The Giants are in the World Series.
As somebody who travels in circles largely devoid of professional sports fans, I’ve often felt a duality of personality; namely, I’m an intensely voracious sports fan in a non-sports fan’s mold, one who rarely if ever discusses such things outside the confines of a familial chat or internet message board. I rather like this, because honestly, none of my friends give a shit, and I’d feel kind of childish opining about my love of what are essentially macho, irrelevant diversions. My affinity for sport is mostly born from the rare times I find myself relating emotionally to the event, or team, I’m watching. The 2010 San Francisco Giants might be the strongest example of that (despite the fact that I’ve always considered myself a basketball fan first and foremost), but that’s a tale for another day. Hopefully a happy tale, told about a week from now.
The team lining up against these vaunted, orange-clad heroes are the Texas Rangers, led by their superstar outfielder Josh Hamilton. Now, Josh Hamilton, as it happens, is a drug addict of a rather prodigious streak. While out of baseball with an injury in 2001, he started riding the H-Train, and by all accounts it fucked up his life pretty good. When he cleaned up in 2006, he began the comeback path to return to the Major Leagues, and ultimately, to reclaim the mantle of baseball virtuoso that his addiction very nearly washed away. Let it be said now that I’m very happy for him, and wish him continued success in staying sober and happy for the rest of his life. He confessed to a brief relapse in a Tempe, AZ bar in 2009, and reportedly takes great pains to insure himself against his own cravings for drugs; he explicitly avoids enduring long periods of time by himself. According to him, though, cannabis has never been his thing.
That said, the man has a nose for it:
“I could smell weed in the outfield,” Hamilton said. “It was crazy. I was looking at the cops a couple of times during the game.”
Filed under: Media
I’ll try to be brief, here, as I’ve said about all on this I felt the need to. There is, though, a specific thing I’d like to point out about Fox News’ condemnation of NPR, and about how Fox News does business.
One of the prominent elements of the Juan Williams firing that’s made things considerably worse for NPR from a public relations standpoint is Vivian Schiller’s remark the he should keep his feelings about Muslims “between him and his psychiatrist.” Ouch, right? I agree, this is a pointless comment that amounts to piling on a man who’s already out the door, and Schiller has publicly apologized to Williams, though Williams has still expressed public outrage at the comment. Fox News may be an awkward position for Juan as such, as they have a substantial, on the record history of condescending, unnecessarily personal attacks on high-profile figures who they feel have slighted them.
“Real American Stories features uplifting tales about overcoming adversity and we believe Mr. Smith’s interview fit that criteria… However, as it appears that Mr. Smith does not want to be associated with a program that could serve as an inspiration to others, we are cutting his interview from the special and wish him the best with his fledgling acting career.”
That’s an official Fox News statement, issued after LL Cool J bemoaned that they were repackaging an old interview from 2008 into an episode of Sarah Palin’s “Real American Stories.” It’s clearly designed to agitate and denigrate LL Cool J, who’s “fledging acting career” has been running since the 90s. I’m having trouble tracking down other examples of this, though I know they’re out there- I’ve probably read at least three or four other examples of Fox News, an unbiased news organization by their own claims (a slogan which these days can’t be seen as anything but laughable by any discerning observer), releasing some snarky quip in an official capacity to needle those who disdain them. This isn’t pertinent in terms of vindicating Schiller, as what she said about Juan Williams was clearly a bridge too far, and wholly unneeded. It is, however, pertinent to remember every time you hear somebody on Fox News bring up what a disgrace Schiller’s comment was, and what a hero Juan Williams is, that this isn’t based on merit. It’s loyalty, a gang-mentality, and a gross hypocrisy. If tomorrow Juan Williams quit his lucrative new Fox deal and claimed, even in an even keeled voice with rational arguments, that the network was too partisan for him? They would shit all over him in a New York minute.
If anybody can find other examples of these official Fox News statements I’m referring to, let me know in the comments- it’s very bad form to make a claim like this without more than the one example, and normally I wouldn’t do it, if not for my utter certainty in this regard. I’ll update here when I track down more of these.
UPDATE: Found this AP article from 2006 on this very topic! Some choice selections:
On the now late Tim Russert:
“Tim’s sour grapes are obvious here, but at least he’s not using his father as a prop to sell books this time around. That said, we wish him well on his latest self-promotion tour.”
On David Shuster:
“We can understand David’s disappointment in being let go by Fox News Channel, but he’s too young to be so bitter. We wish him well in getting his career back on track.”
