#you gil Brigham | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dovebuffy92 · 3 years

Text

Spoilers Below

You Season Three, created by Greg Berlanti and Sera Gamble, has a compelling story but is problematic from the jump.

Erasure of Toxic Masculinity

In the first season, it was clear that stalker serial killer Joe Goldberg (Penn Badgley) revealed how the media glamorizes certain types of toxic masculinity. For example, in movies like Twilight, women find stalking and possessive behavior romantic. Penn Badgley talks about how Joe is the older version of Gossip Girl’s his “good guy” teenager character. Dan Humphrey uses his “Gossip Girl” persona to stalk and manipulate Serena van der Woodsen (Blake Lively) into marrying him.

When You Season 2 added abusive serial killer Love Quinn-Goldberg (Victoria Pedretti) to the mix, it diminished the original feminist message of the series. The feminist message is further diminished in the third season when Joe’s new wife, Love, murders several people.

Joe starts to become sympathetic when we learn more about his horrific childhood. He attempts to stop obsessing over women for their newborn son, Henry. Joe only kills cruel news reporter Ryan Goodwin (Scott Michael Foster) and his wife, Love, who poisons him to force him to stay in the marriage.

Love is out of control this season. It turned out years ago; she accidentally killed her first husband, James, with the poisonous plant wolfsbane to stop him from leaving her.

Love continues to grow the wolfsbane. Even though Joe spends half-season gaslighting Love (the tool of abusive husbands), it’s hard to feel sympathy for her.

Love murders realtor Natalie Engler (Michaela McManus) after buying a building from her. She kills Natalie out of jealously because she knows about Joe’s obsession with her.

After the murder, Natalie’s stepson college student Theo Engler (Dylan Arnold) has an emotional affair with Love. Joe saves Theo after Love’s attack by sending him to the hospital.

Love has poor impulse control. She violently kidnaps anti-vaxxer professor Gil Brigham (Mackenzie Astin) because his daughter gave baby Henry measles.

The sexist depiction of Love dilutes Joe’s toxic masculinity. Love’s character perpetuates the stereotype of the hormonal out-of-control psychotic killer woman. In contrast to her, Joe seems calm and collected, erasing the whole premise of the show.

Still a Compelling Season

Despite the erasure of the message of the first season, the television show is still compelling. Joe Goldberg’s narration continues to connect us to the character. Narration is a brilliant story device that helps viewers empathize with a character like Joe because we learn firsthand the reasons for all his twisted actions.

In “And They Lived Happily Ever After,” the couple returns home with their baby. Joe’s narration tells us that he hates living in wealthy suburban Madre Linda. He only moved there to protect their son. He doesn’t feel comfortable in his suburban surroundings but is trying his best. Joe even waves at the nosey neighbors.

The setup immediately grabs us. Joe and Love, psychopathic killers, deal with living in a wealthy Californian, closed-knit community where they can’t hide in anonymity like in Los Angeles or New York. Penn Badgley’s natural charm makes it hard not to root for him, especially when most of the other characters are self-centered one-percenters. For example, “momfluencer” Sherry Conrad (Shalita Grant). Self-centered Sherry bullies everybody who doesn’t fit the Madre Linda mold.

Suburbia Madre Linda creates a sense of claustrophobia and suspense. Neither Joe nor Love can hide away from the person most likely to find them out. The Quinn-Golbergs live right next door to reclusive tech mogul Natalie’s husband, Matthew Engler (Scott Speedman). Matthew controls cameras all around town that he uses to hunt for Natalie’s killer.

Joe and Love framed Gil for her murder after the kidnapped professor committed suicide out of shame. However, Matthew doesn’t believe that the sweet professor murdered his wife. Instead, he uses crazy high-level tech that he invented, like computers chips, to monitor his neighbors and dead wife’s health. Tech genius Matthew intently hunting for his neighbors creates suspense since we never know when he will learn the truth.

Failing to Deal With Racism or White Privilege

You Season 3 raises’ issues of systemic racism, then bypasses delving into them. At first, it seemed like the television show was finally going to tackle white privilege. Joe’s new boss and obsession Marienne Bellamy (Tati Gabrielle) is a Black Librarian who illustrates children’s books on the side. Marienne and her blind best friend Dante Ferguson (Ben Mehl) introduce Joe to the term” Missing White Woman Syndrome.”

