James' World 2

Click the link below the picture

.

Being a single parent is one of the hardest jobs in the world, regardless of gender. Research from the Pew Research Center shows that the rate of single-father households has grown significantly since the 1960s, and the world’s perception of a father’s role within the household is evolving.

Society no longer places the sole responsibility of providing for the family entirely on men, and their role as equal caregivers is increasingly recognized. As a result, more fathers are stepping into the role of single parenthood when their co-parent is no longer present or willing to contribute to childcare.

Today, both single moms and dads juggle work, parenting, and personal challenges, often with limited support and endless responsibilities. Yet, society doesn’t always view them through the same lens. Have you ever noticed how single dads are often celebrated as “heroes” for doing what single moms are expected to do every day without the same fanfare?

This difference isn’t just a passing observation—it reflects deeper sociocultural norms and biases that shape how we view parenthood.

Here are three reasons why single dads are often viewed more positively than single moms, according to research.

1. The Intensive Mothering Problem

As much as we’ve come a long way in our view of parenting, there are still some very obvious differences between what is expected from a mother and what is expected from a father, with mothers facing much more scrutiny.

The term “intensive mothering,” coined by Sharon Hays in the 1996 book The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood, highlights this difference. Intensive mothering is a cultural ideology that emphasizes a child-centered, time-intensive, and emotionally absorbing approach to parenting, where mothers are expected to devote extraordinary amounts of time, energy, and resources to their children’s well-being and development.

It’s the belief that mothers are expected to prioritize their children above all else, often at the expense of their own needs. This belief disproportionately places the burden of child-rearing on women and often implies that “good” mothering requires self-sacrifice and perfection.

Society tends to expect mothers—even single moms juggling two jobs just to make ends meet—to maintain an “intensive mothering” level of parenting without question.

2. Money Helps When It Comes To Parenting

Most parents would agree that raising children tends to be expensive. Research shows that raising a child from birth to the age of 18 can cost roughly $233,610. As kids grow older, their needs and wants often become more expensive, adding extra strain to a household budget.

The challenge is even greater in a country where the gender pay gap remains significant. For single mothers, this means running a single-income household can be far more economically demanding compared to their male counterparts.

Research published in the Journal of Divorce & Remarriage states that “single fathers had better resources than single mothers. Single mothers have less education, less prestigious jobs, lower incomes and more economic strain than other parents.”

.

Being a single parent is undoubtedly hard. However, not all single parents are treated equally. Here … [+]  Getty

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

A skilled card player—eyes hidden by dark shades and features kept as still as possible—looks at their hand. Any small giveaway that they’re bluffing or holding great cards could lose them a painfully large sum of money. Sometimes it helps to have a “poker face.”

Yet in day-to-day life—when socializing with family, friends, and new acquaintances, for example—you might be better served letting your features fly free. Our research shows that moving your face in some way, whether you’re smiling, raising an eyebrow, or wrinkling your nose, may help people warm to you more.

In a recent study, we found that people who were more facially expressive were more liked by a new social partner, which could explain why humans have evolved to have such expressive faces. Indeed, our species is likely more facially expressive than any other. People produce, on average, 101 facial movements per minute in a typical social interaction.

To understand why facial expressivity is so beneficial, we first need to emphasize just how crucial social bonding is to human survival. Throughout most of our evolutionary history, our species has relied on tight-knit communities to keep ourselves fed, sheltered, and protected from predators and dangerous outsiders. Managing social relationships was literally a matter of life or death. Otherwise, you might have faced the tiger in the bushes alone. Any skill or behavior that improved someone’s ability to create and keep lifesaving bonds was likely to persist in our gene pool and cultural repertoires over the generations. And our research suggests that facial expressivity may fall in this category.

In our study, 52 people were filmed in an online social interaction with a researcher who posed as another participant. These dialogues played out over a video platform, so people could see one another’s face. Unbeknownst to the real participants, the researcher orchestrated various challenging social scenarios, such as telling an awful joke or demanding 80 percent of a reward in a negotiation. These situations mimicked everyday experiences, such as social conflict, embarrassment or an attempt to make a good impression.