On Keith Olbermann:
“Because of his personal demons, Keith has imploded everywhere he’s worked. From lashing out at co-workers to personally attacking Bill O’Reilly and all things Fox, it’s obvious Keith is a train wreck waiting to happen. And like all train wrecks, people might tune in out of morbid curiosity, but they eventually tune out, as evidenced by Keith’s recent ratings decline. In the meantime, we hope he enjoys his paranoid view from the bottom of the ratings ladder and wish him well on his inevitable trip to oblivion.”
On Ted Turner:
“Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind. We wish him well.”
On George Clooney:
“We are disappointed that George has chosen to hurt Mr. O’Reilly’s family in order to promote his movie… But it’s obvious he needs publicity considering his recent string of failures. We wish him well in his struggle to regain relevancy.”
On Jonathan Klein:
“We wish CNN well in their annual executive shuffle… We wish Jon well in his battle for second place with MSNBC.”
Again: starts with an H and rhymes with democracy.
Filed under: Cooking
Ingredients:
-1 large, ripe avocado
-3 cups powdered sugar
-1 1/4 cups cocoa
-1/2 cup of vegan butter substitute
-1 1/2 teaspoons of vanilla extract
-Chopped nuts optional
Melt the vegan butter over a low heat and allow it to stay warm. Skin and remove the pit from the avocado, and whip it until it’s entirely smooth (either with a food processor, or failing that, egg beater). Add the cocoa, powdered sugar, and vanilla extract, then pour the warm vegan butter on top and stir vigorously by hand for about five minutes or until it reaches a thick, smooth consistency with no bits of sugar or avocado left unmixed. Mix in nuts if you so desire. Can be refrigerated or put in the freezer, then enjoyed at your leisure. This is an extremely quick dessert recipe that produces a very extravagantly rich and sweet result. And the fact that the main thickening agent is avocado makes it endearingly peculiar.
South Carolina’s Republican senator, Jim DeMint, has announced he’ll be bringing a bill before the Senate, the gritty details of which I’ve had trouble nailing down, but the jist of it is this: DeMint has taken objection to the dismissal of Juan Williams from NPR this week and has taken the opportunity to move to financially wound public broadcasting, both on radio and television. In his own words:
“Once again we find the only free speech liberals support is the speech with which they agree… The incident with Mr. Williams shows that NPR is not concerned about providing the listening public with an honest debate of today’s issues, but rather with promoting a one-sided liberal agenda.”
Having laid the track down, DeMint then fired up the Fiscal Conservative Express.
“The country is over $13 trillion in debt and Congress must find ways to start trimming the federal budget to cut spending…”NPR and PBS get about 15 percent of their total budget through federal funding, so these programs should be able to find a way to stand on their own. With record debt and unemployment, there’s simply no reason to force taxpayers to subsidize a liberal programming they disagree with.”
There’s a lot to wade through here. First, I’ll grant you that somebody who reads this and gives a fist pump because they’ve always felt NPR was a dishonest liberal racket is going to be damn near impossible to convince otherwise. How we relate emotionally to media, to my mind, plays a critical role in the information we seek out and the personalities we gravitate to. I’ll gladly acknowledge that there are times when I feel an urge to bury myself in exclusively left-wing media because I agree with it, it validates those agreements, and leaves me feeling a little less isolated in the world. But this urge isn’t an urge motivated by purest pursuit of fact, so much as it is similar to a craving for a favorite food, or a vice of choice. It’s important to constantly challenge those impulses that would allow our brains to live entirely in the echo chamber.
Having said that, and in full recognition of the biases I bring to the table as a political commentator, here’s what I’ll say: NPR is not a liberal news outfit. They’re probably just left of center, I’ll admit, but I think the extent to which their programming emphasizes calm discussion and education reinforces this perception beyond the reality. They have interesting and engaging debates constantly, both left vs. right, as well as providing some of the least biased straight news coverage out there. These aren’t verifiable facts, but I urge anybody who isn’t familiar with their organization, try listening to the local affiliate (88.5 FM Bay Area is the one I use, I believe 91.7 is the other) the next few days, and decide for yourself. Regardless of whether you decide it is a cabal of high-minded liberals or not, I think you’d be hard pressed to say that their journalistic standards towards objectivity aren’t more strong and clear than on any televised news option. When they interview Senate and Gubernatorial candidates, they almost always give them equal time, even though the Fairness Doctrine is long dead.
