Sonia Sotomayor - Racist?

[Winstonm]

Obamam's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, wrote a speech a few years back in which she made this statement:

 

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

 

Here is an explanation of the speech:

 

Sotomayor delivered that sentence during a five-page speech at a symposium entitled “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.” The speech was regarding how issues of gender and race can be addressed by judges.

 

I found the statement in the context of the speech refreshingly honest - we all are influenced by our biases - and to be aware and acknowledge that bias is all anyone can ask of another person.

 

On the other hand, Rush Limbaugh - the public voice of the right-wing - flat out called Sotomayor "racist" for her comment, and compared her to David Duke (KKK associate).

 

Newt Gingrich also labeled Sotomayor a "racist".

 

I am more and more of the opinion that if the GOP continues down the path of supporting spokespersons as obviously biased, disingenuous, and shrill as Limbaugh and Gingrich that the party will become so marginalized as to be a punchline to a bad joke - ineffective - and ultimately replaced by a more sober and moderate party.

 

Comments?

[hrothgar]

You don't ask flat earthers for their opinion regarding questions of science.

 

In a similar vein, why should any care about the opinions of Limbaugh or Gingrich regarding public policy?

[helene_t]

I voted no. Contrary to so much other neocon BS that gets quoted on this forum, those comments are actually close to making sort of sense.

[hrothgar]

I voted no. Contrary to so many other neocon BS that gets quoted on this forum, these comment are actually close to making sort of sense.

Have you bothered to look at the complete speech?

 

Have you contrasted Sotomayor's comments with very similar ones made by Alito and Thomas during their hearings?

 

Limbaugh and Gingrinch are raising a tempest in a teapot because it will make them money. They'd behave the same regardless who Obama nominated.

[helene_t]

Have you bothered to look at the complete speech?

No. (But neither have most of those considering supporting the republicans, so as far as they are concerned, she might actually be a racist. Hence my "no" vote).

[Lobowolf]

I don't think anyone's criticism of her is going to hurt the Republican party. I agree with Helene that there are certainly more ridiculous things said in the name of partisanship, on a daily basis.

 

As for "racist," who knows? One isolated sentence taken independent of context. I guess the first question would be: What does "would hope" mean? That she wants it to be true, or that she believes it to be true? Also, my understanding is that she was speaking to La Raza members, or at a La Raza gathering, so there's probably some preaching to the choir going on.

 

"I would hope that a wise person of my race and gender would usually do better than someone not of my race and gender" doesn't sound remotely like "We should all be aware of our biases" to me.

 

It's interesting that her comment is both race and gender related, but the discussion is focusing on whether she's racist, not sexist.

[Lobowolf]

Limbaugh and Gingrinch are raising a tempest in a teapot because it will make them money. They'd behave the same regardless who Obama nominated.

Of course they would. Similarly, Thomas and Alito receive(d) criticism from the usual suspects on the opposite side of the aisle.

[Lobowolf]

If anything makes her detractors look bad, btw, it's emphasizing how "60% of her decisions are reversed." That whole line of discussion is moronic. She writes hundreds of decisions that either don't get appealed, or don't get heard by the Supreme Court. "60%," looking at only the FIVE decisions that were actually heard by the Supreme Court, is completely meaningless.

[Winstonm]

Limbaugh and Gingrinch are raising a tempest in a teapot because it will make them money.  They'd behave the same regardless who Obama nominated.

Of course they would. Similarly, Thomas and Alito receive(d) criticism from the usual suspects on the opposite side of the aisle.

I agree. (Think that's a record - up to 4 now.) The question in my mind is how to get past the reality of political partisanship, or is the caustic division due to the ignorance of "we the people"?

 

Are we nothing more than a nation of sound bytes and sidebars?

[PassedOut]

If anything makes her detractors look bad, btw, it's emphasizing how "60% of her decisions are reversed." That whole line of discussion is moronic. She writes hundreds of decisions that either don't get appealed, or don't get heard by the Supreme Court. "60%," looking at only the FIVE decisions that were actually heard by the Supreme Court, is completely meaningless.

