...save the planet. Iowa Hawk has some swell ideas. He cracks me up!

Above all else, DON'T PANIC!!!

Susan

Ten Things You Can Do To Save The Planet
An Iowahawk Action Alert-o-Gram™
by David Burge

Nearly ten years after the Kyoto accords, our planet continues to careen helplessly toward certain environmental destruction. The skies are choked with pollutants. Polar bears are plunging through the thinning ice caps. Ben Affleck is still having problems finding a decent comeback project.

Thankfully, with the new release of Al Gore's blockbuster eco-documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," the world is finally heeding the disaster looming on the horizon. But mere consciousness is not enough to cure our current climate ills - it takes action. Here are a few simple things you to put the planet on the road to recovery.

1. Turn off faucets when not in use. While a single dripping faucet may not seem to be much of an environmental hazzard, the numbers really begin to add up when you're hosting a Sierra Club fundraising party for Laurie David and all 10 of your bathrooms are in use. Have your domestic staff check to make sure that electonic sink sensors are working properly, and use other water conservation methods such as installing low-flow bidets. Remember to remind your guests: "If it's yellow, let it mellow."

2. Upgrade to a new Gulfstream G550. Next time you take off for Cannes or Sundance or that big Environmental Defense Fund gala, stop and think how much fuel that clunky old G450 is using. Not only does the new G550 have 10.8% better fuel efficiency, it's quieter, has real burled walnut, and with a maximum cruising speed of Mach 0.885 you'll never be late for the Palm d'Or ceremony!

3. Crush a Third World economic development movement. One of the most pressing threats facing our environment is rising incomes in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Only a generation ago, these proud dark people were happily frolicking in the rain forest, foraging for organic foods amid the wonders of nature. Now, corrupted by wealth, they are demanding environmentally hazardous consumer goods like cars and air conditioning and malaria medicine. You can do your part to stop this dangerous consumer trend by supporting environmentally aware leaders like Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro to foster an economy of sustainable low-impact ecolabor camps.

4. Don't Have Babies. Many people are shocked when they learn that fewer than 25% of the Screen Actors Guild and Directors Guild have been spayed or neutered. Sure, babies make great fashion accessories and it's fun to give them awesome names, like Kumquat Wildebeest Paltrow and Toploader Enchilada Cage. But these miniature humans will eventually grow and begin ravenously consuming the Earth's depleted reserves of aux pairs and psychotherapists.

5. Alternative fuel motorcades. Let's face it: whether you are on an international press junket or going to an awards banquet, motorcades are a way of life. But this doesn't mean you can't make your red carpet entrance in an eco-friendly way. When possible, tell your publicity team to request a electric, hybrid, or E-85 stretch limo for you and your entourage. Later, when you are vomiting outside the Viper Club, encourage the paparazzi to share the photos to conserve high energy use camera flash pods.

6. Go on a random killing spree. If science has taught us anything, it is that human beings are the root cause of our current environmental mess, and it's high time that we address these two-legged eco problems head on. Next time you're on your way to a location shoot, do a little shooting of your own - have the driver lower the tinted windows and pop a few caps on behalf of Mother Earth. Not only will you be doing the environment a good turn, it will earn you valuable youth market "street cred."

7. "Green begins at home." Whether you live in East Hampton or Topanga Canyon, there are dozens of little things you can do around your compound to minimize harm to the environment. For instance, have your groundskeeping staff lower the water levels in your koi ponds, and turn off your energy-wasting security cameras between 1 AM and 7 AM. If you own a summer ranch in Montana, send an email to the trail boss and tell him/her to add Beano to your cattle herd's feed to reduce ozone-depleting methane emissions.

8. Phase out the entertainment industry by 2011. If there is one sector of our economy that typifies America's obscene energy waste, it is the entertainment industry. Every year untold gigawatts are consumed to power studio kleig lights, theater projectors, popcorn machines, and multi-city concert tours, with no discernable benefit to society. With your help, this destructive drag on our environment can be reversed within five years. Do your part by pledging to greenlight only those films that have recycled or incomprehensible story lines, and by signing preachy and unlistenable musical acts. By purging the entertainment market of its dangerous popular appeal, you will be reducing the public's desire to make wasteful and expensive SUVs trips to their local concert halls, cineplexes and video stores.