Throughout, we observed how people’s face moved. We also obtained recordings of more than 1,300 participants in free-flowing conversations with other (real) participants online. Automated software then coded the small facial muscle movements they made during these interactions.

Interestingly, more agreeable, extraverted or neurotic people, as measured by a questionnaire, were more facially expressive. People with these personality traits may devote more time and energy to social interactions—whether because they enjoy socializing or have greater-than-average concerns about how they come across to others. And that added effort could be worthwhile, we found. After these interactions, the participants and their social partners rated how much they liked each other—as did 176 other participants who viewed video clips of these people. The pattern was clear: people who were more facially expressive were more liked by others.

But why would facial expressivity improve someone’s ability to build social bonds? Imagine meeting someone new and trying to figure out if they’re a good fit as a friend, colleague, or romantic partner. You might wonder if you can trust them, if they will help you or harm you—and whether you can even understand one another. Someone who is easier to read may seem to be a more appealing prospect than someone who is more guarded.

.

Master1305/Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Narcissism has been something of a mystery to psychologists. With narcissists, things tend to be extreme: the good is really good, and

the bad is really bad. Narcissism expert W. Keith Campbell compares interacting with narcissists to eating chococate cake: “When I eat chococlate cake, 20 minutes later I’m under my desk wanting to die. When I eat broccoli, in 20 minutes I feel good. But given the choice I always eat the cake.”

On the one hand, the narcissist’s charisma and self-confidence can be highly alluring. Psychologists Mitja Back and colleagues found that narcissists are indeed more popular at first acquaintance, and its due to four particular cues that make up their “charismatic air”*:

• Attractiveness (flashy, neat attire)
• Competence (self-assured behavior)
• Interpersonal Warmth (charming glances at strangers)
• Humor (witty verbal expressions)

On the other hand, research shows that the initial popularity of narcissists at the early stages of interpersonal interactions depends on the behavioral pathway that is triggered: expressive and dominant behaviors are associated with a positive evaluation, whereas arrogant and combative behaviors are associated with a negative evaluation. According to this research, narcissists may be more popular at first acquaintance because they are more likely to display behaviors that trigger a positive pathway, perhaps because they are trying to make a good first impression.

In line with this idea, W. Keith Campbell and Stacy Campbell proposed a new model of narcissism in which they argue that two particular time points are important. The “emerging zone” includes situations involving unacquainted individuals, early-stage relationships, and short-term contexts. In contrast, the “enduring zone” involves situations involving acquainted individuals, continuing relationships, and long-term consequences.

The costs of narcissism are seen primarily in the “enduring zone.” As the relationship develops, narcissists start displaying behaviors that are evaluated negatively, such as arrogance and aggression. Narcissists cyclically return to the emerging zone because they are addicted to the positive social feedback and emotional rush they get from this zone. They live in this zone. As a result, they are good at being popular, making new friends, and acquiring social status, but are really quite terrible at sustaining anything meaningful and intimate.

This handy chart shows the benefits and costs (for self and others) in both the emerging zone and the enduring zone. A landmark study by Delroy Paulhus (an expert on dark personalities) supports that model. Paulhus brought strangers together to engage in weekly 20-minute group discussion over a period of seven weeks.

They had people rate how they perceived others in the group after week one and then again at the last session (after seven weeks). He found that narcissism was initially related to positive evaluations, such as “assertive”, “confident”, “entertaining”, “exciting”, and “intelligent”. Seven weeks later, however, the same narcissists were evaluated much more negatively, receiving much higher ratings on characteristics such as “arrogant”, “tendency to brag”, and “hostile”. These findings provided some of the first evidence for narcissists’ declining popularity in social groups. But the question still remained: why the loss in popularity?

To get to the bottom of this mystery, Mitja Back and colleagues conducted a study in which they tracked changes in popularity over several time points. They drew on their new theory of narcissism, called the “Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept”. According to their theory, narcissists’ overarching goal of maintaining a grandiose self is pursued by 2 separate pathways: narcissistic admiration (assertive self-enhancement) and narcissistic rivalry (antagonistic self-protection). Despite being positively related to each other, these two different components of narcissism differentially predict interpersonal orientations,

reactions to transgressions in friendships and romantic relationships, interpersonal perceptions during group interactions, and observed behaviors in experimental observations.