Yes, the other stuff is completely expected and predictable from both sides, but this line of argument really surprised me for its stupidity. And I'm not easily surprised in that regard.

[hanp]

I think 95% of voters do not pay any attention to such questions. Most of those who do will immediately side with the party they were already backing. Republican supporters will read the Limbaugh comment and think it looks racist, and not look further. Democratic supporters will take notice that the quote may be taken out of context and immediately accept that it is. If the situation were the other way around it would be exactly the same.

 

The few objective readers who are capable of forming their own opinion cannot be charmed by either party and its politics. (of course they can prefer one party over the other, that is somethiing else)

[hanp]

In other words, I voted no.

[awm]

This line of attack on Sotomayor seems dumb. Reading the entire speech to put the quote in context, it's not really a racist statement. In fact other supreme court judges have made similar statements.

 

On the other hand, buried under the vitriol about one particular quote taken out of context, I think there is some room for discussion about her actual decisions. The recent decision about the New Haven firemen seemed very dubious, especially given her previous record on discrimination related cases. There's some concern that she seems very quick to rule "discrimination" but very reluctant to rule "reverse discrimination." Of course, this is based on just a couple cases and I'd be interested to hear what she has to say about the issue (are the standards of proof very different for these two things in her opinion?)

 

Of course, the Republican party is probably not in as much trouble as the last presidential election indicated (the election was in many ways a referendum on the very unpopular President Bush, and even so it appeared close until the economy fell apart) but alienating Hispanic voters is not a good idea (they are a very fast-growing demographic which was critical to Bush's success in 2000 and 2004). Between "racist" attacks on Sotomayor and the new-found party unity on immigration policy (which neither Bush nor McCain shared prior to '08) the Republicans do seem to be moving in a xenophobic (and anti-Hispanic) direction.

[hrothgar]

On the other hand, buried under the vitriol about one particular quote taken out of context, I think there is some room for discussion about her actual decisions. The recent decision about the New Haven firemen seemed very dubious, especially given her previous record on discrimination related cases. There's some concern that she seems very quick to rule "discrimination" but very reluctant to rule "reverse discrimination." Of course, this is based on just a couple cases and I'd be interested to hear what she has to say about the issue (are the standards of proof very different for these two things in her opinion?)

Once again, I'll ask whether you have done any background reading on this topic or, alternatively whether you are just relying on the rather superficial analysis that we've been hearing on the television

 

The following site had a lot of very good information.

 

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=...tefano%2C_et_al.

 

The trial court decision - the one that the three member Circuit Court unanimously agreed to up hold can be found here -

 

http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/uploads...e/ricciusdc.pdf

 

The most significant part of the trial court decision is probably the following passage which (effectively) ties the trial court's hands. There is a LOT of precedence on these sorts of cases and - unless you're in favor of "activist judges" ignoring little niceties like stare decisis trial judges need to follow precedence.

 

a. Existence of Racially Disparate Impact

Although the parties dispute the exact racial breakdown of

candidates passing the Captain’s test, plaintiffs do not dispute 7

that the results showed a racially adverse impact on African-

American candidates for both the Lieutenant and Captain

positions, as judged by the EEOC Guidelines. Pl. L.R. 56 Stmt. ¶

246; Def. L.R. 56 Stmt. ¶ 246. Thus, it is necessarily

undisputed that, had minority firefighters challenged the results

of the examinations, the City would have been in a position of

defending tests that, under applicable Guidelines, presumptively

had a disparate racial impact.

Specifically, the EEOC “four-fifths rule” provides that a

selection tool that yields “[a] selection rate for any race, sex,

or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty

percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will

generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as

evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate

24

will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as

evidence of adverse impact.” 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(D).