Dante explains it as, “When upper-class, attractive white ladies go missing, they get tons of media coverage. It doesn’t happen to other victims.” Marienne calls Joe out on his lie that he understood “Missing White Woman Syndrome,” which implies that society’s women of color are not valued. The librarian is Joe’s first stalking victim, who’s a woman of color, which left the show the opportunity to explore further issues that BIPOCs face every day.

Instead of taking this opportunity to tackle racial inequalities in society, the white creators Berlanti and Gamble decided to whitewash the story. When Marienne learns that Joe was primarily raised in an orphanage and foster care, she suddenly decides that he understands her life. She stops being overly critical of Joe because he doesn’t come from money. Unfortunately, the writers ignore the inherent privilege of all heterosexual White men that prevents Joe from truly understanding her life experience.

Marienne being a recovering drug addict further dirties the water. She struggles to regain custody of her daughter, Juliette, from her abusive ex-husband Ryan.

Marienne mentions to Joe that the justice system doesn’t favor Black women. But it’s clear that her ex-husband uses a previous case of child endangerment and her former drug charges as the primary tool to keep her in line.

There are no scenes of judges, lawyers, or anybody else being racist toward Marienne. Instead, Joe silently declares himself her White Savior. He runs around planting drugs on Ryan, then blitz killing him to “protect” Marienne. Now the show depicts Joe’s stalking of Marianne as wrong, but his White male savior complex is never called out.

Final Thoughts

You Season 3 should probably be the last of You. The show has lost its focus on toxic masculinity now that Joe has turned into a reluctant villain who doesn’t kill “good” people.

Let us know what you think in the comments below.

#you season 3 #netflix #tv show #tv review #blogger #tv reviewer #joe goldberg #penn badgley #love quinn #victoria pedretti #marienne bellamy #tati gabrielle #you netflix #toxic masculinity #feminist #white priveledge #systemic racism

13 notes · View notes

pafainfinitespaces · 6 years

Text

When the Traditional isn’t Traditional: Blending the Contemporary with the Historical at PAFA

A Conversation with Brooke Davis Anderson

Since beginning her tenure as the Edna S. Tuttleman Director of the Museum at PAFA in 2017, Brooke Davis Anderson has focused her leadership around artists, programming, objects, and audience. I sat down with Anderson in her office in the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Art’s (PAFA's) Historic Landmark Building to discuss audience engagement, global diasporic art in the museum, and the process of growing from mentee to mentor.

Tessa Haas, Curatorial Intern with Brooke Davis Anderson, the Edna S. Tuttleman Director of the Museum, Photo: Mari Elaine Lamp

Tessa Haas: It’s been about a year since you began your position as Director of the Museum at PAFA, so to start I wanted to discuss some of your short- and long-term goals for the museum. There’s a lot of conversation happening lately about what museums are supposed to do, what their responsibilities are to audiences, to scholarship, to donors, so I was wondering how you engage these groups?

Brooke Davis Anderson: I am a museum colleague who thinks very deeply about audiences. Every museum director is different, we all have different priorities. There are museum directors who are constantly thinking about the artist, the old school museum director who is constantly thinking about the object and the object is the core mission. I am someone who is very concerned about audience. Now, of course, the artist, and the object, and the interpretive moments between object, artist, and audience are where all of the real magic can happen—but I care deeply about how that magic is conveyed, how it’s received, and what happens there. For me, audience includes audiences we don’t have. I tend to be very ambitious about assuming that my team and I can achieve new audiences through the programs that we have in sight. I am constantly thrilled by the audience that PAFA has, by the membership base that we can count on, and I want to extend beyond those core groups and core constituencies. We were just talking about that earlier in a meeting about how we can really reach out to new audiences, not only through new exhibitions, but the programming, interpretation, and wayfinding of those exhibitions. So I think about the public a lot.

I’m always going to be interested in a partnership and city-wide initiative. It might not mean that it’s always right for PAFA, but I’m always going to respond in the affirmative to exploring the ideas because I know from experience and intuition that that is one of the most efficient ways to build your audience—partnerships inevitably introduce you to new people, city-wide initiatives inevitably have the support from other entities that might not be aware of PAFA at all. It’s not that I automatically want to do every partnership and city-wide initiative, but I am always going to want to explore them. In my career, I would say to look back at the partnerships that I’ve been a part of, developed, and/or dreamt of, then implemented have usually been the most exciting for me.