Part of this standard is the NPR Ethics Code, which I’ve referenced here before. That Juan Williams’ long-term relationship with Fox News Channel violated those standards seems, to me, beyond discussion; NPR’s policy is more or less “don’t say it there if you wouldn’t say it here,” and the difference in candor between NPR Juan and Fox Juan is substantial. Senator DeMint tries in his quote to make this a first amendment issue, and in doing so falls prey to the same confusion that embroiled Laura Schlessinger after her racist soliloquy (her commentary of race relations, in fact, was much more illuminating of this racism than her memorable, repeated slurs). Appearing on Larry King after the incident, Schlessinger said she was quitting her radio program, because she wanted to find a format wherein her first amendment rights weren’t being stifled. Sad to say, the first amendment has little or nothing to do with it. The first amendment is why there’s no state or governmental action that could be taken against her, but beyond that, it doesn’t assure her a daily drive-time talk radio show. If anything, NPR kept WIlliams around much longer than I’d personally have expected, given his willful decision to go against the spirit of their ethics code and regularly appear on the most hyper-partisan news station on television.
DeMint’s subsequent fiscally conservative chatter is more or less hollow, to boot. NPR’s public money (as the bulk of their funding is through underwriting and donations) for last year came to just over 3.3 million dollars, otherwise known by Washington standards as utterly irrelevant chump change that’s not even close to paramount if you’re looking to reform how the federal government spends money. It’s not a meaningful savings, it’s a political game, being played with a news outlet intended to service the public good. Which, for a pretty low government expenditure it does so very, very well.
To be clear, it’s impossible to know the true thoughts bumping around inside Jim DeMint’s head. But by the very easily examined facts of what he’s said and what he’s chosen to rally against, it seems like just another effort to weaken ways in which the government helps the public good, and to slide more and more media (and ultimately government functions of all shapes and sizes) off the public rolls and into the private market.
In conclusion, just remember: this is not a story about free speech, nor about government waste. It’s about Juan Williams disrespecting the standards of his employer, being fired (and hired to a much richer deal with Fox), and crying sour grapes while Jim DeMint pounds his Senate pulpit.
Filed under: Media
In the broadest possible sense, I believe NPR to be the best news organization we as Americans have at our disposal. This is not to say that there aren’t local news stations, both more “corporate” and underground, that might provide more pertinent information to your everyday life; for a nationwide news outlet, though, NPR has been able to maintain a standard that seems unthinkable within the malaise of sensationalism and unreliability in our mass media. It has managed to do this relatively unaffected by the occasional rhetorical barbs thrown its way (as it represents a concise and nuanced take on current events, it’s been a predictable target for the Fox News Channel over the years), and I couldn’t be happier, since I spend a lot of time in my car, and I don’t like listening to Zoo Crew style radio.
One of the things that is fairly striking about NPR’s style of coverage is the tone of the discussion. From the people broadcasting, to the listening audience who occasionally call in, there’s a higher bar of restraint and respect in the discourse than you’ll find most places. Similarly, their internal commitment to objectivity is more transparent and enforced than their competitors. This, basically, is the real story behind the dismissal of Juan Williams, longtime NPR correspondent turned Fox News pundit. That is to say, there’s hardly a story at all.
The NPR Ethics Code lays forth pretty clearly a number of reasons (chiefly section V, part eight) Juan Williams’ relationship with Fox was problematic for them. Think it might hurt Williams’ perceived objectivity and credibility for everyone to know he starts sweating and fidgeting when he sees a Muslim a few rows down the plane? It’s not even a question, by the ethics standards he agreed to uphold as part of their organization.Those with a slightly longer memory will recall that this isn’t the first friction over this issue, NPR having already asked Fox News quite a while ago to stop billing Williams as an “NPR Political Analyst” during his appearances on their hyper-partisan programming. You could make a case that the longer Williams spent his time over at FNC made this day more and more of an inevitability.
I also notice that, in light of the recent conservative backlash because of this (NPR is communist radio! De-fund NPR!), nobody is pointing out that the NPR ethics code has clearly and decisively cut both ways within just the last couple weeks. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s “Rally to Restore Sanity And/Or Fear,” which I suspect most conservatives would consider a left-leaning event, was deemed by NPR to be inappropriate for their reporters to attend in a non-journalistic capacity. But as always, the false dichotomy of a leftist NPR that hates our freedom of speech is more pertinent to some than the facts are.
