatic structure, encapsulated in the slogan 'each scene for itself'.PM-cock

the fact that he's reviewing terrible books doesn't rescue this guy on my terms. brecht always has been understood as a solid proponent of distributive justice proper, and i've never seen him categorised as a frenchie-inspired masturbator- which is a bit unfair considering his work started long before the french lefties finally called it a day.. initial quote = point: there is some sort of causal relationship btw rich/poor.. brecht: "because!" essentially.

registered as "enemy alien", reportedly "considered a radical and an asociate of persons with Communistic inclinations" (U.S. 1941 onwards- as "Subject was imprisoned by the Nazis at some time and is expected to have been treated severely by them") with fbi (foia release)

The FBI seemed particularly upset with "his song against war":

"the proletariat is dispatched to the war
to fight bravely and without thought of self.
it is not told why and for whom,
but it is not for himself
[chorus]
to hell with your war! wage it yourself!
we will turn the guns around
and wage another war.
That will be the right one."

Question: P-M reactionary tool/project?

:: phil 11:31 [link] ::

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

High Windows

When I see a couple of kids
And guess he's fucking her and she's
Taking pills or wearing a diaphragm,
I know this is paradise

Everyone old has dreamed of all their lives -
Bonds and gestures pushed to one side
Like an outdated combine harvester,
And everyone young going down the long slide

To happiness, endlessly. I wonder if
Anyone looked at me, forty years back,
And thought, That'll be the life;
No God any more, or sweating in the dark

About hell and that, or having to hide
What you think of the priest. He
And his lot will all go down the long slide
Like free bloody birds. And immediately

Rather than words comes the thought of high windows:
The sun-comprehending glass,
And beyond it, the deep blue air, that shows
Nothing, and is nowhere, and is endless.

Philip Larkin

:: alan 16:48 [link] ::

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Below is a poem called "the portrait" by a street poet who approached me the other day. I typed it up from a napkin tried to introduce verse structure but presume this requires some kind of HTML type setting to avoid it running all into one as below? phil/mike? anyway very nice vibe from chap have encouraged him to visit site, name something like Zindo (?). do we have an admin email address as well anyone? admin@collectiveinquiry.blogspot.com would be cool...

:: alan 19:13 [link] ::

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Portrait

Catch a moment in time that stood still
be mystified and amazed
Imagine as though it was a dream
although it was REAL.

People that were in motion were
suddenly projected by the painters brush,
then followed silence, then motion
all the same it was a glimpse of what was,
did you see the moment

Try never to be foolish by being deceived
by which is not authentic and that which is REAL
and no more shall time make the exchange on canvas
but shall show in detail it age, as motion continues

:: alan 19:03 [link] ::

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

the spirit of the romantic period and U.S. foreign policy

Review of a wanky a posteriori attempt at justifying liberalisms' questionable outcomes w respect to warfare and rejection of a meaningful institutional framework for international justice: "i'm a lover and so are the Britaineers"-style

"The root of the problem is that the ideal of equality in freedom--the good above all that liberalism seeks to promote--may nurture a tyrannical tendency. Once it has a grip on our souls, freedom grows dissatisfied with being first among goods and sets out to become the one and only good, the good pure and simple. In its quest for unchallenged sway in our hearts and our heads, it can make us soft and selfish, averse to the constraints of that discipline whereby we defer the gratification of some desires for the sake of the satisfaction of higher and better desires, and whereby we show respect for others because it is in our enlightened self-interest to do so. Moreover, inclining us to experience all limits on what we want with equal distaste, the appetite for freedom can encourage impatience with, or indifference to, the imperatives of principle, promiscuously granting us license to disregard the claims of others, whether at home or in distant lands, when we perceive them to pose a threat of any sort to our freedom. And by focusing our attention on our own preferences and choices (isn't choosing what we want what it's all about?), freedom's pull can lead us to see political life in our own distorted self-image, as entirely constituted by freely choosing agents, obscuring the formative role that associations--friendship, family, the nation, culture, religion--play in shaping our preferences, defining our choices, and constituting our goods.

[...]