9. Commit suicide. As an eco-aware, planetary resource parasite, you will eventually want to kill yourself to spare the environment any further damage that your personal existence has already caused. However, it is important that you plan your suicide carefully as not to disturb the ecosystem's delicate balance. Self immolation, while poignant, can release up to 50 kg of airborne fluorocarbons. Why not try the the hot new Malibu trend, ritual Japanese sepukku? it's exotic, elegant, and your intact corpse will make a great compost pile addition.

10. Support eco-friendly organizations and political candidates. Finally, you can make a major impact for environmental good through community legislative action. Like it or not, getting Washington to take action on environmental issues requires intensive lobbying and the election of eco-thinking representatives, and this takes money. There are literally hundreds of worthy environmentalist organizations and candidates out there, and the choices can be confusing. Fortunately, I have taken the work out of this for you. Before you do #9, make a legacy of your commitment to eco-action: send me a bundled contribution via PayPal to my email address, and I will see to it that it gets to the right place. Together, we can make a difference!

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Jordan .

Al Gore pushing junk science and a biased report (big surprise)from the AP.

U S Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Contact:  MARC MORANO 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY 202-224-9797

AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE

Yeah, I really take umbrage to things like this film and people like Al Gore (folks who influence by scaring the sh*t outta others) because it has a very negative effect that is the polar opposite of the kneejerk "OMG THE WORLD IS ENDING!" many folks have to the film. So instead of having people taking more of an interest in the science of our environment and how humans have affected it over the last century, they instantly discount any mention of global warming, ozone depletion, endangered species...as total bullsh*t. All this movie has done is work to propagate a lot of really ill-informed opinions.

Then again, I don't know why anyone is surprised that the movie was more propaganda than fact. Science doesn't make big-screen blockbusters. Anyone who watched the film and gobbled it up as fact probably also thinks that Michael Moore is a brilliant truth-teller. They frighten me as much as the ultra-conservatives do.

~ Amanda

"Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your slave..."

Keep your eye on the doughnut, not on the hole -- DL

Jordan .

~ Amanda

"Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your slave..."

From what I've been reading, there's only a couple of handful of scientists that are quoted over and over again as if that's the imperical truth.

The problem with environmental science is that it's an extremely new science (compared to other sciences). there's no way to truly prove some things that are stated because we don't have hard evidence of what the temperature (or anythign else) was like 500 years ago. We can look back at layers of earth and animals and human remains to help determine some things but it's still not 100%. a lot of it is theory and huge assumptions.

I still remember in 4th grade hearing that by the end of the century something horrible would happen with the environment fi we didn't recycle. If memory serves me right, in the 70s the gloom and doom was that we were heading for a new ice age. In the 80s it was all about a huge warm-up and how the deserts were going to get bigger. In the 90s it was just about clean air and the importance of breathing good clean air. Now it's reverting back to a combination of a warm-up and freeze-up (depending on where you live) combined with the supposed worsening of storms. If New Orleans hadn't flooded because of man-made mistakes would we be saying that Katrina was so bad because of the environment? i doubt it - I think many are using Katrina falsely to push their own agenda. If I remember right, the two worst hurricanes (in speed and size) hit Texas shores - one in 1900 hit Galveston, and the other was Hurricane Elisha in the 80s which I personally went through. There might have been another in the 60s that was pretty bad.

The top US hurricane expert doesn't even agree with current environment science and this whole hurricane increase because of the environemnt. A few months ago when the midwest entered tornoado season, we had an early bad storm with a tornado or two. The next day the radio and others were talking about  how it was going to be bad tornado season and they kept talking about Katrina and hurricanes and how the bad environemnt is causing this, etc. Since then we've not had a single tornado in our area and the storms have actually been very mild. So my rhetorical question is "So which is it?"

so far this year, we've had a very mild summer. We were in the 80s last week, but we're going to be hitting the 90s through the July 4th weekend. It's gonna be hot!! We're also a foot behind in water (too bad that rain in the East didn't stop off here first).  

there's no doubt that pollution is not good for the Earth or humans, but I sure do question environmental science. Talk about politics of fear! :)  

Jordan .

