#Charlottesville

"Your actions speak so loud, I can hardly hear what you say."  Abraham Lincoln (perhaps citing Emerson)

https://youtu.be/AZALxjZQArI

The Gracchi Reborn!

This isn’t my habit, but I simply have to do it.  I have to endorse a book, even before it’s released:  “The Storm before the Storm” by Mike Duncan (http://thestormbeforethestorm.com/).

Mike is the award winning and publically acclaimed podcaster of the famed “History of Rome” podcast series.  Mike continues his podcasting now with a series called “revolutions” where he explores various revolutionary periods throughout history.  He also has lead and leads several “History of Rome” tours that are wildly popular and rich in detail, culture, and fun.

What is amazing about his story telling is he brings to life a time and place that is foreign, dramatic, and ancient, as if it were yesterday and on the big screen.  In this book, Mike explores the late republican period of Roman history, just after the conclusion of the Punic Wars and before the ushering of the triumvirate.  This is a book that is ripe for the telling not only for its original context and times, but for the present.  As if to bring back the Oracle at Delphi, Mike opens this book with the tale of Tiberius Gracchus and is political harrying and brinksmanship that is as prescient in today’s politics as it was in that age.  I can’t wait to read and hear him speak again of the path the Senators and Assembly, Consuls and Tribunes took as the republic spun out of control.  The story will not only be entertaining and enlightening for its own telling, but also as a warning, lesson, and window into our future if we don’t take care to learn from the mistakes that the late Roman republic made.

If you haven’t done so already, go listen to Mike Duncan’s preview read of Chapter 1 of the book.  Do it NOW!!! (https://secure-hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/f/d/2/fd23dfd5207f9ba9/SBTS_Ch1_Master.mp3?c_id=16148242&expiration=1501891628&hwt=4f4546651a00ea29c865928a32deba7a).  And when you get done, do Mike, and really everyone, the favor, pre-order the book from your favorite source and in your favorite format.  I did and I hope you do too.

Again, I don’t normally do endorsements and encourage purchases, but this, I am absolutely sure, will be worth your while.  Happy Reading (or listening, as he’s also doing an audio-book version where he reads it himself)!

Walberg, Climate, and the Christian Calling

US Rep. Tim Walberg from Michigan, Climate, and the Christian Calling

Ahead of today's announcement by President Trump this article graced the front page of the publication USA Today:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/06/01/tim-walberg-climate-change-trump-paris-agreement/102389286/.  Its not ironic, but rather potentially providential that I spent this morning at Bible study, and of all the books to be studying this morning,  we were studying the Gospel of Matthew.  Its in the beginning of Chapter 4, that as a Christian,  I'm asking Representative Walberg, and anyone else of his thinking, to reflect on.

For your ease, and his, here is the verses to which I refer:

"The Temptation of Jesus

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.  And he fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterward he was hungry.  And the tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread."  But he answered, "It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'"  Then the devil took him to the holy city, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple,  and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will give his angels charge of you,'and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'"  Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.'"  Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;  and he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me."  Then Jesus said to him, "Begone, Satan! for it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.'"  Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and ministered to him."  Matthew 4: 1-11, Revised Standard Version

I don't know Representative Walberg, other than to know that he said this, as recorded in the above article, "I believe there’s climate change.  I believe there’s been climate change since the beginning of time.  I think there are cycles.  Do I think man has some impact?  Yeah, of course.  Can man change the entire universe?  No.”  “Why do I believe that?  Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, he can take care of it.”

In response to him I'll quote Jesus quoting scripture and the words from God, "Don't put the Lord your God to the test."