A good deal of the overreaching and confusion can be traced to Fletcher's stage-setting and ultimately tendentious rendition of Romanticism. To be sure, it is in many respects unexceptionable. Drawing on Isaiah Berlin's account in The Roots of Romanticism, a posthumously published collection of essays, Fletcher characterizes Romanticism as a movement arising in the last third or so of the eighteenth century and extending into the first third of the nineteenth century, a movement that rebelled against the Enlightenment glorification of reason and the intellect. The Romantics, Fletcher reminds us, celebrated emotions, passions, sentiments, and the heart. Whereas the Enlightenment strove for mastery over nature, for outward order, for inner calm and stability, the Romantics sought to submit themselves to "nature, sensual impulse, and the inner world of feeling as the lamp of truth." While the Enlightenment spirit is "reductionist," seeking to resolve the world--moral and political as well as physical--into its component parts and ultimately to explain it in terms of simple cause-and-effect relations, the Romantic sensibility is "expansionist," searching ordinary experience and everyday things for latent transcendent forms, harbingers of grand ideas, and intimations of eternity. Above all, the Romantics glorify self-realization through purifying one's passions and becoming true to one's self.

So far, so good. In one critical respect, however, Fletcher departs from Berlin's account of Romanticism. This concerns the centrality that Fletcher assigns to the idea of the nation in Romanticism: he asks it to do a substantial amount of work in his argument, explaining both our nation's coming together in the wake of September 11 and the need to incorporate an appreciation of collective guilt in our understanding of the legal issues arising out of the war on terror. According to Fletcher, there is a distinctive "Romantic perspective on collective action." In contrast to the Enlightenment, which emphasized abstract rights and universal laws, the Romantic movement stressed "partiality and solidarity," particularly with the nation. It is "a view of the world that tends to glorify the nation and war as an expression of patriotism." It places a premium on "the values of brotherhood, and courage, and honor." In Fletcher's view, the idea that individuals realize their true selves in and through the nation is one of Romanticism's constitutive teachings."

Romanticism and the nation-state! Jhesos-piss hell! that's exactly what hitler loved in Wagner! a lot of german graves in unrest as Schiller et al turning, perhaps even spinning in grave!

"Fletcher's insistence on the centrality to Romanticism of the idea of cultivating one's self through devotion to the glory of the nation is extremely misleading, in a variety of ways. Actually, the idea is neither peculiarly nor essentially Romantic. The Bible, Aristotle, the Romans, the civic republican tradition--and, in twentiethcentury Europe, fascism and communism--all taught in one form or another that the individual's good is intelligible only against the backdrop of the collective good. Worse for Fletcher's argument, not all Romantics believed that participation in the life of the nation was crucial to self-purification and self-realization. Most Romantics did not conceive of self-purification and self-realization in this way. Not even Byron, whom Fletcher cites as exemplary, believed that securing the glory of the nation was crucial to the good of the individual. Byron certainly took his Romanticism seriously, but not the version that Fletcher imputes to him. So little was he attached to the nation that produced him, nourished him, and in whose language he wrote and achieved acclaim that he lost his life on the way to joining the national struggle of another people.

at least the author of this review seems remotively in tune- please do read this critique of romantic justification of war on terror and argument against international justice- but be warned.. it really is one of those stomach-turners..how can one enjoy beauty and truth and take interest in ideas and then produce something awful like that? poor tormented soul is all i can say

So what is really driving Fletcher? In effect, he seeks to legalize or to constitutionalize a dispute about morality and prudent politics. The moral intention that he is bent on upholding through this gambit seems to be the general extension of the rule of law and fundamental procedural protections to all criminal defendants regardless of their crime. Yet again, this reflects not a Romantic requirement but an aspiration to honor a liberal promise. Or, rather, a certain radicalization of the liberal promise of equality in freedom. Or, better still, a romanticization of the liberal promise that all individuals are equal before the law. Recoiling at what he regards as an impurity in the liberal promise embodied in our Constitution--its failure of complete universalization--Fletcher rewrites it. He is a Romantic for a universalized liberal individualism.