TH: That’s wonderful, and I think that ties in really well into my next question. You have worked previously at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) and Prospect New Orleans—regional institutions that are connected very tightly with their communities but they also have broad audiences and outward-facing components. I was wondering how that translates to PAFA for you?

BDA: I think the ways in which LACMA and Prospect are received, particularly by the contemporary art world, are distinctly different from the way PAFA is received. That is largely because they’re different projects. LACMA is as old as I am, it’s only in its 50s, whereas PAFA is over 200 years old. So when you have a history like that, it means that you are inevitably going to be seen as historic. Even when you infuse spaces with contemporary art and spend a lot of time working with contemporary artists, it’s a hard nut to crack, to shift everybody’s understanding to the contemporary. Prospect is even younger than LACMA and was founded on the idea of working with artists in a very intimate way to create site-specific work. What’s fun about being the oldest museum with this historical patina is that the board is interested in the dialogue we can create with a contemporary artist and art, and they’re supportive of that and putting money behind it. It’s fun to imagine how we can get the aura that a place like LACMA, a project like Prospect New Orleans has with the contemporary art world, and bring that into PAFA’s galleries, into our studio spaces and unconventional space. That’s what excited me about PAFA—the challenge of trying to do that while acknowledging and honoring our history.

Photo: Mari Elaine Lamp

TH: That’s so exciting! Having visited PAFA throughout the years, I remember first touring Bryn Mawr and coming into the city and going into PMA, The Barnes, and PAFA, and thinking about the history of Philadelphia and its museums. We’ve been having many more contemporary projects—it’s really very exciting.

BDA: I remember something our President, David Brigham, said to me during the interview process when I was a candidate. We were talking through the galleries and I noticed, as [you and Laurel McLaughlin, Curatorial Assistant] would as professionals, that our labeling showed that the Homer is dated 1893 and we bought it the next year. Without a doubt, most of the collection was acquired within a year of being made, which means that we’ve always been contemporary. David was so wonderful in how he said that, he said, “you know, if you think about it Brooke, we’ve always worked from a contemporary frame,” it’s just that much of it is not historical to the eyes of the three of us, but we have really been a contemporary venue. We have had these annual exhibitions, which is the old-school iteration of a biennial, and the biennial is now the most desired venue for most artists. Most artists are yearning to have that kind of an experience, while the annual was that kind of same yearning experience for artists back in the day. You two are going to help me and us figure out how to articulate that in a very successful way. PAFA has always been the contemporary art site, how do we say that while honoring our past and making it rich to a younger more contemporary-leaning audience.

TH: Absolutely, and that connects to my next question—what do you look for when considering a future exhibition?

BDA: I rely heartily on the Curators. I am a Museum Director who doesn’t want to be a Curator anymore. I am very excited about Anna [O. Marley]’s and Jodi [Throckmorton]’s propositions for us, and the need of getting a modern person on board too. For me, what the Curators bring to the table is what I want to support. I have a challenge for the two of you. One of the ways in which a space like PAFA can become more contemporary and become more engaging to a contemporary, young audience is thinking of taking our curatorial practice beyond the gallery walls, which PAFA has done a little bit. Harry Philbrick’s Plinth project is such a great project and it is something which I am intending to revive. We’re going to be animating the plaza out front with more art events and experiences over time, that’s definitely a goal.

TH: That’s so exciting! Work we’ve been doing with living artists has been a wonderful and engaging step towards this. Moving more into Infinite Spaces and SWARM., what are you hoping that audiences will gain from our summer shows?

BDA: What I love about Infinite Spaces is that it, in a way, is a mentoring opportunity. It’s an opportunity for our future colleagues and curators and art historians to present their thinking and philosophies about art history to a public. It’s a rare opportunity for a young curator to have 7,000 square feet for a whole season, so it feels like a mentoring structure where we’re giving a platform to the next generation. For me that is super exciting. To be able to see the permanent collection in a very structured, targeted way that is fresh, a little innovative, asking questions of the audience to look at our historic, modern, and contemporary-leanings in a way that suits your theories and questions about space. I’m excited about Infinite Spaces for those reasons. Also, PAFA is fortunate to be in a position where we have a lot of new acquisitions. Infinite Spaces is giving us the opportunity to feature a lot of that new work in the collection—that’s huge for us. Often we’ve struggled to find the gallery space to do that.

