Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Columnists War Breaks out at 'NYT'

By Greg Mitchell, Editor & Publisher. Posted November 14, 2007.


New York Times columnists Bob Herbert, Paul Krugman and David Brooks battle it out over Reagan and racism.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Greg Mitchell

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

NEW YORK -- The New York Times Op-Ed page hasn't been this hot in a long time. Now we are experiencing Columnist Wars, with Bob Herbert today joining in a rapidly escalating battle between Paul Krugman and David Brooks -- largely over an incident involving Ronald Reagan at a local fair over 27 years ago.

None has mentioned a colleague by name, while tossing around charges such as "woefully wrongheaded" and "agitprop."

Krugman kicked it off with a Sept. 27 column on the Republicans' continuing problems in attracting minority voters. "Republican politicians ... understand quite well that the G.O.P.'s national success since the 1970s owes everything to the partisan switch of Southern whites," he declared. "Since the days of Gerald Ford, just about every Republican presidential campaign has included some symbolic gesture of approval for good old-fashioned racism."

Then came this kicker, as Krugman charged that GOP godfather, Ronald Reagan, who "began his political career by campaigning against California's Fair Housing Act, started his 1980 campaign with a speech supporting states' rights delivered just outside Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered."

Brooks took awhile, but fired back on Nov. 9, opening his column: "Today, I'm going to write about a slur. It's a distortion that's been around for a while, but has spread like a weed over the past few months. It was concocted for partisan reasons: to flatter the prejudices of one side, to demonize the other and to simplify a complicated reality into a political nursery tale.

"The distortion concerns a speech Ronald Reagan gave during the 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., which is where three civil rights workers had been murdered 16 years earlier. An increasing number of left-wing commentators assert that Reagan kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign with a states' rights speech in Philadelphia to send a signal to white racists that he was on their side. The speech is taken as proof that the Republican majority was built on racism.

"The truth," Brook explained, "is more complicated." He claimed that Reagan had actually attempted to court black votes right after the 1980 convention. Brooks then offered as an excuse for the Mississippi trip: the Reagan campaign "was famously disorganized," and he was forced to go when locals promised he would be there. When he got there he gave a "short and cheerful" speech: "The use of the phrase 'states' rights' didn't spark any reaction in the crowd, but it led the coverage in The Times and The Post the next day."

Brooks concluded: "You can look back on this history in many ways. It's callous, at least, to use the phrase 'states' rights' in any context in Philadelphia. Reagan could have done something wonderful if he'd mentioned civil rights at the fair. He didn't. ...

"Still, the agitprop version of this week -- that Reagan opened his campaign with an appeal to racism -- is a distortion." Then he smashed Krugman: "But still the slur spreads. It's spread by people who, before making one of the most heinous charges imaginable, couldn't even take 10 minutes to look at the evidence. It posits that there was a master conspiracy to play on the alleged Klan-like prejudices of American voters, when there is no evidence of that conspiracy. And, of course, in a partisan age there are always people eager to believe this stuff."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: new york times, nyt, paul krugman, david brooks, bob herbert, columnists, ronald reagan, racism

Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is editor of E&P and author of nine books. A collection of his columns on Iraq and the media will be published in March. His new blog is at: http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Cool. I don't care.
Posted by: matti on Nov 14, 2007 5:18 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does anyone else?


-matti

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Cool. I don't care. Posted by: NotNeoCon
» RE: Cool. I don't care. Posted by: bomec
» RE: Cool. I don't care. Posted by: JSquercia
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: Cool. I don't care. Posted by: surfreality
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: Cool. I don't care. Posted by: JOHN L.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» Me on you side Posted by: matti
» RE: Cool. I don't care. Posted by: Wacre
Mississippi and Bitburg
Posted by: andyw on Nov 14, 2007 6:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And dont forget Bitburg, where Reagan exonerates Nazi soldiers. Again, it is one of those moments where the symbolism, though cloudied by time, comes through.

Reagan, like most of our presidents, was a racist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mississippi and Bitburg Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com
States' rights as an instrument of racism?
Posted by: justAnEgg on Nov 14, 2007 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In what way? Would someone please explain? Is it a reaction to federal anti-segregationist regulations after '60ies? I'm not horsing around - I'm just trying to get familiar with Am. history and culture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The NYT Is Dead
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 14, 2007 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The lap dog of American Journalism.