Filed under: U.S. Politics
I’m generally wary of pigeonholing various different political minds into one “groupthink” entity, as this lends itself to oversimplification in political analysis. Were I to do that, I might be left to assume that Barack Obama has some sort of disdain for the gay community, or at least for the touchstone political issues that resonate for them these days. This, of course, wouldn’t be wholly fair; the events that have transpired regarding the military’s gay ban in recent days could be argued to have as much to do with judicial procedure and the rule of law as anything (though I’m nonetheless rather galled). However, from a purely political perspective, it’s nice to see a Democratic administration doing what Democrats do best, rallying disappointing and agonizing their base.
Let it not be said (as Robert Gibbs quipped some time ago) that I’m merely a unsatiable liberal who won’t be happy until the Pentagon shutters its windows for good, or that I’m being too cynical about the record of the present administration. I very proudly voted for the Obama/Biden ticket in 2008, not because I believed that what waited beyond was the leftist, pot-saturated, euro-socialist style America of my dreams. It was, as virtually every vote I’ve ever cast has been, a vote of pragmatism.Pragmatism mixed with the exhilaration of a possible post-racial awakening, sure, but I always knew at least a few of the warts. Obama’s a charming guy with some smart ideas and a million dollar smile, sure, but he’s never supported gay marriage, which is as much of a blatant up or down morality choice for me as any (and the choice isn’t the one the mass appropriators of the word “moral” would have you believe).
His stated position has always been a support for hospital visitation rights for homosexuals, as well as civil unions, but Joel Burns (the openly gay Fort Worth councilman who recently gave this chilling and emotional speech on the recent spate of gay teen suicide) getting to call the man he loves “my husband” is too much. Why does “redefining” a word matter so much to those who stand to lose nothing by it? Did it matter so when anti-miscegenation laws were disbanded (well yes, according to the wrong side of history back then)? This is a tired example, but I have yet to be given a logically compelling counter.
I’ve always hoped, perhaps unrealistically, that his position on gay marriage was little more than political calculus for President Obama. It’s still a very contentious national argument, one that prominently features a pervasive and very well-funded bunch of religious organizations on the opposition. The Proposition 8 incident in California two years ago is a vivid example; an incredible torrent of out-of-state money and publicity, much of it from groups religiously opposed to gay marriage, made a heavy impact on the result. When viewed through the prism of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, however, things becomes somewhat murkier and more concerning, as this political riskiness couldn’t be less true of this issue.
Polling has been somewhat variable on this issue, but most all credible polls have shown something from either a reasonable to dominant level of public support for repeal. Conservatives writ large don’t seem to view this as a worthwhile political issue, the main public opponent of repeal being the zero-integrity Sen. John McCain (a title he’s seized in recent years by utter lack of political principal or shame, obscuring the staggeringly high-integrity account of his willing detention in Vietnam) whose twisting machinations on the policy have been sad and infuriating to see. But John McCain is not a kingmaker in Republican politics anymore, if he ever even was, and as such the politics implications of all this become more bewildering. Unless you’ve been paying no attention to the national media narrative (a luxury I’ve never felt comfortable affording myself), there’s this thing the Democrats are worried about- it’s called “the voter enthusiasm gap.” In short and sweet terms, Republicans YEEEEEAAAGAGGGGHHHH!!! Democrats meh.
The conventional wisdom would dictate that in a time when everybody- even you, yourself- suspects that your posse isn’t quite as riled up and ready to start cracking skulls as your rivals from the other end of town, a pep talk might be in order. Some sort of morale boost to make sure the grunts you’re gonna be strapping brass knuckles to and shoving to the front of the fray don’t decide, “hey, I love this episode of Seinfeld. I’m sure the guys will be fine without me.” Allowing gays to openly serve is that morale boost. It’s pure and simple civil rights reform, a shot in the arm on just the sort of issue that allows liberals to argue their ideals on a moral level. For the justice department to appeal the recent judicial injunction against the policy may be academic, to an extent; it stands to reason that a government should generally seek to uphold its congressionally approved laws, and though I’ve heard conflicting reports as to the extent of President Obama’s individual ability to halt the policy (by executive order, for example, a cudgel George W. Bush wielded so long and so well), I’ll suppose for a moment he can’t do it. Even taking that as the cold, hard facts, this simply hasn’t been a cornerstone issue for the President from a policy standpoint, or a rhetorical one. He should be starting every campaign rally, every press conference, and every public event by asking the American people why, in a time of war, the Republican party is willing to wield Senate powers to watch gay men and women who are willing to risk their lives in our armed forces get kicked out. It’s simple, blunt politics, and I don’t know why it isn’t happening.