Here, the evidence shows that on the 2003 Lieutenant’s exam

the pass rate for whites was 60.5%, for African-Americans 31.6%

and Hispanics 20%. The four-fifths score would be 48%. In other

words, African-Americans had a pass rate that was about half the

pass rate for Caucasians, yielding an adverse impact ratio

(“AIR”) of 0.59, significantly below the AIR of 0.80 that is

presumed to not evidence adverse impact under the EEOC

Guidelines.

 

[blackshoe]

Hm. Is a pass rate of 31.6% for African-Americans indicative of racial bias in the test, or indicative of a lack of education/training among African-American candidates?

 

My point being that this EOCC guideline makes no sense unless all candidates are starting from a level playing field. (I would think it would behoove fire departments (and other organizations) to determine when someone becomes a firefighter if the field is indeed level, and to offer those who are behind the eight ball whatever remedial education or training is deemed necessary. But I suppose we can't do that, either. Racial profiling, discrimination, and all that, don't ya know.

[hrothgar]

Hm. Is a pass rate of 31.6% for African-Americans indicative of racial bias in the test, or indicative of a lack of education/training among African-American candidates?

 

My point being that this EOCC guideline makes no sense unless all candidates are starting from a level playing field. (I would think it would behoove fire departments (and other organizations) to determine when someone becomes a firefighter if the field is indeed level, and to offer those who are behind the eight ball whatever remedial education or training is deemed necessary. But I suppose we can't do that, either. Racial profiling, discrimination, and all that, don't ya know.

 

That issue has already been decided. Simply put: It doesn't matter WHY a group scores poorly, all that matters is THAT a group score poorly.

 

If a group scores poorly, you must be able to document that the criteria that you are testing is directly related to job performance. (A lot of this case law has to do with physical fitness tests for firefighters, whether these tests discriminate against women, and whether this is directly related to job performance)

 

 

 

http://www.uniformguidelines.com/uniformguidelines.html#18

 

D. Adverse impact and the "four-fifths rule."

 

A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact. Smaller differences in selection rate may nevertheless constitute adverse impact, where they are significant in both statistical and practical terms or where a user's actions have discouraged applicants disproportionately on grounds of race, sex, or ethnic group. Greater differences in selection rate may not constitute adverse impact where the differences are based on small numbers and are not statistically significant, or where special recruiting or other programs cause the pool of minority or female candidates to be atypical of the normal pool of applicants from that group. Where the user's evidence concerning the impact of a selection procedure indicates adverse impact but is based upon numbers which are too small to be reliable, evidence concerning the impact of the procedure over a longer period of time and/or evidence concerning the impact which the selection procedure had when used in the same manner in similar circumstances elsewhere may be considered in determining adverse impact. Where the user has not maintained data on adverse impact as required by the documentation section of applicable guidelines, the Federal enforcement agencies may draw an inference of adverse impact of the selection process from the failure of the user to maintain such data, if the user has an underutilization of a group in the job category, as compared to the group's representation in the relevant labor market or, in the case of jobs filled from within, the applicable work force.

 

Alternatively

 

http://www.hr-guide.com/data/G702.htm

 

Disparate Impact Even where an employer is not motivated by discriminatory intent, Title VII prohibits an the employer from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class.

 

   1. Supreme Court Cases The Supreme Court first described the disparate impact theory in 1971, in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431-2 (1971): Title VII "proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business necessity. . . . [G]ood intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as 'built-in headwinds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability."

 

      In 1989, the Supreme Court reduced the defendant's burden of proving business necessity to a burden of producing evidence of business justification. Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Antonio, 490 U.S. 642, 657 (1989). The Civil Rights Act of 1991 overturned that portion of the Wards Cove decision.

 

   2. Examples Examples of practices that may be subject to a disparate impact challenge include written tests, height and weight requirements, educational requirements, and subjective procedures, such as interviews.

 

   3. Allocation of proof

         1. Prima facie case The plaintiff must prove, generally through statistical comparisons, that the challenged practice or selection device has a substantial adverse impact on a protected group. See 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i). The defendant can criticize the statistical analysis or offer different statistics.

