Happy Valentines Day From the Knights

In case anybody didn't know Knights: Season 2 is up and running over at this little site. But that is not why I called this little meeting. The reason is that I would like to wish everybody a happy Valentines Day, Knights style.

English 104: Finals Edition

Here we have the final of the final papers, for my English class. This essay is an one thousand word minimum, compare and contrast essay, comparing and contrasting the various literary elements of Flannery O'Connor's "A Good Man Is Hard to Find" and "Good Country People". Both are excellent by the way and I highly recommend them.
Having already explained the requirements of the essay I now give you: The Essay

Nothingness and Redemption

Flannery O’Connor created two great works of art with the publishing of “A Good Man Is Hard to Find” and “Good Country People”. And within these two works of art she has a similar theme of the Salvation, or Redemption, of the protagonist in response to the evils committed by villains who have no belief. To present this theme she uses some similar elements of the two stories and some very different. Exploring the characters, conflicts and symbolism of the two stories this paper hopes to reveal perhaps some new level of understanding towards these two stellar works of literature.

On the surface the protagonists of the two stories, Hulga and the Grandmother don’t seem like very similar people, one is a Grandmother, a lady, as she calls herself, who looks back fondly (almost too fondly) on days gone when people were nicer and a good man was easier to find. On the other hand Hulga is rude, has a Doctorate in Philosophy, and loves the idea of nothing. There is not much similar in these two descriptions but they have a similarity not mentioned: Both characters are shallower than they believe. For all of her university training Hulga is not a true believer in nothing. She just knows words to say. This is shown by her shock in Manly’s change of behavior, from a simpleton and Bible salesman to someone who declares about the truth he sells, “I hope you don’t think I believe that crap! I may sell Bibles but I know which end is up and I wasn’t born yesterday and I know where I’m going!” leaving Hulga alone, “sitting on the straw in the dusty sunlight.” (O’Connor 1030). Similarly the Grandmother would like to think of herself as a good person, but it takes her encounter with The Misfit to really make her a good person. All throughout her encounter with The Misfit she begs and pleads not for the life of her family but for The Misfit to spare her life. Near the end of her life she cries, “You’ve got good blood! I know you wouldn’t shoot a lady! I’ll give you all the money I’ve got!” (O’Connor 1041). A key point of difference between these two characters is that the Grandmother’s transformation is described while the changes in Hulga’s life can only be assumed. But it is a sure thing that her life has to change after her experience in the barn with Manly.

The Misfit and Manly both act as catalysts for change in the lives of the protagonists but they have a key difference: Manly is not searching for anything except a good time. He is a firm believer in nothing. The Misfit on the other hand looks at his life and says, “It’s no real pleasure in life.” (O’Connor 1041). As for question of Jesus The Misfit seems to believe he exists but can’t decide if he did what the Bible says he did. This indecision even causes him great distress. As he says, “Jesus was the only one that ever raised the dead…and he shouldn’t have done it. He thrown everything off balance. If He did what he said, then it’s nothing for you to do but thow away everything and follow Him, and if He didn’t, then it’s nothing you can do but to enjoy the few minutes you got left the best you can by killing somebody or burning down his house or doing some other meanness to him. No pleasure but meanness.” (O’Connor 1041). But he can’t even enjoy his meanness no matter how many people he kills. Manly on the other hand cares not for Jesus in any way nor is he looking for a way to justify what he does. He may be a Bible salesman but he sure doesn’t believe what in what he sells.

Before a villain is ever encountered, conflicts arises between the protagonists of the stories and their families. Both Hulga and the Grandmother rub against their families like sandpaper, Hulga because of her ugly attitude and the Grandmother because of her constant griping, wishing for the good days. Both of these earlier conflicts could be described as the things that the protagonists need to be saved from. On a deeper level though, "A Good Man Is Hard to Find" and "Good Country People" share another conflict: both of their female protagonists come face to face with villains and the nothingness they believe in. In “A Good Man Is Hard to Find” the poor mixed up Grandmother’s encounter with The Misfit destroys her but in the end also brings her to repentance: “[The Misfit’s] voice seemed about to crack and the grandmother’s head cleared for an instant. She saw the man’s face twisted close to her own as if he were going to cry and she murmured, ‘Why you’re one of my babies. You’re one of my own children!’ She reached out and touched him on the shoulder.” (O’Connor 1041). She is immediately killed after this action but the change in her is clear. In “Good Country People” the conflict doesn’t lead to as dramatic of a change but Hulga’s encounter with Manly Pointer does change her. It changes her by Manly razing Hulga’s lofty intellectual ideas of nothing and showing what believing in nothing really looks like; he does this by being himself. In the end he declares to Hulga as he is leaving her stranded in the barn, “‘And I’ll tell you another thing Hulga,' he said, using the name as if he didn't think much of it, 'you ain’t so smart. I been believing in nothing ever since I was born!’” (O’Connor 1030).