Finally Romanticism must be understood in light of the liberalism that gives it life. In war, as in virtually every aspect of moral and political life worth discussing, both the head and the heart must be honored. Recognizing its power to give the head its due and the heart its due is crucial to giving liberalism its due, which is to our advantage in the altogether worthy effort to use and to protect our freedom wisely."

that's much better

:: phil 14:30 [link] ::

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Marxism, historical determinism and some cock who does not seem willing and certainly is paid not to get it

"The first of the many ironies surrounding this cult was its claim to being scientific. In Manchester, where he was sent by his father to be isolated from radical influences, the young Engels searched out the followers of Welsh industrialist and social reformer Robert Owen. The Owenites had hit upon the idea of "socialism," a term they coined, and set out to demonstrate its efficacy by means of experimental communities. Scores of such experiments yielded uniform results: the settlements collapsed, usually within the span of two years. Engels was well aware of this record but brushed it aside. He and Marx, a pair of 20-something children of privilege, believed they had discovered a pattern to history that would produce socialism regardless of human will or ingenuity. ("It is not a matter of what this or that proletarian or even the proletariat as a whole pictures at present as its goal," wrote Marx in their first collaborative work, The Holy Family. "It is a matter of what the proletariat . . . will historically be compelled to do.") In short, they substituted prophecy for experimentation and thereby claimed to have elevated socialism from the plane of utopia to that of science." [is science anything but the elaborately formulated pretense (attitude even!) that you take no interest in the outcomes of your personal observations, that it is indeed possible to transcend the subjective by some sort of Xn-infl culturally, Stoic phil. ascesis?]

[...]

From the moment Marx and Engels penned this theory, it proved false on every front. Over the course of the second half of the 19th century, the standard of living of workers in Europe, far from falling, roughly doubled--a trend that continued apace until the outbreak of World War I. Concomitantly, the middle classes did not disappear but grew many times larger, and the wealth of the capitalists, although it certainly multiplied, became more dispersed, not more concentrated. [the accumulation of material wealth was actually part of the historical-deterministic framework. love his distribution of wealth stats! "so so and a bit more over there" P-M wanker]

A still more deadly blow struck the doctrine in 1914, as the outbreak of war put to test Marx and Engels' claim that "the working men have no country." At once, working men displayed their patriotism on all sides. Moreover, most of the socialist leaders, either as a result of similar stirrings within their own breasts or in response to the mood of their constituents, also rallied to their respective fatherlands. Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov, the dean of Russian Marxism, captured the spirit of the moment: "If I were not old and sick I would join the army. To bayonet [the] German comrades would give me great pleasure." This efflorescence of nationalist feeling made nonsense of the postulate that class is the decisive historical variable. ["proof: nation-states are ahistorical and expression of human nature. almost"- we will never think in terms other than nation-state allegiance. and we never have done otherwise. cock]

Yet just at the moment that the theory had thus been rendered nugatory, it gained a cachet far beyond any it had previously enjoyed. The Bolshevik seizure of power rescued Marxism from the wreckage of its economic and social predictions by seeming to validate its most seductive claim--namely, that history had a foreseeable end. However far trends and events had strayed from the forecasts, this much was certain: socialism of some kind had risen in Europe's largest country. The Russian Revolution seemed a powerful vindication of the prophecy that humankind was striding from the capitalist past to the socialist future. Even such profound anti-Marxists as Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter and U.S. journalist Whittaker Chambers conceded this directionality, much to their despair.

Communism's rise endowed Marxism with a brilliant new allure, even while it demolished anything that remained of Marxism's theoretical structure. The industrial proletariat assuredly had not brought socialism to Russia. The country was still mostly agricultural. The Bolshevik militia that seized power consisted of disaffected soldiers, Lettish peasants yearning for national independence, student revolutionaries, and no doubt some workers, but it had no distinct proletarian coloration. Nor were the men guiding its workers (certainly not Lenin, who had a title of nobility that he was not ashamed to invoke when it served his purpose).

In addition, socialism was supposed to come to the most advanced capitalist countries, whereas Russia was among the most backward. Adding insult to injury, the most advanced capitalism was to be found in the United States, the country that more than any other proved stubbornly resistant to socialism and that responded to the Bolshevik triumph with a wave of anti-Red hysteria.

However, there were always some Marxists who denied that Russia was truly socialist. For them, none of these aspects of the Bolshevik experience weighed against the validity of the theory. But this defense raised new problems. If the Soviet state was not socialist, then it assuredly was not accounted for by Marxist theory and could not be explained by it. And if the struggle between communism and the West (and for a time, the triangular struggle with fascism, a phenomenon that Marxism could do even less to explain) was not a class struggle, as the Kremlin claimed, then what remained of the Marxian approach to history? The crowning irony is that a movement proclaiming that material motives determined human behavior gave rise to an era in which ideology dominated world politics as never before. [only critical point: historical determinism. is that all there is to k.m.?]