One of the themes of the last few years in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (the denomination and christian polity to which I belong), has been "Gods Work, Our Hands".  The fatalism demonstrated in Rep. Walberg's thinking is diametrically opposed to this theme and the scriptural witness.  He also, gets it entirely wrong that we can't effect the universe, that is if he takes his claims of Christian belief seriously.  From the beginning of Genesis, where God tells Adam and Eve to be stewards of all of creation, through the Psalms where David and Israel lament and recognize their failure to take care of the things they are first given, gifts from the creator, to St. Paul and his depiction of every part of creation being a part of God the I AM, there is a call for our active, helpful dominion of this planet.  We aren't to sit idly by and wait for God to do it for us, we are God's very instruments to take care of this "our common home" to quote Laudato Si.

We've all heard the parable of the flood victim waiting to be rescued.  You know the one where their home is flooded so bad they are on the roof praying to God for help.  A boat comes by and the occupants say they thy have room, but the victim says,  "No God will save me."  Then a helicopter comes by, and they drop a rope, but the victim pushes it away yelling "No thanks, God will save me."  Then a large surge comes, the victim is washed away and dies, and upon arriving before God, he asks "God why didn't you save me?"  And God replies, "Didn't you see the boat that came to you to rescue you? And the helicopter with a rope?"  "Yes Lord, I did" they reply.  "Well that was me acting through others, so sad you didn't recognize me when I was so near."  While potentially apocryphal, this parable rings very true to this situation.  God acts through the Universe and we are a part of that Universe.  We are given life boats from time to time, and we are shown the way on what we are to do to take action and avoid the sin of inaction.

Rep. Walberg is encouraging sin of inaction, unlike Isaiah who was calling Israel to repent of their ways.  Their unfaithfulness to God by not taking seriously their duties to care for the widow, the orphan, the creation around them, valuing personal wealth and comfort and thinking they owned the things gifted to them, resulted in exile to Babylon.  In this climate crisis, there is no Babylon to be exiled to.  One definition of sin, as recorded in scripture, is to give into our baser impulses, and God will let us do that to our demise.  We've had warnings, we have the God given gift of knowledge and ability to reason, and our best minds are in widespread agreement: we need to act and act now before its too late,  lest our greed gets the best of us.

So, Rep. Walberg, if you are the Christian you claim to be, the answer isn't to ignore the call to action that among other people, many a prophet has been telling us to heed.  Stop putting God to the test, stop worshiping mammon, and get on with being the faithful stewards we've been called to be.

Fareed Zakaria, Higher Education and Freedom of Thought

Fareed Zakaria, Higher Education and Freedom of Thought

Yesterday, as I drove back and forth between Potsdam and Russell, NY, I listened to the weekly installment of Fareed Zakaria, GPS.  As is often the case, Zakaria offers exceptionally astute analysis of the world, the American democratic experiment and current events.  His “What in the World” segment each week is akin to Paul Harvey’s “The rest of the story …”, illuminating a part of the world or American society that is often poorly understood or in need of reformation.  This week’s segment was precisely that kind of brightness brought to a trend in American society that we need to be much more aware of.  The following, is a transcript of that segment, in its entirety, which I am posting here because I could not agree more or make a more erudite analysis.  I encourage us all, especially those of us who are a part of Academia, to read this, think carefully about its implications and be prepared to take the right course:

“ZAKARIA: Now for our "What in the World" segment.  We're at the height of commencement season and across the nation people are imparting their words of wisdom to newly minted graduates.  To name just a few, Joe Biden was at Harvard and Cornell, Oprah spoke at Skidmore and I was honored to give the commencement speech at Bucknell this year.

But at Notre Dame, where Vice President Mike Pence was giving the commencement address, the ceremonies were interrupted when about 100 students turned their backs on Pence and walked out in protest.  A few weeks earlier, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos was booed while giving the commencement address at Bethune-Cookman University.

I talked about this issue at Bucknell and I wanted to share those thoughts here.  American universities these days seem committed to every kind of diversity except intellectual diversity.  Conservative voices and views, already a besieged minority, are being silenced entirely.