I had the privilege of seeing SWARM. in Miami. It’s a gorgeous presentation by two very important artists, one of whom has a very deep and close relationship with PAFA. We’re celebrating our own with Didier [William], and introducing Nestor [Armando Gil] to our audience and the Philadelphia cultural community. I love that SWARM. looks at the hard boundaries and the porous boundaries of the diaspora. Didier being so smart and someone who has thought so deeply about the diaspora is really going to allow us to have a summer to examine our biases of what it means to be diasporic, and our stereotypes of what it means to be an American. Having that opportunity to look at Didier and Nestor’s projects right before Rina Banerjee’s project—without planning it—we have almost a year of an investigation of what it means to be an American artist, what the diaspora both allows and limits, and global citizenry. That’s something people are thinking about beyond gallery walls, but if we can invite that conversation into the museum, I think it becomes a very vivid conversation.

TH: I love what you said about mentorship. Going off of that, PAFA is an institution with both a museum and a school—how has that affected your directorial role? Has that shifted?

BDA: My career started at a university museum. I was the Museum Director for ten years at Winston-Salem State University’s Museum. There were countless opportunities for mentoring, so I already have the feeling that a lot of the ways in which I was practicing my work-life at the beginning of it are going to be played out here at PAFA in, I hope, very meaningful ways. The school-museum relationship is one reason why I was interested in this job. I will tell you something funny, I hope this is funny. I realized with this job that I’ve shifted from being a Mentee to being a Mentor. Last Summer I was meeting with my mentors and leaning on those relationships, but I realize now that I have officially moved into being the mentor, and it’s really a total privilege to think I have anything to offer to the next generation.

TH: You absolutely do! That’s incredible, thank you so much for saying that. A lot of our audience for this blog is made up of students, mostly in Art History and Museum Studies. Do you have any advice for this audience?

BDA: Yes—internships, internships, internships! However you can make them work—internships. Connecting during those internships with people like Jodi, me, David Brigham, our new marketing director Malini [Doddamani], you really want to start to interact with the colleagues who you would imagine create the environment you want for your future. Be a little self-selective in who you engage with, but when you target someone as doing work you admire and somehow bounce off of, take their work further—because frankly we hope all of you are going to take things further, and challenge our positions in your careers with your own work. Honestly, I think for any student: get practical experience through an internship. I would also argue for deeper art historical time in the classroom and to get practical experience through internships and less in the classroom. I am certainly respectul of the role that theory has in academia, but I tend to be a little old-school in recognizing the power of practical internships. You can come to PAFA and do an internship anytime you want!

Read more about Anderson here: https://www.pafa.org/people/senior-staff/brooke-davis-anderson

Tessa Haas is currently a Senior at Bryn Mawr College, majoring in Art History with a double minor in Museum Studies and Fine Arts. She is a Curatorial Intern at PAFA working on the upcoming Rina Banerjee exhibition. She was also the Museum Studies Fieldwork Intern for Beyond Boundaries: Feminine Forms, a dual-sited exhibition between PAFA and Bryn Mawr College. She is the Bryn Mawr College Representative for the Barnes Foundation’s inaugural Student Advisory Board for the 2017-18 school year and President of BMC Art Club. She plans to complete her MA at Bryn Mawr College after graduation.

0 notes

tortuga-aak · 7 years

Text

An open letter to Congress from over 100 economists: Pass tax reform and watch the economy roar

Carlos Barria/Reuters

Dear Senators and Representatives:

"Ask five economists," as the Edgar Fiedler adage goes, "and you'll get five different answers."

Yet, when it comes to the tax reform package aimed at fixing our broken system, the undersigned have but one shared perspective: Economic growth will accelerate if the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passes, leading to more jobs, higher wages, and a better standard of living for the American people. If, however, the bill fails, the United States risks continued economic underperformance.