Adopting this framework, the researchers had 311 college students engage in tasks with increasing levels of intimacy and self-disclosure. Participants first introduced themselves and later engaged in tasks requiring them to work together as a team and, finally, played a game in which they discussed each other’s personalities. Over a period of just three weeks, the researchers found that the association of narcissism with popularity among peers became more and more negative.

But they didn’t stop there. They were also able to pinpoint the cause of this loss in popularity. Narcissistic admiration explained initial popularity, while a decrease in narcissistic admiration and an increase in narcissistic rivalry over time was responsible for the decline in popularity. By the end of a three week period and several social interactions, narcissists were regarded as untrustworthy by their peers.

.

Narcissists are really quite terrible at sustaining anything meaningful and intimate. Photo by francescoch/Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Nicotine pouches—small, flavored packets placed between the gums and lips—have recently become an increasingly appealing option for people trying to avoid cigarettes and traditional “smokeless” oral tobacco products. Since the pouches were introduced to the U.S. market in 2014, they’ve found a steady following, particularly among people between the ages of 25 and 44. This month 20 products from the popular ZYN brand became the first such pouches to be “authorized” by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. While this falls short of the FDA’s designation of being “approved” as generally safe, it allows ZYN to continue selling its three- and six-milligram nicotine pouches in 10 different flavors, including spearmint, citrus, coffee, cinnamon, and menthol.

The FDA’s decision on ZYN, whose manufacturer, Swedish Match, had applied for authorization in 2020, was “long overdue,” says Jasjit Singh Ahluwalia, a physician and public health scientist at Brown University, who

has studied nicotine addiction for more than 30 years. The agency’s ruling drew from a study facilitated by Swedish Match that suggests the pouches got people to switch from other tobacco products such as cigarettes—which can contain dozens of compounds linked to cancer or other diseases. Pouches such as ZYN contain substantially fewer harmful chemicals than cigarettes.

The FDA apparently “concluded that the public health benefits have outweighed the risks,” says Mary Hrywna, an associate professor at the Rutgers School of Public Health and a founding member of the university’s Institute for Nicotine and Tobacco Studies. “It doesn’t mean that the products are safe.”

ZYN pouches were the top-selling oral nicotine brand in the U.S. by the end of 2023; that same year Philip Morris International (PMI), the tobacco conglomerate that owns Swedish Match, reported shipping almost 385 million cans of the pouches to the U.S. More broadly, total U.S. nicotine pouch sales rose from 126 million units in the last five months of 2019 to 808 million in the first three months of 2022, according to a JAMA report. Hrywna says that the FDA’s authorization of ZYN is a good first step in cracking down on bad actors.

“The market has exploded, and some of those manufacturers are just opportunists exploiting the lack of enforcement,” Hrywna says. “Now there’s at least one authorized [pouch] product, and so at the very least, I would think that the FDA could now take more forcible action on products that have not submitted any type of application.”

Nicotine pouches’ rise in popularity—and their potentially enticing flavors and marketing—have driven up concern about underage use. In the U.S. people must be age 21 or older to legally purchase any nicotine product, but last April the FDA issued more than 100 warning letters to brick-and-mortar and online retailers that sold ZYN to people under age 21. The 2024 National Youth Tobacco Survey found that pouch use among middle and high school students was 1.8 percent, meaning approximately 480,000 students. The FDA notes this rate among youth to be relatively low—e-cigarette use was 5.9 percent (1.63 million students) in comparison—but groups are concerned about any level of use by kids. So-called ZYNfluencers on TikTok and other social media platforms have been criticized for promoting the pouches to young adults.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Catherine Garcia was the only one of four siblings raised by her grandmother, as opposed to her mother. Over the years, she and her abuela from Puerto Rico would often switch roles as caregivers. Ultimately, Garcia took on this role full-time until her grandmother passed away.