[...]

Finally, what of those who forswear the doctrine but claim to employ Marxism as an analytic tool? Many of those who make this claim write with Hegelian obscurity [i.e. doesn't get it]. Perhaps the analytic tool is the "dialectic," the Marxian claim to a distinctive form of reasoning more penetrating than conventional logic, and a term one still sees bandied about. Engels gave this idea its fullest explication (in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific), pointing out that by conventional logic "a thing either exists or does not exist; a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else." As an example, he cited the conventional view that a creature is either alive or dead. This premise is wrong, he said, because the precise moment of death is hard to determine. Dialectic allows us to see that a thing can simultaneously exist and not exist, be both dead and alive, he explained. But does the difficulty of determining a precise moment of death really imply that at some point a creature is both dead and alive? What could that possibly mean? This entire rhetorical sand castle was demolished in a single sentence by philosopher Sydney Hook: "State a proposition that would be false according to conventional logic, but true according to dialectic." <-- laughably naive re: question of language?!

quite articulate, but nonetheless "sounds like someone we know"

Joshua Muravchik, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2002)

"scholar" what a cock! on foreign policy as well- piss

:: phil 13:21 [link] ::

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fellow heathens:

"In the past decade or so, a chorus of voices - feminists, environmentalists, cultural critics, politicians - have decried objectivity as arrogant, inhumane or simply quixotic. Since these critiques usually take objectivity (or pretensions thereto) to be part and parcel of modern science, the word has also become a banner (or target) in the revived debate between humanists and scientists about who should and does wield cultural authority and why. Objectivity is not just a word of many meanings; it is also a fighting word."

kin' hey! it's another tremendous LRB article- science and victorian culture

"The morality in question is unrelentingly Christian. Levine provocatively suggests that all epistemologies may be moralised, each in its distinctive way, but doesn't pursue this possibility further. His quarry is the epistemology of dying-to-know in Victorian science and letters, and he shows it to be saturated in Christian tropes of humility, contempt of the body and dying in order to be reborn. Whether it's Carlyle fretting about his unruly bowels or Beatrice Webb insisting on meagre meals, Darwin protesting that anyone with a modicum of patience could have equalled his achievements, or Pater preaching pure sensation purged of feeling, there is much mortification of flesh and spirit in the texts Levine analyses. And, as in the case of the Christian saints, self-abnegation can very easily tip over into self-aggrandisement: Levine notes, for example, how professed ignorance in Pearson or self-discipline in Galton becomes a title to intellectual authority of the most overbearing sort."

you've gotta love this cultural archeology! digging away.. reviewer is obv on other side of fence.. might be worth looking into book though-

Lorraine Daston is director at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin. Her books include Eine kurze Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Aufmerksamkeit and, with Katherine Park, Wonders and the Order of Nature, 1150-1750.

"Levine confesses that he began his book as a critique of disinterested knowledge as an impossible ideal, but concluded it as a defence of 'not only the possibility of objectivity but of the good faith of quests for it'. Characteristically, the argument is more moral than epistemological. Without objectivity, or at least some approximation of it, he sees no hope for altruism and community responsibility. Sociobiology and cultural criticism stand alike condemned, the two converging in extreme individualism. Much as he deplores the disembodiment he finds at the heart of dying-to-know narratives, some kind of self-denial, he decides, is essential for the good, if not the true. This is as dutiful and strong-willed a creed as any Victorian moralist could hope for. But there is another side to objectivity that has little to do with duty and still less with will power. Humanists such as Ranke and Nietzsche have celebrated it as well as scientists. It is the almost mystical immersion in things themselves, the delight of letting the world rush in."

reconstruction a bit shaky unfortunately. nonetheless worth a look

:: phil 12:14 [link] ::

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When at UPenn I participated in one of these tests... we were given $20 to divide. Perhaps because we were Americans, or perhaps because the school also contained the top business school in the world and tons of very ruthless money-driven people, the breakdown was slightly different. There was, I think, one offer that gave the deciding person MORE money, which of course was accepted. Most offers were for $10-10 - 15-5, and I think all of them were accepted, tho it's possible one of the $5 ones was not. There were a couple offers of $16-4 - $18-2, and I think all of them were accepted. There was one offer for $19-1, which was rejected. And there were two offers for $20-0, one of which was accepted, if I remember correctly.

:: ranger 06:07 [link] ::

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~