The symbolism of these two encounters is very interesting especially considering Flannery O’Connor’s firm belief in God which cannot be excluded when analyzing her stories. It is intriguing when looking at the antagonists of the two stories, Manly Pointer and The Misfit, that in a very strange way despite their despicable ways, they act as saviors for the protagonists. In the case of Manly Pointer, he might believe in nothing, but he also removes Hulga’s ability to stand on her own faulty beliefs in nothing. As she says to Manly before he shows his true self, “We are all damned…But some of us have taken off our blindfolds and see that there is nothing to see. It’s a kind of salvation.” (O’Connor 1028). But it is only when Manly symbolically pulls off her blindfold by taking away her leg, and showing her real nothing that she can move on to a true salvation. The Misfit also serves as a Messiah for the Grandmother. The Misfit does this by forcing the Grandmother in the end to come to a place where she can see the world unselfishly and reach out in love. Also in the action it is possible that the saved might also be the savior. For it is only after the Grandmother calls him her own that he sees that, “It’s no real pleasure in life.” (O’Connor 1041). After being touched by someone who truly loved him, even if it was for just a moment, he can now never be the same. There is a symbol not dealing with salvation that is exclusive to “Good Country People” and that is Hulga’s false leg. Her leg might literally be her means of getting around after the accident that took away the real limb, but deeper than that, it is her crutch, something she can stabilize her life around. O’Connor describes Hulga’s attitude towards her leg as, “[S]he was as sensitive about the artificial leg as a peacock about his tail. No one ever touched it but her. She took care of it as someone else would his soul, in private and almost with her own eyes turned away.” (O’Connor 1028). Her leg was her stability and before her experience with Manly she was stable, stable in her intellectual superiority and her firm belief in nothing. She even smugly tells Manly, when he asks if she is saved, “In my economy…I’m saved and you are damned but I told you I didn’t believe in God.” (O’Connor 1026). But when Manly takes away her leg she shows that it was all a weak belief because she might say she believes in nothing but she expects others to behave like they say they do (Therefore a belief in something). Such as when Manly shows his true character she says angrily to him, “You’re a Christian! … You’re a fine Christian! You’re just like them all - say one thing and do another. You’re a perfect Christian, You’re…” (O’Connor 1029). It is in this encounter that Hulga finds out that to truly believe in nothing it will take away everything she holds dear.

“A Good Man Is Hard to Find” and “Good Country People” share similarities but they are not interchangeable. “A Good Man Is Hard to Find” focuses on the redemption of its leads, where “Good Country People” is more about the destructiveness of disbelief and the start towards redemption. But even with these differences “Good Country People” and “A Good Man Is Hard to Find” both serve as excellent parables of redemption and the emptiness of life that comes with a belief in nothing.

Works Cited

O’Connor, Flannery. “Good Country People.” The Story and Its Writer: An Introduction to Short Fiction. 7^th ed. Ed. Ann Charters. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007. 1016-1030.

O’Connor, Flannery. “A Good Man Is Hard to Find.” The Story and Its Writer: An Introduction to Short Fiction. 7^th ed. Ed. Ann Charters. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007. 1030- 1041.

History 101: Finals Edition

For this class I was supposed to write a book review on any book off of the pre-approved book list or find my own acceptable one. I chose the book list. On it I found a book called The Crusades Through Arab Eyes. It looked interesting so I chose it. Having the whole term to read the book and do the report I naturally waited until the last three or so weeks to really get going on the project. But I did manage to get it done in time and turned it in right before doing the final. The only qualifications were that it should be from about three to five pages and that I review the book and not just recap it.
Here it is.