There is a remarkable story that transpired between the time Garcia first moved in with her grandmother and the day she laid her to rest and beyond. Not only is it inspiring and a profound example of beating the odds, but Garcia’s story echoes the journeys of many other first-generation Latines in the United States who have had to support parents and caregivers while creating a life all their own.

On average, the typical Latine caregiver in the U.S. is 43 years old — which is younger than caregivers of other races and ethnicities — and caring for parents, parents-in-law, or grandparents who average about 67 years old and have one long- or short-term physical condition.1 More often than not, these caregivers have children under the age of 18, who are also living in their home, along with a partner or spouse. While Latine caregivers take on a lot of responsibilities within their household, they have lower incomes and education than their peers.

Today, Garcia is the OB/GYN Administrative Director and Mt. Sinai Academic Coordinator for BronxCare Health System in the Bronx, NY. The road it took for her to get there was anything but a smooth ride. Still, she preserved, the strength behind her resilience from the start and still today has always been her abuela.

Multigenerational families living together is very true to Latine culture in the United States and beyond. Approximately one-third or around 32 percent of Latine households in the U.S. are considered multigenerational,

meaning they include multiple adult generations living together and translate to a significant portion of Latines likely caring for an elderly family member within their household.2 Among those caregivers in Latine familias, women are significantly more likely to take on that role.

At times, it isn’t so much about wanting to be the caregiver as much as it is about adhering to cultural influences that instill strong family values within Latine families, which often means caring for elderly family members at home. 

Abuela’s Girl

“I was raised by my grandmother since kindergarten. She had three boys and always wanted a girl,” Garcia fondly recalls being raised in the Spanish Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan in New York City by her Abuela Ana Celia Alvarez from Arecibo, Puerto Rico. “She came to New York from Arecibo after she got married, seeking a better life for her children.”  

.

Parents / Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Vivek Ramaswamy, a key member of President-elect Trump’s team, recently reignited the debate around tiger parenting, equating it with “tough love” and framing it as a surefire path to success. His comments painted tiger parenting as a deliberate strategy for raising high-achieving, resilient children, but they overlooked the deeper roots of this parenting style.

Every time “Tiger Moms” enter the cultural discourse, I chuckle. I remember reading Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother as a young mom, and laughing as I imagined telling my deceased father that these practices are supposed to be reserved for Asian kids.

My reaction to that book seemed so much less judgmental than that of my friends—I read it as Amy Chua’s sincere desire to raise strong, healthy children. I thought her observations that nothing is fun until you attain mastery and that parents shouldn’t assume fragility in healthy children were particularly astute.

My friends seemed to see her as a one-dimensional figure: the demanding mom with her arms folded, demanding endless hours of violin practice. But I read a funny, conflicted mom who is truly struggling to figure out what her parenting practices should be in the face of a culture that believes otherwise.

Not having gotten the memo that these practices are only for Asian women, my father demanded academic excellence. He expected me to write book reports on books I had read for pleasure. If I brought home a grade that was less than 100 percent, my father wanted to know where the other two points went.

His higher education had been cut short by economic circumstances, and his chronic illness meant we relied on my mother’s job as a guidance counselor for our income. He always praised my mother’s master’s degree and stated his foregone conclusion that I’d attain a Ph.D. “Imagine…” he’d muse. “You get to write a thesis. And a dissertation.” His tone of voice made these sound like treats. (They weren’t, mostly.)

Even on his sickbed, my father expected me to write a detailed error analysis of my mistakes on tests. I protested in vain that the test was over, I got an A, even if two points were “missing,” and I really didn’t want to. He told me that disciplined scholars faced their mistakes, and he was right.

I felt loved by my father, if frustrated by him, and I read Chua’s book in the same light. I knew that he was afraid of poverty and that he saw higher education as a buffer against that fate. He also knew that he was dying. He was trying to protect—and prepare—me.

Now, Vivek Ramaswamy has brought high-demand parenting back into cultural discourse.

As someone who works with parents navigating their own post-traumatic experiences, I’d argue that tiger parenting is, at its core, a trauma response. It’s not just about wanting your kids to succeed; it’s about needing them to. And that distinction matters because it tells us something profound about how trauma shapes our parenting.

What Is Tiger Parenting?