PS- We need to get David Broks removed from The NewsHour on PBS. This NeoCon turd blossom is a relic from BushCo's attempt to neuter PBS a couple of years ago. Let him spew his corporatist BS on something other than public broadcasting's air.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The NYT Is Dead Posted by: dwaln
You must be kidding!
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Nov 14, 2007 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does anyone, anywhere, give a damn about Reagan, Brooks and the NYT? More relevant is....who the hell is going to replace A-Rod?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No we're not Posted by: astockton
» RE: You must be kidding! Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Me too! Posted by: Col. Jackleg
» RE: You must be kidding! Posted by: JSquercia
CAMPAIGN BURNOUT
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 14, 2007 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Krugman and Brooks are both very good at what they do. It's a shame that they've been reduced to writing about nothing. Is Ronald Regan really a hot topic? Not unless we go back to Iran Contra. The ongoing campaign has taken a toll on everyone. There's just so much to be said so early on. Nobody knows the answer to a question that will apply a year from now. We're being made to look foolish and so are Brooks and Krugman. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CAMPAIGN BURNOUT Posted by: CJC
» RE: CAMPAIGN BURNOUT Posted by: dwaln
» RE: CAMPAIGN BURNOUT Posted by: january37
» 'Not unless we go back to Iran Contra.' Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
The Saddest Thing of All
Posted by: aberdeen on Nov 14, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The saddest thing of all, is the Republican 21st Century "face" of putting someone like Condoleeza Rice and Alberto Gonzales in power-positions, as a "sign" that Republicans are no longer racists or sexists.

Unfortunately, Rice represents Marting Luther King, Jr. and the advancement of women's rights about as well as Exxon represents Greenpeace and Alberto represents Cesar Chavez about as well as Pat Robertson represents Jesus. The modern Republican Party since and including Eisenhower, has long been and continues to be, overtly and obviously, racist, sexist and worse, lead by just plain liars.

Eisenhower did everything he could to ignore the early stages of the modern civil rights movement and prevent civil rights legislation from being enacted. From Supreme Court Uncle Tom appointees to opposition of Affirmative Action, on up to and beyond the Condoleeza Rice's and Alberto Gonzales's of their insanity, the modern Republican Party spells "GOOD OL' BOYS" Party in big bold letters.

Any so-called "minority" person who supports the agenda of the Republican Party belongs in one of the mental instution's left largely empty in California, after RayGun, as governor, emptied them in the name of fiscal discipline.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Saddest Thing of All Posted by: ALANHESTER
This is IMPORTANT
Posted by: citizenjoe on Nov 14, 2007 9:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why? As Mussolini was among the first to put consciously and extensively into practice, symbols are vital in nationalist politics, hence the "fasci", the bundle of sticks around an ax that Italians recognize as meaning "Empire".A politician uses recognizable symbols to convey his or her message to people who recognize the symbol's meaning.Simple as ABC.

Krugman and Herbert both want to convey the workings of the Republican Southern Strategy-- to win the full support of the racists that the Democratic Party lost when the Dixiecrats stopped being Democrats and starting becoming Republicans. That was not some cooked up idea of Reagan's buddies-- it was a well known effective political strategy of the entire American right. It continues to be a strategy for making Southern Racism acceptable to the nation-- to incorporate racism into the American myth neglecting its brutality and murderous implications.The idea is that white people just wanted their states rights.

Brooks is one of the many rightists that try to do this by turning Reagan into St Ronnie (like Ronald McDonald). In fact Reagan was a nasty, mean-spirited, racist, homo-phobe, and perhaps even a Nazi sympathizer (the Bitburg apology for the SS will not be forgotten).

Fortunately, Brooks is remarkably stupid. His apology for Reagan is just like this one: a disorganized businessman goes on a trip and finds himself in the same bed in the same room as his secretary. He apologizes to his wife that this was the unfortunate result of his famously disorganized planning. .
Enough said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is IMPORTANT Posted by: dwaln
This is HUGELY important
Posted by: Everitt on Nov 14, 2007 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Krugman and Brooks are debating American political reality. Since Tom Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas?" commentators have been trying to get to the root of the Republican revolution. In Krugman's latest book "The Conscience of a Liberal," one of his major theses is that the main driver of Republican political success has been racism. He is saying that white males left the Democratic party en masse after the civil rights era and continue to do so.

Krugman uses the actions of Reagan (who is seen not only as the supreme figure of Republicanism, but also as the greatest president ever by many on the right) as the measuring post for GOP race politics.

Krugman is essentially saying that race matters, and it matters in a big way. But that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Even on a left-leaning site like this there is bitter argument over race issues. If you want to understand where we are politically then you should pay attention to this debate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Representative Government.
Posted by: PJAW on Nov 14, 2007 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's the most disturbing thing about Ronald Reagan, and every Republican regime since, they represent a significant percentage of the American public. Self-serving, disingenuous and ignorant of their own propensity toward self-destruction. The combination of their greed motivated political ardor, a significant level of indifference among the rest of the population, and political chicanery have resluted in the political-economic situation we now endure. An incompetent and arrogant administration whose sole purpose is the transfer of as much of the national and world wealth to themselves and their minions as they can, by whatever means necessary.