The Crusades Through Arab Eyes: Life from the Other Side

In The Crusades Through Arab Eyes the author Amin Mallouf presents a history of the crusades from the time of the Frankish invasion of Palestine in the year 1096 on through to the end of Frankish occupation in the year 1291. Throughout this history Maalouf sets out to, in his own words, “To tell the story of the Crusades as they were seen, lived, and recorded on ‘the other side’ - in other words, in the Arab camp.” (xi). Maalouf carries out his task in a very compelling way. Maalouf’s narrative moves along nicely from event to event in the two hundred years of war with the Franks. His forward is brief and to the point, describing what he wishes to do with the book and sets up the main emphasis of the epilogue. In this forward he describes his philosophy, “Rather than offer yet another history book, I have sought to write, from a hitherto neglected point of view, what might be called the ‘true-life-novel’ of the Crusades, of those two centuries of turmoil that shaped the West and the Arab world alike, and that affect relations between them even today.” (Maalouf xi). And he does present the history more as a novel than a textbook although he does not forsake academic integrity, as seen when one of his sources gave the death toll of an Arab city in the hundreds of thousands, Maalouf interjects with, “Ibn al-Athir’s figures are obviously fantastic, for the city’s population at the time of its fall was probably less than ten thousand.” (Maalouf 39). Which brings up a very important part of the book: Maalouf consistently cites the accounts of Arab scholars or historians from the time of the Crusades. By doing this Maalouf gives the narrative an authentic tone and also by giving the reactions he presents some of the culture of the Arabs at the time. Within the text there are no footnotes, although at the end he goes chapter by chapter giving notes and sources for each chapter, if he uses an Arabic word he defines it within the narrative. Maalouf does not insert maps during the story but rather has one map at the very beginning of the book giving the political map of the Middle-East in the time of the Crusades and one at the end presenting the current political map of the Middle-East. Within the main body of the text, the background he gives on certain events is very interesting. Such as when to adequately describe one of the instances of the infighting that went on in the Arab camp he goes into the back story of the Assassins sect, the radical cult of devoted killers.

As his story begins, Maalouf opens with a prologue that is set three years after the start of the Crusades. And in this prologue he presents a kind of overview of much of what happens throughout the book. He presents the cries of the faithful of Islam, hoping for those in power to unleash justice on their invaders, and their disappointment when those leaders turn a deaf ear to their plea. Perhaps most importantly he introduces one of his many contemporary sources. For it is after he does this that he proceeds to go back three years to where it all began.

As chapter one begins Maalouf opens with a quote by the chronicler from the prologue. In this quote Maalouf foreshadows much of the first chapters, namely the trickle of terror that starts to run through the land of the Arabs as the Crusaders enter their territory. From that point on he moves sequentially through the entire occupation of the Holy Land by the Crusaders. The perspective he gives for the Crusades is very interesting partly because of the sources he uses and how he presents them. For instead of taking in all of his research and paraphrasing it all, he instead lets the people of the times speak for themselves much of the time. This does not mean that he does not have his own words for what is going on throughout the book but he will first let the witnesses of the events speak for themselves, then he will go about interpreting the information given. This way of presenting his information is very satisfying and vital for his main objective of giving the perspective of, “The other side” (Maalouf xi).

While he is not hesitant to show the faults of the Crusading armies (and there were many to be sure) he also is willing to bring into the light the flaws of the Middle-Eastern armies, such as the wars of succession that followed the death of nearly every leader mentioned throughout the book. Maalouf does have a sort of bias in favor of the Arabs throughout the account though, but it is not without reason. It is very difficult to not feel sympathy for the invaded peoples for they were so advanced in almost every way over the Crusaders, only to be invaded by an army brutal enough to, in one instance Maalouf cites, describing the Crusaders, the self proclaimed ‘defenders of Christendom, fighting even with the “Christian” empire of Byzantium, “All the Rum [Byzantines] were killed or despoiled… some of their notables, pursued by the Franj, attempted to seek refuge in the great church they call Sophia. A group of priests and monks came out … begging the attackers to spare their lives, but the Franj paid no heed to their entreaties. They massacred them all and plundered the church.” Maalouf (221, 222). It is these instances when his bias can seem very justifiable.