"Not much scares me more than admitted ultra-conservatives. They are predictable: their motives are pretty much self-serving & everyone else be damned."

LOL!!!! Yeah, whatever. Do you honesty believe that ultra-liberals cannot be described the same way and are just as predictable?

This movie has NOT opened up anymore discussion than previously. What has opened up discussion is the increase in oil prices.

Jordan .

A comparison of John Kerry and Geoge W. Bush income and charitable gifts:

Kerry's returns from 1995 and earlier, before his marriage to Heinz, have sometimes attracted criticism over the issue of charitable giving. In 1995, according to published reports, Kerry reported a taxable income of $126,179, and charitable contributions of $0. In 1994, he reported income of $127,884, and charitable donations of $2,039. In 1993, he reported income of $130,345, and contributions of $175. In 1992, he reported income of $127,646, and contributions of $820. In 1991, he reported income of $113,857, and contributions of $0.

As far as Bush is concerned, in 1991, the future president, then a private citizen, reportedly had income of $179,591, and charitable contributions of $28,236. In 1992, Bush reported income of $212.313, and contributions of $31,914. In 1993, Bush reported income of $610,772, and contributions of $31,292. In 1994, Bush reported income of $474,937 and in 1995, income of $419,481. Published reports at that time did not list Bush's charitable contributions for those two years.

After a search I went to a couple Michael Moore friendly sites that discussed his charitable gifts. They mentioned $25,000. to the Amer. Library Assoc. $15,000  in scholarships to anti administration students and $80. to a political candidate. He also started a Fund to benefit Flynt , Michigan, but did not give his actual contribution. In his "Roger and Me" movie he provided that some receipts would go towards buying houses for the displaced workers appearing in his film, so I guess he gets some credit for that. That is all they mentioned, it could be incomplete? 

I found no information for the others mentioned in a search.

 

Well, if you believe that then I'm sorry. Just becuase liberal means giving and open-minded doesn't mean that a liberal is just that. In fact, sometimes it's completely the opposite. But that's different than what you said about ultra-conservatives being predictable, self-serving and "everyone else be damned". Granted maybe in your mind that might be about giving, but this thread wasn't about charities. However if you want t ogo that route....

Not only did Raymond do a good job up there, and I know that Sean Hannity gives to charities (he's done it live on the show, and puts together charities regularly for military families).

But I found this interesting little scientific study from the Washington Post lately:

Are Republicans stingy but principled while Democrats are generous but racist?

"I wouldn't put it quite so starkly," said Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar. He would prefer to call Democrats "less principled" rather than bigoted, based on his analysis of data collected in a recent online experiment that he conducted with The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com.

As reported in this column a few weeks ago, the study found that people were less likely to give extended aid to black Hurricane Katrina victims than to white ones. The race penalty, on average, totaled about $1,000 per black victim.

As Iyengar and his colleagues subsequently dug deeper into these data, another finding emerged: Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race. (Jordan's Note: this may prove your point, BUT....)

Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.

But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."

To test the effects of race, participants in the study were asked to read a news article about Katrina victims. Some read a story featuring a white person. Some read identical stories -- except the victim was black, Asian or Hispanic. Then they were asked how much assistance they think the government should give to help hurricane victims. Approximately 2,300 people participated in the study.

Iyengar said he's not surprised by the latest findings: "This pattern of results matches perfectly an earlier study I did on race and crime" with Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. of UCLA. "Republicans supported tough treatment of criminals no matter what they encountered in the news. Others were more elastic in their position, coming to support more harsh measures when the criminal suspect they encountered was non-white."

Now back to your original statement - ultra-liberals can just be as self-serving and predictable and "everyone else be damned" (look at environmentalists who make people lose their jobs in order to save a bug - talk about everyone being damned - or at least losing their job). And let's not talk about lefty politicians who are ALL self-serving, just like right ones.