 

         2. Business necessity If the plaintiff establishes disparate impact, the employer must prove that the challenged practice is "job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity." 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i).

 

         3. Alternative practice with lesser impact Even if the employer proves business necessity, the plaintiff may still prevail by showing that the employer has refused to adopt an alternative employment practice which would satisfy the employer's legitimate interests without having a disparate impact on a protected class. 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(ii).

 

   4. Selection Criteria

         1. Scored tests There are several methods of measuring adverse impact. One method is the EEOC's Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Criteria, which finds an adverse impact if members of a protected class are selected at a rates less than four fifths (80 percent) of that of another group. For example, if 50 percent of white applicants receive a passing score on a test, but only 30 percent of African-Americans pass, the relevant ratio would be 30/50, or 60 percent, which would violate the 80 percent rule. 29 C.F.R. �� 1607.4 (D) and 1607.16 ®. The 80 percent rule is more of a rule of thumb for administrative convenience, and has been criticized by courts. 1 LINDEMANN AND GROSSMAN, EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAW, at 92-94. The courts more often find an adverse impact if the difference between the number of members of the protected class selected and the number that would be anticipated in a random selection system is more than two or three standard deviations. 1 LINDEMANN AND GROSSMAN, at 90-91. The defendant may then rebut the prima facie case by demonstrating that the scored test is job related and consistent with business necessity by showing that the test is "validated", although a formal validation study is not necessarily required. 29 CFR � 1607.5(B); see Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust Co., 487 U.S. 977, 998 (1988); Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 431 (1975).

 

         2. Nonscored objective criteria The Uniform Guidelines are applicable to other measures of employee qualifications, such as educational, experience, and licensing requirements. In cases involving clerical or some blue collar work, the courts have generally found unlawful educational requirements that have a disparate impact. See, e.g., Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) (invalidating high school diploma requirement for certain blue collar positions, where 34 percent of white males in state had completed high school while only 12 percent of African American males had done so, and defendant did not demonstrate link between high school diploma and job performance.) The higher the professional position or the greater the consequence of hiring unskilled applicants, the lower the burden upon the employer of proving job relatedness. See, e.g., Briggs v. Anderson, 796 F.2d 1009, 1023 (8th Cir. 1986) (college degree in psychology is a valid requirement for counselor position); Aguilera v. Cook County Police & Corrections Merit Board, 760 F.2d 844, 848 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 907 (1985) (high school diploma requirement for police officers and corrections officers is valid).

 

         3. Subjective criteria The use of subjective decision making is subject to challenge under a disparate impact theory, particularly when used to make employment decisions regarding blue collar jobs. Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988).

 

[blackshoe]

That issue has already been decided

<Wall of text deleted>

 

No, I didn't read it. Not all of it. I think it supports my point. If it doesn't, then it's still wrong, decided or not.

[hrothgar]

That issue has already been decided

<Wall of text deleted>

 

No, I didn't read it. Not all of it. I think it supports my point. If it doesn't, then it's still wrong, decided or not.

Why let stupid little things like reality get between you and your opinions...

 

BTW: Isn't this when you normal trot out one of those insipid little quotes from a science fiction author explaining how the world ought to be?

[Lobowolf]

The trial court decision - the one that the three member Circuit Court unanimously agreed to up hold can be found here -

 

http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/uploads...e/ricciusdc.pdf

 

The most significant part of the trial court decision is probably the following passage which (effectively) ties the trial court's hands. There is a LOT of precedence on these sorts of cases and - unless you're in favor of "activist judges" ignoring little niceties like stare decisis trial judges need to follow precedence.

 

a. Existence of Racially Disparate Impact

Although the parties dispute the exact racial breakdown of

candidates passing the Captain’s test, plaintiffs do not dispute 7

that the results showed a racially adverse impact on African-

American candidates for both the Lieutenant and Captain

positions, as judged by the EEOC Guidelines. Pl. L.R. 56 Stmt. ¶

246; Def. L.R. 56 Stmt. ¶ 246. Thus, it is necessarily

undisputed that, had minority firefighters challenged the results

of the examinations, the City would have been in a position of

defending tests that, under applicable Guidelines, presumptively

had a disparate racial impact.