In conclusion, the book is well written though sometimes I would get lost for a couple pages, not clearly seeing what was going on in the narrative. This usually came about due to the many different names presented to me that with which I was not familiar. So the fault is not really the authors. Aside from this though, his book is an insightful look on events that should be taken into account even today when considering the affairs of the Middle-East. He even mentions this in his epilogue, in which he spends much of its time talking about the effects the Crusades had on both East and West and the differences between the two societies. He ends the epilogue with the dramatic phrase, “And there can be no doubt that the schism between these two worlds dates from the Crusades, deeply felt by the Arabs, even today, as an act of rape.” (Maalouf 266). And that is one of history’s purposes as a science is it not? To better understand the events of today through the lens of the past.

Works Cited

Maalouf, Amin. The Crusades through Arab Eyes. New York: Schocken Books, 1984

Writing 121: Finals Edition

So here we have it. The first of my three final papers that I had to turn in. I was going to edit it according to my teachers suggestions but I haven't. It was positive overall so an edit wouldn't do too much, just help the readability and flow a little more.
This paper is a research paper that was supposed to deal with identity and force or in other words, humans and conflict. Regardless I chose to do my paper, after much conflict and mind changing, on the country of Slovakia and the effects that communism had on it. The length requirement was five pages and it was supposed to draw on at least three academic articles and two full length texts. You would not belive how few articles there are on the effects of communism on Slovakia or even eastern Europe in general. Nonetheless I finished it at five a.m. on the morning it was due and turned it in at ten a.m.
So without further ado I present to you my essay.

Slovakia & Communism

In 1939 Slovakia was a peaceful, pristine country composed of approximately 50% agrarian economy. By 1993 Slovakia was a country full of factories high-rise apartments, densely packed cities and an economy centered on industry. What happened in the intervening 54 years that brought such dramatic change to this small central European nation? It is my intent to show in this paper that the changes in Slovakia were a direct result of the communist regime. In this paper I will use periodicals, books and journals to present a short history of Slovakia, a brief description of typical communist practices, in demonstrate the impact communism had on the Slovak nation and people.

If Slovakia’s history could be summed up into one phrase it could very well be the history of a people conquered by those around them. From the early middle-ages through 1918 Slovakia was ruled by the Magyar (or Hungarian) empire, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

A truly Slovak history begins with the formation of the Greater Moravian Empire during the year 833. In his book, A History of Slovakia: The Struggle for Survival, Stanislav Kirschbaum describes Moravia’s short but violent history this way, “In oral Slovak tradition, its existence takes precedence over its short history; expressed in another way, this means that the Slovaks remember that they had a state in the ninth century but they hardly know its history” (Kirschbaum 26). The Empire of Great Moravia lasted for only seventy-four years but was able to give Slovakia a start point for a formal history and the formation of a national identity. The end of the Moravian empire in 907 came about at the hands of the Magyars and Kirschbaum points out that, “The history of the Slovaks after the fall of Great Moravia became interlocked until the twentieth century in the history of the Hungarian state.” (Kirschbaum 38). Tied to the history of Hungary for over a thousand years Slovakia was still able to develop its own language and culture. During this time the Magyars fell to the Austrian Empire which eventually made way for the combined monarchy of Austro-Hungary. After the end of World War I in 1918 the Allied powers divided the territory of the defeated powers and one of those powers was the Austro-Hungarian Empire which was the current ruler of Slovakia. The fallen empire was divided into several smaller states according to the treaty of Versailles and one of those states was the country of Czechoslovakia: a country made up of what is now the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Within Czechoslovakia the Slovak portion was given the short end of the stick. The policies of the government heavily favored the Czech role in the country. Necessary improvements were made in Slovakia and it was brought further along in modernization but in comparison to the state funds spent on Czech lands it is plain to see that there was a certain amount of favoritism on the Czech part. As Europe was tensing during Hitler’s pre war years Czechoslovakia was not forgotten. A primarily German region of Czechoslovakia called Sudentenland was annexed by Nazi Germany. Fearing that the state, not able even to protect itself, would not be able to protect Slovak interests, Slovakia seceded from Czechoslovakia. (Kirschbaum 180) Slovakia’s independence that started in 1939 was brief and illusionary for it was really no more than a puppet state of the Third Reich. As H. L. Agnew puts it, “Slovak independence, declared on 14 March 1939, was probably accepted if not welcomed by the great majority of Slovaks. … Nevertheless, the achievement of independent statehood for Slovakia came with strings attached: the course of the war ran against Hitler, [and] German relations with the new Slovakia amounted to a form of protectorate…” (Agnew 628, 627). In 1945 the war ended and Slovakia was reinstated into Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia after the war enjoyed democracy for only a brief time for in 1948 the country of Czechoslovakia was taken over from within by the Communist party of Czechoslovakia that instituted a Stalinist type regime. The communist takeover was nothing less than a coup; though some of the socialist leaders were elected into power democratically those elected quickly took control over the rest of the government and instituted a Stalinesque communist state. Under the communist regime every aspect of the life of a Slovak was altered social, economic, political, religious and national.