In today’s globalized economy, capital is mobile in its pursuit of lower tax jurisdictions. Yet, in that worldwide race for job-creating investment, America is not economically competitive. Here’s why: Left virtually untouched for the last 31 years, our chart-topping corporate tax rate is the highest in the industrialized world and a full fifteen percentage points above the OECD average. As a result of forfeiting our competitive edge, we forfeited 4,700 companies from 2004 to 2016 to cheaper shores abroad. As a result of sitting idly by while the rest of the world took steps to lower their corporate rates, we lowered our own workers' wages by thousands of dollars a year.

Our colleagues from across the ideological spectrum — regardless of whether they ultimately support or oppose the current plan — recognize the record-setting rate at which the United States taxes job-creating businesses is, either significantly or entirely, a burden borne by the workers they employ. The question isn’t whether American workers are hurt by our country’s corporate tax rate — it’s how badly. As such, the question isn’t whether workers will be helped by a corporate tax rate reduction — it’s how much.

The enactment of a comprehensive overhaul — complete with a lower corporate tax rate — will ignite our economy with levels of growth not seen in generations. A twenty percent statutory rate on a permanent basis would, per the Council of Economic Advisers, help produce a GDP boost "by between 3 and 5 percent." As the debate delves into deficit implications, it is critical to consider that $1 trillion in new revenue for the federal government can be generated by four-tenths of a percentage in GDP growth.

Sophisticated economic models show the macroeconomic feedback generated by the TCJA will exceed that amount — more than enough to compensate for the static revenue loss. We firmly believe that a competitive corporate rate is the key to an economic engine driven by greater investment, capital stock, business formation, and productivity — all of which will yield more jobs and higher wages. Your vote throughout the weeks ahead will therefore put more money in the pockets of more workers.

Supporting the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will ensure that those workers — those beneficiaries — are American.

Sincerely,

James C. Miller III

Former OMB Director, 1985-88

Douglas Holtz-Eakin

American Action Forum

Alexander Katkov

Johnson & Wales University

Ali M. Reza

San Jose State U (Emeritus)

Ann E. Sherman

DePaul University

Anthony B. Sanders

George Mason University

Anthony Negbenebor

Gardner-Webb University

Arthur Havenner

University of California, Davis

Austin J. Jaffe

Penn State University

Barry W. Poulson

University of Colorado

Boyd D, Collier

Tarleton State University, Texas A&M University System (Emeritus)

Brian Stuart Wesbury

Joint Economic Committee

Carlisle E. Moody

College of William and Mary

Charles W. Calomiris

Columbia University

Christine P. Ries

Georgia Institute of Technology

Christopher C. Barnekov

FCC (Retired)

Christopher Lingle Universidad Francisco Marroquin

Clifford F. Thies

Shenandoah University

Daniel Fernandez Universidad Francisco Marroquin

Daniel Houser

George Mason University

David H. Resler

Chief US Economist, Nomura (Retired)

David Ranson

HCWE & Co.

Dennis E. Logue Steven Roth Professor, (Emeritus) Tuck School, Dartmouth Colleges

Derek Tittle

Georgia Institute of Technology

DeVon L. Yoho

Economist Ball State University (Retired)

Donald J. Oswald California State University, Bakersfield (Retired)

Donald Koch

Koch Investments

Donald L. Alexander

Western Michigan University

Donald Luskin

TrendMacro

Douglas C Frechtling

George Washington University

Douglas Kahl

The University of Akron

Douglas O. Cook

The University of Alabama

Kingdon Hurlock Jr.

Calvert Investment Counsel

Edward M. Scahill

University of Scranton

Eleanor Craig

University of Delaware

Owen Irvine Michigan State University (Emeritus)

Farhad Rassekh

University of Hartford

Francis Ahking

University of Connecticut

Frank Falero

California State University (Emeritus)

Gary R. Skoog

Legal Econometrics, Inc.