Jordan .

Hey Candyman... isn't that for another thread. You are a great guy, Candy!! It's always fun when Candy is around.

Candy I went to the dentist last week and he had Charley Parker piped into the room. Very nice.

"Haliburton..."

TYSON FOODS... 

Jordan .

So am I, CCC.

Speaking of teh evil Haliburton - did you know the Clinton administration used Hallilburton in the 90s?  In fact, Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch said in 2003: "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'"

Jordan .

I agree, conservatives are anything but predictable these days. They waste money like crazy on government spending when they used to be for balancing the budget and cutting spending. They want to intrude into the personal lives of citizens when they used to fight to keep government out of our lives and now they are promoting big federal government when they used to always stand for less federal power and giving the local and state more authority.

As for charity, what Kerry or Bush gave is nothing compared to all the millions in campaign contributions each side recieves. I wish some of that would go to charity. I think I even remember a time conservatives believed in campaign finance reform. I guess I still have fond memories of the good ole days of conservative beliefs.

R_Flagg

When did conservaties believe in campaign finance reform? Maybe they changed their minds when the definition of campaign finance reform turned into "taxpayer financed elections."

In any case, back on topic regarding our friend Bear-Man-Pig, I mean Al Gore. Nice editorial from the WSJ written by...wait for it...wait for it....a professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT (obviously a profession Al Gore didn't invent):

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597 

Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.

BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m.

According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.

Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.

The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know." (Jordan's Note -strange, I thought they did know)

So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.

The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia--mosquitoes don't require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the profession.

Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else. (Jordan's Note - oh that's too funny....it must be aliens ebcause I can't think of anything else!) While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. (Fear-mongering by a leftie? No....tell me it ain't so....) Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.

A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.

Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. (Someone should call Gore) Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.

The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument--e.g., we can't think of an alternative--to support human attribution. But the "summary for policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." Well, no.

More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.

Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed." What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

First, nonscientists (that would be Al Gore unless he invented himself a PHD in science) generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. 

Jordan .

quote - '(obviously a profession Al Gore didn't invent)'

where did this whole Al Gore inventing things come from? i missed the joke

Kelly

How Do You Live Your Dash?

Check out the Kids' blogs:
The CaleBlog and the Zoe Blog

Here's the exact quote from Gore:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

This was during an interview with Wolf Blitzer back in '99 when Gore had thrown his hat in the ring for the 2000 presidential race. I'm not sure if he said it prior to that, but that's the first I remember ever hearing about it.

Just Google up "Al Gore claims to invent the internet" and you'll find a bajillion sources.

~ Amanda

"Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your slave..."

And at one point Al Gore said he and Tipper were the inspirations for the novel Love Story but that may be a bigger media exaggeration than the Internet comment esp when you can't really pinpoint a day in history in which the Internet was "created" because there's no such date.

Jordan .

I had a thought while I was relaxing on the beach these past days. I may have even had more than one. Who can remember? But the thought I remembered was wishing I'd be alive in 50 years or so when "An Inconvenient Truth" is a cult film on the order of "Reefer Madness" and university students gather at the quad to watch 50 year retrospectives of this hilarious film by a man who ALMOST (PHEW!) became the President of the United States of America in the early 21st century. Who? Algore, that's who. 

Yeah, you know what happened to him?  He got more popular votes and STILL lost the election.  A virtual Rutherford B Hayes.  The Supreme Court, etc.  Will that be on the exam.  No but you've GOT to see this movie!   

Then I took another sip from my frozen Margarita.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Going back to the 8th post of this thread by me - here's a link that says there have been NO confirmed sightings of tornadoes in Nebraska nor Kansas in the first 6 months of this year. This hasn't happened for 50 years!!!!

So what does that mean? If global warming causes an increase in the number and strength of hurricanes, then wouldn't it alos increase the size and strength of tornaodes? It would seem logical, right? Or is it just a fluke? Or maybe it's global cooling?

Boy, I'm confused.

Susan - did you enjoy your margarita this weekend?  

Jordan .