The social aspect of life in Slovakia was changed by the centralization of people, pulling them off of farms and putting them to work in the city. Those that remained on the farms were required to join large, state owned, collective farms (although not everybody did so). Apart from this there was also censorship of the press and the arts. All forms of media had to fit with the communist ideal or else they were not allowed. In a series of interviews with Czechs who lived during communism Megan Stride posed the question of journalistic integrity in the face of censorship, here is part of the answer: “Even the "best" newspapers and magazines were propagandistic, [Tomas] Nemecek says. “As a profession, journalism was seen as generally discredited and unfavorable." (Stride 34). Propaganda didn’t just come from news sources it also came from the many sculptures erected in praise of communist leaders such as Lenin or Stalin. Schools were also taken over and changed. All textbooks were modified to fit with the socialist world view every subject from history to science was used as another form of propaganda. Human rights were also neglected; the rights of the individual were placed second to the greater good of the collective. Slovakia and the Slovaks points out the capriciousness of the system, “Many were imprisoned simply because they had alienated someone in power.” (Slovakia and the Slovaks 578).

Also there were some major overhauls of the economy of Slovakia. Up to 1948 Slovakia had been involved in industry but after the communist takeover the regime threw everything it had into making industry the cornerstone of the Slovak economy. Slovak heavy industry boomed. Slovakia and the Slovaks reports that, “Between 1948 and 1989 industrial production increased by 3,251%. In 1963 Slovak industry produced more than that of the whole of Czecho-Slovakia in 1937.” (Slovakia and the Slovaks 578). The statistics do not present the whole situation of the economy of Slovakia and how communism affected it. Factories employed more workers than necessary, wages were low, and even common household necessities were not always available.

The government of Czechoslovakia was run independently of the Kremlin, holding single party elections for the national parliament. But the Kremlin held enormous sway over the goings on of Czechoslovakia, as seen in the Prague Spring of 1968. The Prague Spring was a series of reforms led by the Communist party leader (the highest power in the Czechoslovak government) Alexander Dubcek. These reforms were an attempt to create "Socialism with a human face". Some of the reforms instated by Dubcek were, in the words of John C. McGinn: “Censorship and other restrictions on freedom of the press were allowed to lapse. Political figures sentenced during the show trials in the 1950s were rehabilitated” (McGinn 114). The reforms according to the encyclopedia, Slovakia and the Slovaks, were, “…unparalleled in the history of socialist countries until that time” (578). The reforms were also soundly halted. Fearing that Czechoslovakia was becoming too liberal the Soviet Union and several other Warsaw Pact countries invaded Czechoslovakia, put an end to the reforms, and removed Dubcek from power. The Soviet military would not leave Czechoslovakia until 1990. Before the invasion though, Dubcek put in motion a bill to federalize Czechoslovakia that was realized on January 1^st 1969. Federalization was supposed to allow for greater autonomy of the Slovak nation but in actuality the normalization government put in place by the Soviets after they removed Dubcek nullified much of the power granted to Slovakia in the bill.