The campus talk police have gone after serious conservative thinkers like Heather McDonald and Charles Murray, as well as firebrands like Milo Yiannopoulos and Anne Coulter.  Some were disinvited, others booed, interrupted and intimidated. It's strange that this is happening on college campuses that promise to give their undergraduates a liberal education.

The [word] liberal in this context has nothing to do with partisan language but refers instead to the Latin root pertaining to liberty.  And at the heart of the liberal tradition in the Western world has been freedom of speech.

From the beginning, people understood that this meant protecting and listening to speech with which you disagreed.  Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that when we protect freedom of thought, we are protecting freedom for the thought that we hate.  Freedom of speech and thought is not just for warm, fuzzy ideas that we find comfortable. It's for ideas that we find offensive.

There is, as we all know, a kind of anti-intellectualism on the right these days, the denial of facts, of reason, of science.  But there is also an anti-intellectualism on the left.  An attitude of self- righteousness that says we are so pure, we are so morally superior, we cannot bear to hear an idea with which we disagree.

Liberals think they are tolerant but often they aren't.  In 2016, a Pew study found that Democrats were more likely to view Republicans as close-minded.  But each side scores about the same in terms of close mindedness and hostility to hearing contrarian views.  And large segments on both sides consider the other to be immoral, lazy, dishonest and unintelligent.

This is not just about tolerance for its own sake.  The truth is, no one has a monopoly on right or virtue.  Listening to other contradictory views will teach us all something and sharpen our own views.  One of the greatest dangers in life whether it be in business or government, is to get trapped in a bubble of group think and never ask, ‘what if I'm wrong?’  ‘What is the best argument on the other side?’

As I said at Bucknell, there is also a broader benefit to society.  Technology, capitalism and globalization are strong forces pulling us apart as a society.  By talking to each other seriously and respectfully about agreements and disagreements, we can come together in a common conversation, recognizing that while we seem so far apart, we do actually have a common destiny.”[i]

---

[i] FAREED ZAKARIA GPS, “The President's First Overseas Trip;Discussion of U.S. Understanding of Africa.; A Look at Increasing Interest of U.S. Students in Science; Remembering the Victims in Manchester”.  Aired 10- 11a ET, 28 May 2017, copied and edited from http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1705/28/fzgps.01.html, accessed on 29 May 2017.

Hubris, Scientism, and Climate Change

Hubris, Scientism, and Climate Change

As is my habit, I listen to many podcasts as I travel to and fro, mainly to keep up on current affairs and to remain educated in topics such as history, engineering, and so forth.  This past weekend, as I was returning back from military duties at Fort Drum, I was listening to Fareed Zakaria GPS[i], which had been recorded earlier in the day.  The following dialogue intrigued me:

“ZAKARIA: All right. We have to go but, Bret, I've got to ask you.  Your column on climate change caused a -- you know, a Twitter storm, maybe a real storm.  So, you know, basically saying we shouldn't be so overconfident and act as though there is absolutely no debate to be had on climate change.  Liberals should be willing to imagine that they could be wrong.  And what a scientist said to me in response was, look, that would be like saying, you know, when you turn a light switch on maybe the light will go on, maybe it won't, it's still up in the air.  That there is so much overwhelming science in this direction.  So that's the pushback I heard from one very intelligent, liberal scientist.

STEPHENS: Well, I don't deny global warming or climate change.  And I don't deny that we need to address it seriously.  The point of the article was to say that there is a risk in any predictive science of hubris.  There was an IPPC at global U.N. report at one point that said that the Himalayan glaciers were going to melt within our lifetime. This turned out not to be true.  The skeptics, or the genuine deniers, obviously, pounced on this detail.

So the column was an attempt to be was a warning against intellectual hubris.  Not an effort to deny facts about climate that have been agreed by the scientific community.  And I think that's a distinction that I'm afraid was lost in some of the more intemperate criticism.  But people who read the column carefully can see that I said nothing outrageous or beyond the pale of normal discussion.