Specifically, the EEOC “four-fifths rule” provides that a

selection tool that yields “[a] selection rate for any race, sex,

or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty

percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will

generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as

evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate

24

will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as

evidence of adverse impact.” 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(D).

Here, the evidence shows that on the 2003 Lieutenant’s exam

the pass rate for whites was 60.5%, for African-Americans 31.6%

and Hispanics 20%. The four-fifths score would be 48%. In other

words, African-Americans had a pass rate that was about half the

pass rate for Caucasians, yielding an adverse impact ratio

(“AIR”) of 0.59, significantly below the AIR of 0.80 that is

presumed to not evidence adverse impact under the EEOC

Guidelines.

 

Interesting case. I think that one of the most significant parts of the decision is this passage:

 

"Nor do they* have a viable claim

of disparate impact because the decision to disregard the test

results affected all applicants equally, regardless of race – all

applicants will have to participate in a new test or selection

procedure."

 

"they" = plaintiffs.

 

This is nonsense. The decision to disregard the test results didn't affect "all applicants equally." It positively affected those who didn't do well, and it negative affected those who did well. The interesting bridge connection is that it's a real-world case of restricted choice - If the decision was made without knowledge of the results, then it could be argued reasonably that the decision to disregard affected the applicants "regardless of race," but when the decision to disregard is made specifically BECAUSE of the racially disparate results, then of course it doesn't affect them "equally, regardless of race," and the decision was specifically intended NOT to.

[Lobowolf]

The most significant part of the trial court decision is probably the following passage which (effectively) ties the trial court's hands. There is a LOT of precedence on these sorts of cases and - unless you're in favor of "activist judges" ignoring little niceties like stare decisis trial judges need to follow precedence.

Their hands were certainly tied with respect to the presumptive finding of an adverse impact. Other components of the case had more room for judgment.

[hrothgar]

Interesting case.  I think that one of the most significant parts of the decision is this passage:

 

"Nor do they* have a viable claim

of disparate impact because the decision to disregard the test

results affected all applicants equally, regardless of race – all

applicants will have to participate in a new test or selection

procedure."

 

"they" = plaintiffs.

 

This is nonsense.  The decision to disregard the test results didn't affect "all applicants equally."  It positively affected those who didn't do well, and it negative affected those who did well.  The interesting bridge connection is that it's a real-world case of restricted choice - If the decision was made without knowledge of the results, then it could be argued reasonably that the decision to disregard affected the applicants "regardless of race," but when the decision to disregard is made specifically BECAUSE of the racially disparate results, then of course it doesn't affect them "equally, regardless of race," and the decision was specifically intended NOT to.

I'm not a lawyer and I expect that Ken or Mike are in a much better position to comment on this than me.

However, I don't think that "disparate impact" works they way that you assume:

 

From what I can tell, disparate impact only applies to a protected class.

"Those who did well" aren't a protected class, therefore the rest of your argument is (pretty much) specious

 

You probably should avoid throwing around expression like "nonsense" when you're making mistakes this elementary

[Winstonm]

This is nonsense. The decision to disregard the test results didn't affect "all applicants equally." It positively affected those who didn't do well, and it negative affected those who did well.

 

If the test was flawed, there cannot be applicants who were negatively or positively affected based on the disregard for the results of that test. It would be similar to a job criteria of having to guess the number of beans in a jar while allowing some candidates to count half the jar before they guess - having that criteria removed - i.e., removal of a faulty criteria - does not penalize those who guessed better but indeed does affect "all applicants equally" by restoration of an equatable level to the playing field.

 

To claim otherwise is similar to claiming that the arrest for bribery of the one who paid for the job negatively affects that criminal behavior when in fact all it does is allow all candidates to once again equally vie for the open position.