In Slovakia dissension towards the communist government was neither very organized nor vocal for the greater part of the time the communists were in power. Protests were usually conducted on the private level: Refusal to join a collective farm, minor sabotage of state equipment and occasional strikes. Overall protest took a more gentle form: That of showing religious devotion in the face of a fiercely atheistic government. Why would religion play a role in protesting the regime?

There was a great amount of religious persecution perpetrated by the regime in the predominantly Roman Catholic Slovakia. Religion was seen as an enemy of the regime and therefore was not tolerated by the ruling government. During its most oppressive phase, the early 1950s, the government, took the liberty of shutting down monasteries, convents and other religious organizations. It also proceeded to imprison priests and even denied children of the imprisoned access to a secondary education. Even when the outright persecution slowed considerably in 1953, oppressive laws were placed on churches restricting what could be done within the church walls and there was an outright ban on religious activities outside of church buildings. Despite these measures, the church continued to carry out its programs, albeit in secret. Not all churches were so rebellious though. The government did allow churches to operate if the church and its priest were registered with the government, which in essence meant that said church would have to toe the communist party line and the priest would be in the employ of the government.

The church in Slovakia however, would never be silenced and would later play a key role in the final deconstruction of the communist government. As Kirschbaum writes, “Historically a religious people, the Slovaks turned to the practice of their faith as a way of showing their opposition.” (Kirschbaum 248). During the late seventies and all throughout the eighties unrest and dissension was becoming more and more commonplace, and the church, particularly the Roman Catholic majority, had its own unique way of making itself heard. As opposed to the Czech protests that took its most dramatic form in the human rights plea Charter 77, Slovaks instead protested by participating in mass pilgrimages to holy shrines within Slovakia. The two largest of these pilgrimages took place in the towns of Levoca and Sastin, bringing together an estimated combined total of 200,000 people. Another significant demonstration was the Candlelight Demonstration of 1988 in the capital of Bratislava. About 2,000 people participated in the peaceful demonstration that was put down savagely by the regime. As outrage concerning this and other human rights infringements grew throughout the country, demonstrations become more and more commonplace culminating in the month of November 1989. Starting on the 17^th of November protests were carried out in all of the main squares and thousands went on strike. These pressures provided the catalyst for the demolition of the Czechoslovak communist government.

In June 1990 Czechoslovakia held its first true elections in forty-two years. Due to disagreements in the subsequent two years on how to handle the federation of the two halves of Czechoslovakia, the national parliament of the two countries decided that the best option was to “divorce” the two countries and on January 1^st 1993 Slovakia officially became an independent country. But what scars or improvements did the communist regime leave behind in the young countries not so distant past? Communism’s scars could be seen in the environment of the country polluted by the industrial boom, a high unemployment rate, a near vacuum of any major cultural achievements, and an economy that needed to be reorganized from the ground up. Did communism have any positive effects on the nation or the people of Slovakia? It helped to modernize the country, but that process had already been started before the coup happened. This country full of mountains and high-rises has forever been changed by the totalitarian communist regime that once ruled it only a short time ago.

Works Cited

Agnew, Hugh Lecaine. "NEW STATES, OLD IDENTITIES? THE CZECH REPUBLIC, SLOVAKIA, AND HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF STATEHOOD." Nationalities Papers 28.4 (Dec. 2000): 619-650. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Portland Community Coll. Lib., Portland, OR. 4 December 2007. <http://0- search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5440681&si te=ehost-live>.

Encyclopedical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences. Slovakia and the Slovaks. Bratislava: Goldpress, 1994

Kirschbaum, Stanislav J. A History of Slovakia: the Struggle for Survival. 2^nd ed. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005.

McGinn, John G. "The Politics of Collective Inaction: NATO's Response to the Prague Spring." Journal of Cold War Studies 1.3 (Fall 1999): 111-138. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Portland Community Coll. Lib., Portland, OR. 8 December 2007. <http://0- search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6934208&si te=ehost-live>.

Stride, Megan. "EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT COMMUNISM, BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK." New Presence: The Prague Journal of Central European Affairs 9.2 (Summer 2007): 31-35. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Portland Community Coll. Lib., Portland, OR. 10 December 2007. <http://0- search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25954154&s ite=ehost-live>.