ZAKARIA: And it's always struck me that the best answer to these kind[s] of things is not to try to silence people or drum them out but to answer them. To have a vigorous response and a vigorous debate which is what you provoked I think in that.  So I was very grateful for it.”[ii]

Based on this dialogue, I was called to actually read Mr. Stephens’ op-ed piece “Climate of Complete Certainty”[iii], which I actually thought was really superior:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html.  I give this link as I think it is certainly worth your consideration and a fair reading on your own.  What I very much appreciate here is his call to be careful of over-reach, hubris, and certitude.  This is something anyone that is in a true academic pursuit should be always conscious of, because it often skews results, or worse, gets things completely wrong.  And this is no less true in real-life, history and politics.  One could certainly quibble with Mr. Stephens’ comparison of the climate change debate with the Hillary Clinton campaign, even if it did bring up some good points in his piece.  A more apt example might actually be the march to war in Iraq in 2002-2003 on the hubris induced, and ultimately wrong, theory that Saddam Hussein held massive cashes of weapons of mass destruction.

Of any character flaw that I take seriously, it is that of hubris.  Whether at an individual level or in a group, when people become pompous and arrogant, it is a sure sign that trouble is on the way.  In the climate change discussion space, I cannot be pegged as one who is in any sense a climate change denier.  I serve on the US Green Building Council’s Upstate NY Board[iv], I am active in Lutheran’s Restoring Creation[v], I teach courses in sustainable building and construction at Clarkson University (which always leads off with the reason for a need to be more sustainable), am active in efforts to support positive action to curb the damage of non-homeostatic impacts on the environment[vi] and I even have a fairly well viewed "TIM Talk"[vii] on this topic.  The point being, like Mr. Stephens, I am in no way attempting to "hurt" the cause of trying to fight against the causes of what is likely to be catastrophic effects of climate change.  In reality, I am trying to do the opposite; I want to ensure the cause is strengthened by ensuring that it doesn't succumb to the sin of hubris.

To that point, I am fully on board with Stephens in regards to the need for us to acknowledge and be forthright in how we speak about the science and the facts regarding climate change.  One of the main reasons for my concurrence is because I continue to see evidence of the great harm that over-prediction, hubris, and certitude have wrought in this effort.  Take for example this meme that was put out over Facebook by someone I know that lies in the climate change denial camp[viii]:

It isn’t hard to figure out the point of this meme, and how over-prediction and extreme alarmism are used as a punchline, especially when baseline facts do not support the conclusions:  NYC, while flooded during Hurricane Sandy (with extensive damage and cost), has not been converted into Venice, the average price of a gallon of milk is well below $12.99, and gasoline is presently at a third of the above predicted cost (although it has fluctuated as high as $4 per gallon, it’s never reached $9 per gallon).  There are certainly tons of holes in the meme that those of us that live in a fact based world can certainly point to[ix], but such apologia is of little avail, given the bald face and gross over-predictions laid out and that were never even close to being realized.  This is the precise type of intellectual hubris that Mr. Stephens is speaking to in his warning to those that are absolute fire-brands for the climate:  resist absolutism, be clairvoyant and true, and gain some humility.

And it is to the primary antidote of humility that I see Mr. Stephens trying to turn us to acknowledge as critical in the climate change discussion.  Pope Francis, in a very recent TED Talk[x] spoke to this very point, especially to those that lead and are involved in politics.  He said, “[p]lease, allow me to say it loud and clear: the more powerful you are, the more your actions will have an impact on people, the more responsible you are to act humbly.”[xi]  Francis, in the encyclical Laudato Si[xii], spells out the way forward in this work, one that certainly takes humility seriously and eschews hubris.  We have to avoid scientism[xiii], and instead accept that we can’t have all or nothing approaches to the challenge before us.  Rather we need to remove the blinders that such hubris and arrogance build and instead be all about an open dialogue, bringing honest, factual discussion to the fore.  To that end, the following should help to paint the true picture for us all.