I'm not particularly upset by the fact that Roe still exists, or that people still occasionally love someone of their own gender or that the races intermingle, but isn't peculiar that thes issues remain after 70% of the administrations since 1968 have been Republican. They don't want them to be resolved in the manner they infer (no more abortions, everyone straight and colored folks who know their place) because they would no longer be causes to incite their base. But creating policy that's punitive toward people of color, non-heterosexuals and women with unwanted pregnancies gets their blood hot.

I'm curious to see if enough Americans still respond to this crap to keep them in power. It wouldn't surprise me all that much. What a waste.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of Course, Reagan was a racist
Posted by: rerses on Nov 14, 2007 11:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no doubt in my mind that Ronald Reagan was a racist. His choice of Neshoba County, Mississippi to launch his presidential campaign showed his racism and insensitivity(see Bob Herbert's column). Also, when Reagan debated Jimmy Carter, Reagan said:"When I was a young man we didn't even know that there was a race problem." Wrong answer. When Reagan was a young man blacks were being lynced in the North as well as the South and segregation was the law of the land. What amazes me is that some people want to turn Reagan into a saint and name an airport after him. Reagan was mentally challenged and a bigot, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Innocent Mistake?
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on Nov 14, 2007 12:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Poor Reagan. Some NYT columnists and others claim Reagan made "innocent mistakes" and have sought to defend his rhetoric during his term in office.
Why? As Bob Herbert said, he knew exactly what he was doing. We knew. I knew. Reagan held nothing back.
This dummkopf of a president was no country bumpkin. No politician will venture into rural Mississippi and say "I'm not for state's rights"; a savvy person knows what to say to a particular auidence.
Politicians, remember this Russian proverb: Once a word leaves your mouth you cannot take it back. And that is not a mistake anyone can afford to make, innocent or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Racism: acceptable subject. The huge and increasing wealth-poverty gap? Not OK.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 14, 2007 2:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Notice how racism is becoming an ever-so-acceptable topic of discussion in the media these days, from Democracy Now to the New York Times to CNN and FOX?

However, no one seems to be talking about the growing economic divides in the United States - the real legacy of the Reagan Bush era, and one that was more or less accepted by the Clinton era as well, and which is now back in full force under Bush.

What are Bush's huge government contracts, delivered to handful of politically connected cronies, but yet another step in the stripping of assets from the middle class? What we're seeing is the low slow Third Worldization of the United States - here and there are Green Zones of wealth accumulation, complete with gates and private security forces, and everywhere else is an ever-increasing Red Zone of wealth depletion, environmental pollution and decaying physical infrastructure.

Sooner or later, the Red Zone will start looking at the Green Zone with envious eyes. Wealth disparity tends to lead to conflict, and in the technological era that means that some isolated crazy maniac like Timothy McVeigh can load up a truck with fertilizer and fuel oil and demolish an entire building with little assistance from anyone. This is the general lesson of the French Revolution: grotesque wealth disparity leads to all kinds of really bad things.

That's the real legacy of Ronald Reagan - but racism is a nice, safe topic for lefties and righties to get indignant over.

Puppet show at the New York Times! Everyone take your seats, please, the entertainment will begin shortly. Popcorn and rotten fruit available at the cashiers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not true this time Posted by: Everitt
Reagan... a bright, shining White Boy on a hill...
Posted by: MTguy on Nov 14, 2007 3:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having already known about the Philadelphia, Mississippi speech and its content, I was surprised to learn about ALL the other incidents of racial inuendo used by Reagan in his speeches.

I've always been surprised by the level of hero worship towards Reagan even given his charismatic demeanor while in office.

But a racist is hateful and everything that the US does NOT stand for.

It'll be interesting to see how the printed volleys back and forth play out in this one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HELL-OH???
Posted by: Tom Degan on Nov 14, 2007 5:28 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What other reason would that dirty old piece of shit have to kick off his campaign in a town as worthless and unnotable as Philadelphia Mississippi?

His message was simple and clear:

"Jim Crow's gonna have a friend in my White House!"

As, indeed, Jim Crow did.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: HELL-OH???--Disagreed. Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» RE: HELL-OH???--Disagreed. Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: HELL-OH??? Posted by: JSquercia
"states rights" code for...
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on Nov 14, 2007 7:51 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
well, if you're wearing foil caps, believe the "MSM" is controlled via the bush 43 whitehouse, 9/11 was a inside job, zinn could wipe is ass on a piece of paper and sell it to you has "history", and kids just need more hugs rather than beatings, you FEEL states rights is code for RR stating we'll go back to slavery.

if you're a regular bloke, who understands reality, then you know he was speaking of the rights of states that don't conflict with the constitution.

then again, not a lof of the progressive dogma-slaves here give a flyin' eff about the constitution--no different than the neo-cons who regularly trample our rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Like To See Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» RE: "states rights" code for... Posted by: ALANHESTER
» Let's Dance Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» Nice Description Posted by: apophenia_monkey
Former Reagan Campaigner Quit Due to Racism
Posted by: TruthBeKnown on Nov 15, 2007 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was a young active reaganite who quit my support for Reagan and the Republican Party because I recognized that they stood for racism and hatred.