Amy Chua described tiger parenting as a style that demands excellence. Kids are pushed to master difficult skills, often at the expense of leisure or emotional validation. While this approach can foster resilience, discipline, and achievement, it can also come with significant emotional costs—for both child and parent.

But why would a parent adopt such a rigid, high-pressure approach in the first place? Let’s explore how trauma influences parenting styles.

Trauma and the Fear of Failure

Trauma leaves an indelible mark on the way we view the world. For parents with unhealed trauma, especially trauma related to scarcity, poverty, or persecution, the stakes of “failure” can feel unbearably high. If you’ve experienced a world where not being the best meant losing opportunities—or worse, safety—it makes perfect sense that you’d do everything in your power to prevent your child from ever facing that reality.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Hmmm…A president for the people?

Click the link below the picture

.

CLIMATEWIRE | President Donald Trump’s cancellation of a 31-year-old environmental justice directive threatens the health of tens of millions of people in minority or low-income communities, which have often been dumping grounds for pollution, waste sites, and heavy industry, said civil rights advocates and experts.

Revoking a 1994 executive order by President Bill Clinton removes a mandate that survived four subsequent presidencies, including Trump’s first term, and required federal agencies to address the “high and adverse” environmental and health effects of their decisions on areas with high rates of poverty or large minority populations.

“It’s turning the clock back on decades of work,” said Peggy Shepard, co-founder and executive director of WE ACT for Environmental Justice, based in New York. “They’re working to eliminate policies and programs that support equity, support environmental and climate justice, and that’s just going to have a harmful effect on the health and well-being of so many people in these disadvantaged communities.”

Clinton’s Executive Order 12898, signed in February 1994, required federal agencies to analyze environmental and public health hazards in minority or low-income communities and to avoid adding to them.

Trump, in his own executive order that repealed the Clinton-era mandate, said the policies violate federal civil rights laws, sow racial division, and “deny, discredit, and undermine the traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement in favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system.”

Following Trump’s revocation, agencies will review each program for areas where “race and other marginalization identities are considered by the agency and how they are considered,” George Washington University law professor Emily Hammond said. Political appointees will lead the reviews and give reports to the White House Office of Management and Budget.

“It will be OMB that’s actually giving the final say to policies that are eliminated,” said Hammond, who was Energy Department deputy counsel in the Biden administration. “This process takes a while.”

Trump framed his revocation — and several others Tuesday — as an effort to end “illegal preferences and discrimination” in government.

Trump’s directive also will bar most federal grant programs from prioritizing projects that help minority or low-income communities. It also axes a 60-year-old equal employment executive order and several diversity and inclusion policies. Critics said the president’s moves ignore research about the health and financial effects of pollution on poor people.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

WHEN ABC BROADCAST A REMAKE OF AN episode of All in the Family, shot before a studio audience in 2019, the network recreated the Bunker family home In Queens, New York, down to the doilies and faded wall­paper, with Woody Harrelson and Marisa Tomei taking up Carroll O’Connor and Jean Stapleton’s roles as Archie, the ultraconservative loading-dock worker, and his kindly wife, Edith. Set in 1976, the episode centers around the unexpected arrival of David Brewster, their son-in-law Mike Stivic’s high school friend, a Vietnam War draft dodger who fled to Canada but just sneaked home for Christmas. When Edith invites David to join them for the holiday dinner, Mike cautions his friend not to tell Archie what he’d done—and to avoid such topics as “politics, religion, sex, books, movies, war, peace, guns . . . grapes, lettuce.”   

Archie, meanwhile, has invited his pal Pinky Peterson, whose son Steve was killed in the war. Mike’s worst fears are realized—David’s secret spills out and the joyous gathering quickly devolves into a bitter confrontation over the war, with a spitting-mad Archie yelling, “What he done was wrong!” Finally Pinky stands up and makes peace. “My kid hated the war too,” he says. “But he did what he thought he had to do. And David here, he did what he thought he had to do . . . if Steve was here, he would want to sit down with him. And that is what I want to do.” Pinky then walks over to David and shakes his hand.  