Global Climate Report 2014 – Annual Global Temperature[xiv]

Climate Change: Global Temperature Projections[xv]

I can say with strong certainty that we are indeed in the fight of our lives and a fight for the only known inhabitable, life sustaining world in the universe.  Does this mean we have to take drastic measures?  Most likely it does, despite the fact that we can’t have 100% certainty.  But taking such drastic measures should be based on the facts that are skeptically arrived at, not hyperbole and over statements that belie an unwillingness to stand up to scrutiny.  We have to fight back against those that deny the reality of climate change, but we cannot deny the truth and its lack of perfect coherence as we do so.  We can’t afford, in this effort, that perfect becomes the enemy of good.  And it is for that reason I agree with Zakaria, I am grateful for Mr. Stephens piece, but even more so that there are many of my colleagues and many in the world working on this cause that think likewise, honesty really is the best principle.

---

[i] If you have an appetite, as I do, of multiple perspectives on the world and the US, this is a podcast worth listening to:  https://itunes.apple.com/podcast/fareed-zakaria-gps/id377785090?mt=2

[ii] Fareed Zakaria GPS, 7 May 2017, from transcript, retrieved from http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1705/07/fzgps.01.html, retrieved on 10 May 2017

[iii] "Climate of Complete Certainty", Op-Ed, Bret Stephens, 28 April 2017, New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html, retrieved on 10 May 2017

[iv] Currently serving as the Vice Chair.

[v] A grassroots organization working within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to create an eco-reformation

[vi] Including participation in the Climate March here in Potsdam, NY on 29 April 2017

[vii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTk-XqqIWbA&feature=share&list=FLGOXjlqnKLc52vtsx5zYUwA&index=1

[viii] Sergeant First Class (Retired) Thomas Paxitzis.  SFC Paxitzis and I served together in the 955^th Engineer Company (Pipeline Construction) which I commanded from July 2001 to February 2003 and July 2004 to December 2004.  Tom was a Platoon Sergeant and one that was probably the most empathetic in the unit.  His views today, on a number of subjects including this one, are well out of the comportment that he once held.  Given our serving together I am unwilling to sever a connection, but only hope and pray that his bitterness will turn to empathy and his anger to acceptance; especially as he is a faith leader in his local congregation.

[ix] Among them that Good Morning America didn’t make those predictions, it reported on those that were; that the dossier of John Coleman is checkered at best and demonstrates his misleading and un-factual stances (https://www.desmogblog.com/john-coleman); and that these were all “worst case scenarios” that had variable likelihoods of occurrence.

[x] “Why the only future worth building includes everyone”, April 2017, https://www.ted.com/talks/pope_francis_why_the_only_future_worth_building_includes_everyone?language=en, retrieved on 10 May 2017

[xi] https://www.ted.com/talks/pope_francis_why_the_only_future_worth_building_includes_everyone/transcript?language=en

[xii] http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

[xiii] “Scientism:  Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality.  Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientific worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview.  Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method.  In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.”  Source:  PBS Glossary, http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html, retrieved on 10 May 2017.  I’d also offer the lecture of Henry F. Schaefer III, given at the C.S. Lewis Society of California, http://www.lewissociety.org/scientism.php.

[xiv] Global Climate Report - Annual 2014, Various Global Temperature Time Series, updated through 2014, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-4, retrieved on 10 May 2017

[xv] Climate Change: Global Temperature Projections, David Herring, 6 March 2012, available at https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature-projections, accessed on 10 May 2017

Where we should go Camping, or Not

Where we should go Camping, or Not

As some probably well know, I spend some time on social media.  Among the feeds I typically follow, and often comment on, is the “ELCA” closed Facebook group.  ELCA, meaning: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, being the Christian denomination I am a part of.  One of the moderators, Pastor Clint Schnekloth of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Fayetteville, AK, posted the cover of a Lutheran theological journal, “Logia”, to prompt a discussion; and so it did.  This journal is published for the express purpose to “promote the orthodoxy of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.”[i]  This said, the point of his posting it was to cause us to think on the cover image for ourselves in order to reflect on it and its critique of, or lack thereof, its titled discussion point:  Lutheran Triumphalism.  Helpfully, one commenter actually posted the journal editor's comments, which also includes a picture of the cover for your review:  http://www.logia.org/logia-online/a-word-about-the-cover2017.