In fact, Reagan ended up committing high treason by supporting illegal weapons to murderous thugs in Central America.

I am very happy that I had the common sense and integrity to see their true nature and quit them. I regret having given one iota of support to them.

Brooks is nothing more than a running dog hack. His words, "It's spread by people who, before making one of the most heinous charges imaginable, couldn't even take 10 minutes to look at the evidence."

Look who's calling the kettle black.

There is hope, Mr. Brooks. You too can quit your support and end up a happier man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Underlying drama
Posted by: dwaln on Nov 15, 2007 10:10 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is an underlying drama that plays itself out over time in the left/right polarity. As amazing as it might seem,some people on both the left and right switch sides for what they see as noble reasons. The short explanation for this might be 'familiarity breeds contempt'. Most peoples motivations are both selfish and shortsighted. As a result, given our binary brains, there is always a percentage of people raised with one spin on reality that start the transition from what is good about our side and bad about their side too what is bad about our side - already painfully known - and good about their side.

David Brooks is a rare individual who is not as binary in his thinking as most. Are his comments defensible? I don't know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If it Quacks like a duck . . .
Posted by: jackblack on Nov 15, 2007 7:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it Quacks like a duck . . .

Defining Reagan’s rhetoric as racist creates a never ending discussion about what he really intended to communicate and what he didn’t. Same goes for the people who were listening to him; did they truely understand what he was trying to communicate? The discussion might go on forever! Maybe he wasn’t trying to communicate that he was on the side of racists or, maybe the racists just misunderstood and thought he was on their side; they voted for him twice, just to be sure.

What puts an end to the discussion of whether he was a racist and on the side of racist is what he did, his actions during his presidency. Of course he was a racist and supported racists. Of course he was hateful, and unmoved by the suffering of not just African Americans but a whole lot of other people as well. Reagan bought suffering to a large portion of the American people, and they love him for it.

If NYT columnist were battling about something other than, if a duck is truly a duck . . . it might be worth reading. Why not discuss, “What’s goin on in the psyche of a people that keep electing leaders that don’t care about them?”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Great comments, esp.. Posted by: aka_bozo
Let's not confuse racism with bigotry.
Posted by: Urstrly on Nov 16, 2007 5:02 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course Ronald Reagan was a racist. His actions in Mississippi were focused on restoring the old order, which was white superiority and dominance, as are those of the Republican Party. People who insist he wasn't are ignorant of the characteristics of racism.

Was Ronald Reagan a bigot? Would he have treated a polite black man or woman rudely or subjected them to humiliation? Maybe not,but it has little to do with racism, the systemic enforcement of discrimination by the white majority.

Incidentally, I'd call the New York Times racist. If you read the story in this week's New York Magazine about the treatment received by the late Gerald Boyd as the paper's first African American managing editor, the conclusion is inevitable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now I have a reason to read Brooks
Posted by: janelynne on Nov 16, 2007 5:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Brooks is such an irritating lapdog for the GOP that he isn't worth reading. He could be calling for the slaughter of puppies and most self respecting progressives wouldn't argue with it because we skip his column. He isn't the reason we read the NYTimes. But this sounds interesting because Krugman and Herbert are why we read the NYTimes. These two are brilliant writers and thinkers, who do their homework. Herbert was the first journalist to ask in public "why are we in Iraq," and to talk about extraordinary rendition. Krugman is a brilliant economist at Princeton who knows his subjects and discusses them with integrity and transparency. Brooks is simply a partisan who peddles the GOP narrative dujour.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NYT
Posted by: frank69 on Nov 18, 2007 1:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The New York Times is a mere shadow of it's former self. Does anyone think the NYT would print the Pentagon Papers (or the equivalent) today?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

KalPal
Posted by: sourcer on Nov 18, 2007 3:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no doubt that Reagan was racist, just as there is no doubt that when you hear a Republican say something was bipartisan he means that the Republicans got their way. In the past 7 years I've heard of partisan Democrats but not once about partisan Republicans. I wonder why that is?

Reagn hurt this country badly with his cowardice, prejudice, racism and his alzheimers while he was in office. It was just another acting job for him.

Republicans are scared of smart front men. That's why they chose GW Bush, his dad and Ronnie the actor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Krugman vs Brooks...
Posted by: Grozny_Guy on Nov 24, 2007 7:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is like a "war" between two neutered kittens. Bring back Times Select!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]