Gary Wolfram

Hillsdale College

Gene Simpson

NPTC, Auburn University

George Langelett

South Dakota State University

Gerald P. Dwyer

Clemson University

Gil Sylvia

University of Georgia

H Daniel Foster

HDFCO

Hugo J. Faria

University of Miami

Inayat Mangla

Western Michigan University

J. Edward Graham

UNC Wilmington

Jagdish Bhagwati

Columbia University

James B Kau

University of Georgia

James C.W. Ahiakpor California State University, East Bay

James D. Adams

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

James D. Miller

Smith College

James F. Smith

EconForecaster, LLC

James Keeler

Kenyon College

James M. Mulcahy SUNY - Buffalo economics department

James Moncur

University of Hawaii at Manoa

Jeffrey Dorfman

University of Georgia

Jerold Zimmerman

University of Rochester

Jody Lipford

Presbyterian College

John A. Baden

Chm., Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE)

John C. Moorhouse Wake Forest University (Emeritus)

John D. Johnson

Utah State University

John H McDermott

University of South Carolina

John McArthur

Wofford College

John P. Eleazarian

American Economic Association

John Ruggiero

University of Dayton

John Semmens

Laissez Faire Institute

Joseph A. Giacalone

St. John's University, NY

Joseph Haslag University of Missouri- Columbia

Joseph S. DeSalvo University of South Florida - Tampa

Joseph Zoric Franciscan University of Steubenville

Kathleen B. Cooper

SMU’s John Tower Center for Politico Science

Kenneth V. Greene Binghamton University (Emeritus)

Lawrence Benveniste Goizueta Business School, Emory University

Lawrence R. Cima

John Carroll University

Leon Wegge

University of California, Davis

Lloyd Cohen

Scalia Law School

Lucjan Orlowski

Sacred Heart University

Lydia Ortega

San Jose State University

M. Northrup Buechner

St. John's University, New York

Maurice MacDonald

Kansas State University

Michael A. Morrisey

Texas A&M University

Michael Connolly

University of Miami

Michael D Brendler Louisiana State University Shreveport.

Michael L. Marlow

Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo

Moheb A. Ghali

Western Washington University

Nancy Roberts

Arizona State University

Nasser Duella

California State University, Fullerton

Nicolas Sanchez

College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA (Emeritus,)

Norman Lefton

Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville

Paul H Rubin

Emory University

Pavel Yakovlev

Duquesne University

Pedro Piffaut

Columbia University

Peter E. Kretzmer

Bank of America

Peter S. Yun

UVAWISE (Emeritus)

Phillip J. Bryson Brigham Young University (Emeritus)

R. Ashley Lyman

University of Idaho

R. L. Promboin

University of Maryland University College (former)

Richard J. Cebula

Jacksonville University

Richard Kilmer

University of Florida

Richard Timberlake

Prof. of Econ., Univ. of Ga. (Retired)

Richard Vedder

Ohio University

Robert B Helms

American Enterprise Institute (Retired)

Robert F Stauffer

Roanoke College , (Emeritus)

Robert H. Topel

University of Chicago Booth School of Business

Robert Heller

Former Governor, Federal Reserve Board

Robert Sauer

Royal Holloway University

Robert Tamura

Clemson University

Roger Meiners

University of Texas-Arlington

Sanjai Bhagat

University of Colorado Boulder

Scott Hein

Texas Tech University

Seth Bied

New York State Tax Department

Stan Liebowitz

University of Texas

Stephen Happel

Arizona State University

T. Craig Tapley

University of Florida

Thomas H. Mayor

University of Houston

Thomas J Kniesner

Claremont Graduate University

Thomas M. Stoker

MIT (retired)

Thomas Saving

Texas A&M University

Timothy Mathews

Kennesaw State University

Tomi Ovaska

Youngstown State University

Tony Lima

California State University, East Bay

Victor a Canto

La Jolla economics

Vijay Singal

Navrang Inc

Wallace Hendricks

University of Illinois

Ward S. Curran Trinity College Hartford Connecticut (Emeritus)

Wayne T. Brough

FreedomWorks Foundation

William B. Fairley

Analysis & Inference, Inc.

William Buchanan

Valdosta State University

William McKillop

Resource Economics (Emeritus)

William R. Allen UCLA Department of Economics

William S. Peirce Case Western Reserve University

Wim Vijverberg

CUNY Graduate Center

Xuepeng Liu

Kennesaw State University

Yuri N. Maltsev

A.W. Clausen Center for World Business, Carthage College

NOW WATCH: How much money you need to save each day to become a millionaire by age 65

from Feedburner http://ift.tt/2Akell3

#Feedburner

0 notes