All in the Family debuted 50 years ago in January 1971, two years before the United States withdrew from Vietnam, and four years before that divisive conflict ended. Fifty-eight thousand Americans died in Southeast Asia, and when the Christmas special originally aired in 1976, the war was still a festering wound. The very day ABC restaged the show in 2019, Congress had started impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, and the country found itself as polarized as ever. So much had changed in four-plus decades—and yet so little.   

Back in the 1970s, of course, it was bold for a sitcom to take on such a sensitive topic as the war. But All in the Family was unlike anything seen before on television. Up until then, TV had a blandly homogenous quality. Three networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, ruled the airwaves, and the newly created Public Broadcasting Service had a niche audience. They all worked under a draconian Television Code, and offered wholesome and uncontroversial family entertainment. There was no political content, and situation comedies were inhabited by white middle-class families, noble lawmen, and quirky country folk. One of the few working-class shows was The Honeymooners, which centered around Brooklyn bus driver Ralph Kramden, his wife, Alice, his sewer worker friend, Ed Norton, and Ed’s wife, Trixie. It went off the air in 1956 after just one season, but would gain classic status in reruns. The Honeymooners influenced another series about working stiffs—this one animated: The Flintstones, which first aired in 1960 and featured Fred Flintstone, a prehistoric quarryman from the town of Bedrock, his wife, Wilma, best buddy, Barney, and his wife, Betty.   

That was about it for blue-collar comedy until Archie Bunker barged into America’s living rooms. Here was a full-throated “angry white man” from the borough of Queens who proudly proclaimed, “I hate change.” Americans had never seen a character like Archie on their television screens. He epitomized President Richard Nixon’s Silent Majority—conservatives who felt overlooked by the general public and Washington politicos—and he broadcast his biases and prejudices every week as he jostled with Mike and his feminist daughter, Gloria, while demeaning the superficially dim but disarmingly insightful Edith.  

Yet though Archie was proudly reactionary, he harbored a hidden kindness, and the show possessed a subversive and not so subtle radicalism. During All in the Family’s nine seasons on CBS, creators Norman Lear and Bud Yorkin used their series as a televised soapbox to masterfully portray the upheavals and concerns racking the United States. They slyly wove current events into a sitcom and used the medium to explore the rifts within American society and culture. The show pondered the war, the Watergate scandal, and the liberal-conservative divide and depicted the country’s changing views on such topics as politics, race, sex, religion, and women’s rights.   

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

.

It is time to act as people of a responsible republic. Don’t be complacent!

.

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

A thrilling crush, excruciating embarrassment or fervent dedication to a cause—adolescence can mean all of these things. For me, it involved a burning curiosity about the natural world, which led one time to my grandmother discovering a bag of cow eyeballs in the fridge. My dad had helped me collect them at a slaughterhouse for dissection.

I didn’t mean to upset anyone; I just wanted to figure out how sight works. Like others my age, I was also driven to understand why things are the way they are and how they could or should be different. A while after my eyeball phase, I declared myself a humanist and took to wearing a four-inch peace sign around my neck. My sister and I began writing and performing (admittedly somewhat histrionic) folk songs through which we attempted to express our discontent with various global, local, and historical injustices.

As a teen, I was swimming in big ocean waves, so to speak—watching, listening, questioning, and grappling to make sense of all the complex cultural and emotional information coming my way. Who are we humans, anyway, and who am I? Now, 35 years later, I am still fascinated by these questions and by the ways in which adolescents struggle to make sense of what they witness and experience.

Take these responses from teens in urban Los Angeles to my asking them why they think some people in their neighborhood commit violent crimes:

“They have, like, a lot of emotions. They’re really mad, so they just kill somebody. Like, overly aggressive.”

“Everyone has a history. Like, everybody has an action or choice or some sort of history—some sort of thing happened to them that affects how they act in the future.”

The difference between the quotes is subtle but critical in its implications for brain development. The first one describes the proximal reason for a crime and represents the kind of focused thinking people need to keep themselves safe and to respond appropriately to shifting circumstances. But the second reveals awareness of the broader historical, cultural or social context in which individuals do the things they do.

.

Cinta Fosch

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________