 

However, if the original test was not flawed, I would agree with your assessment that disregard would be punitive to those who did well.

[Lobowolf]

Interesting case.  I think that one of the most significant parts of the decision is this passage:

 

"Nor do they* have a viable claim

of disparate impact because the decision to disregard the test

results affected all applicants equally, regardless of race – all

applicants will have to participate in a new test or selection

procedure."

 

"they" = plaintiffs.

 

This is nonsense.  The decision to disregard the test results didn't affect "all applicants equally."  It positively affected those who didn't do well, and it negative affected those who did well.  The interesting bridge connection is that it's a real-world case of restricted choice - If the decision was made without knowledge of the results, then it could be argued reasonably that the decision to disregard affected the applicants "regardless of race," but when the decision to disregard is made specifically BECAUSE of the racially disparate results, then of course it doesn't affect them "equally, regardless of race," and the decision was specifically intended NOT to.

I'm not a lawyer and I expect that Ken or Mike are in a much better position to comment on this than me.

However, I don't think that "disparate impact" works they way that you assume:

 

From what I can tell, disparate impact only applies to a protected class. "Those who did well" aren't a protected class, therefore the rest of your argument is (pretty much) specious

 

You probably should avoid throwing around expression like "nonsense" when you're making mistakes this elementary

I didn't claim (or imply) that my comment was dispositive of the case (the plaintiffs asserted disparate treatment, not disparate impact; the quoted passage was dicta); rather, I was criticizing some of the language used to support it.

 

The plain statement that the decision "affected everyone equally" is nonsense, and specious. It's like a board being misaligned in one room. At one table, a pair plays 2S making 2 on normal bidding and defense, and at the other table, a pair goes for 1400 against a part-score. But the board gets thrown out, because the same team was N-S in both rooms. Throwing out the board didn't "affect everyone equally" - it was a great break for the team that did poorly. That doesn't mean it was the wrong decision. It means exactly what it says - It didn't "affect everyone equally."

 

At its most basic level, its not "affecting everyone equally" is most obviously connected to how well people did. However, also equally obviously, "how well people did" is correlated to race. I didn't say, or imply, that for legal purposes the relevant class was "those who did well." Also obvious is that the decision to not certify the results benefited minority applicants. As it was intended to do. As was the reason for the lawsuit.

 

The relevant classification for legal purposes is race. *A* relevant classification for parsing the quoted language is "those who did well" and "those who did not do well." Those groups were not equally affected, and thus "all applicants" were not equally affected.

 

Thanks for the freelance critique of my "elementary mistakes" (though I'm not sure you should be "throwing around" such critiques). I'm not a law professor; however, some pretty good ones were quite satisfied with my analyses.

[kenberg]

The following form Kathleen Parker:

 

"Nevertheless, most criticism has been aimed at perceived racist-sexist remarks from a 2001 diversity speech in which Sotomayor suggested that she, as a Latina, could be more qualified than a white guy. Pause: Don't most women think they're more qualified than most men when it comes to making wise decisions? Kidding, kidding. "

 

and

 

"To think, a few days ago, only seven people outside of New Haven, Conn., knew the name Frank Ricci. Today, rumor has it that Tom Cruise is considering playing Ricci as soon as Joe the Plumber writes the script. "

 

My view on the sexist remark: If that is the worst they can come up with, she is a very careful speaker. Most people have said things that are far dumber.

 

My view on the Ricci case: The actions of the New Haven council were reprehensible. If the law permits, or worse requires, such action then the law is an ass. Oh, I guess someone already said that. I have no idea whether a legitimate legal case can be made for finding on behalf of the plaintiffs but if not, then there are some laws that need to be rewritten. Either the law is unusually idiotic even by congressional standards or she has a lot to explain. I am betting on the former. But I will stay tuned.

[Lobowolf]

I think the "Douchebag Case" (Doninger v. Niehoff) is more interesting.