What got me to respond was a comment made to the effect of, “is the person pictured, then, to not be considered in the ‘good camp.’”[ii]  This really struck me that one of the immediate reactions was to think about which "camp" someone is in, and caused me to respond both specific to the questioner, and as well to the broader question.  The immediate response simply referred back to the editor’s note, but my broader response is as follows:

“’Good Camp?’ now that's an interesting response/question.

[Y]our phrasing of the question is highly illustrative of a problem I'm seeing more and more in society here in the US.  We seem to immediately want to know what the "good" is from the "bad", as if every [point of view (POV)] is one or the other automatically.  Many in this group, including myself on occasion, slip into that false dichotomy of bipolar attitudes (good/bad, right/wrong, us/them) as if that is the primary objective and way we should relate to information and one another.

How very sad a fact that is.

If we are to imitate Christ, who we call our savior, we need to really confess our sinfulness, as I am now likewise doing, that we've fallen into this trap.  Are there absolutes that God has put forth in this world?  Yes.  Is there evil that should be countered?  Certainly.  But Jesus makes it clear how we are to judge:  "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back" (Luke 6:37-38 RSV).  We need to hear these words as not just about being careful in calling out evil, but also in being self-satisfied with what we think is "good".

The question isn't if the character on the cover is good or evil, it's what can we learn about ourselves, our relationship with one another (especially as Lutherans), and about our relationship as God's children, his disciples, and a part of his creation?  Does the image bring us closer to truth and in what ways does it take us further away?  There is both Law and Gospel at play here, and in almost everything.  Do we have the eyes to see and the ears to hear?  Or are we living with blinders or are our ears clogged with earbuds?  I pray and hope we become more open and learn to stop asking the  "good camp"/"bad camp" question as the critical point of how we relate to one another and our ideas/motivations/information in our society.”

Obviously this post relates directly to a specific religious discussion context, but it has broader implications socially, ethically, and personally regardless of faith background.  My critique here is that we need to step back from the constant need to find tribe and gravitational pull to poles.  Rather, we need to think about what is also universal, what is common, and what transcends.  Certainly we can find comfort and minimal resistance to our POV among those that are like minded, live in the same places, and function in similar social and work circles, but that can’t be the only way we define ourselves and those around us.  Yes, we are of those things, but we are also, in equal measure, part of one planet, one species, and one physical life to be lived on this planet for each of us.  Does it really matter which “camp” we are in at the end of the day?  I really think it is not; not in the least.  What matters more cannot be defined or even enjoyed based on the “camp” you are in, it’s about quality of life, it’s about freedom and liberty, it’s also about love for those closest to you and for each other so that you don’t fear for the lives of those you love.

So, it’s not about what “camp” we are in.  It’s ultimately about being good campers, period.  It’s agreed that we can’t and shouldn’t all try to fit in the same camp site.  Nor should we splintered into a myriad of unsustainable, undefendable, or unwarranted camp sites.  We need to keep a reasonable number of not too many and not too few, but always remembering that it’s not the camp site that matters, it’s the planet, the creation that you are supposed to be focused on first and foremost.

---

[i] Cf. the Logia Mission Statement, obtained at http://www.logia.org/mission-statement/ on 18 January 2017

[ii] Its noted I am not going to point out the commenter or the specific response to him, give the nature of this being a closed group, and honoring that discussion’s privacy.