Filed under: Japan
I’ve never been a good regular writer. I do have enough self-confidence and reasoned objectivity to view myself as a good writer qualitatively, but in terms of quantity I’ve rarely if ever passed muster. This is especially crucial in the world of blogging, cause let’s be honest; few people probably read this blog from the get-go, so when you add in a year of utter inactivity, what’s left? Thankfully, for me, blog traffic was never so much the goal of this place as much as having an outlet for political, emotional, and informational impulses. It also served as my update spot when I took off to the Far East last year.
The Chisun Inn
Perhaps why this has been fluttering through my mind lately is that it’s been almost one year precisely since I took off for Osaka. The departure was more climatic emotionally than the eventual experience would warrant (as a month’s vacation in Japan with close to 1,200 to burn is more fun than a grind), but the impact of such feelings can resonate regardless of the life that unfolds past them. It’s no secret to my family, and a few of my friends, that returning to the States after that month was a profound disappointment. I have a somewhat depressive personality, and in knowing this I always seek to isolate reality from perception, because I often feel that my perception sometimes colors the world as more oppressive and unpleasant than it really is for somebody with my life. In applying this effort, I can see very clearly that given the circumstance, I shouldn’t and don’t intellectualize the experience as a failure.
I do feel it as a failure, though. That’s been very clear from the moment I staggered out into SFO International, awake for a day straight, squinting at the morning light. It might be a cliche’ sounding thing to say, but it felt then, and feels now, as if a certain element of myself was left behind, and I think I’ve become a less adventurous and open person by result. My ambitions, grand as they are, have recently been tempered with a painfully listless amount of effort. And with each passing week, I find myself daydreaming about roaming the streets of Esaka, riding the Midosuji and Chuo Lines, exploring Umeda, Tennoji, Osakako and Miyakojima, and my apartment in Bentencho, which was the first residence I ever lived in entirely on my own.
My lovely living room
Basically, I need to go back. REALLY badly. Not necessarily as anything beyond a tourist on a nice, languid course throughout the nation of Japan. The time I spent there, never having really left the country in any meaningful way (a non-meaningful way being a two-hour stop in Ensenada, Mexico as part of a Carnival cruise), was fairly intoxicating, and I wanted badly to spend all my time pursuing the sights and sounds that would really be worthwhile to me, but I didn’t; seeking residence and employment as I was, every day was a pretty big slog: communicative foibles, making appointments for job interviews I knew I might not even be valid for, pouring over apartment listings (until I found my Bentencho hideaway), and trying not to yell at the Citibank phoneline guy who ate up forty dollars US on a long distance call I had to make to unfreeze my bank account.
So, basically, if I can ever get a real job for real pay, there’s gonna be a burgeoning fund for that purpose.
Filed under: Poetry
Zabboghast!;
galloping gallantly
terrible terror tearing through the
winding wheat with whistling whipping
quick quick
his high hurdling, hard hoofed horse
steaming, stringy sinew straining straight
down down
flowers felled from fascist feet
clomping, clubbing, crushing carnally
ache ache
bravery bursts, brawling back
Zounds! Zabboghast! Zipping zephyr!
rip rip
Slumped slack, strung secured, still saddled
Killed knavishly, knowing kinder knives
Filed under: Japan
I tracked down a lunch cafe today that features a vegan (well, predominantly, you have to not put cream in your coffee or have any of the fried, milk dipped spongy ball things) lunch buffet! It was a delicious, and HIGHLY welcome experience following two or so weeks of having to pedantically walk everyone through what I can and cannot eat.
Greens!
Curried tofu, salad greens, delicious bread (the first I've had in some time), and an incredible mushroom-based dumpling soup.
What you see on my plate is more or less their full array. It’s not the best place for selection, but the food was profoundly nourishing. I went back to the meal line to snag another piece of their bread, mainly so I could try their spiced orange marmalade sort of concoction. It was expectedly great. Perhaps I should explain the significance of the bread- bread available in most stores in Japan, at least the ones in or around my part of the city, are both an ABSOLUTE, UNMITIGATED FARCE, and entirely non-vegan. I didn’t research the historical reason too extensively, but one article suggested that this sort of bread rose to heavy prominence just following the second World War due to lack of wheat production. For those who haven’t seen it, I tend to think of it as a cartoonish imagining of the sort of processed white breads you’d see back in the states (though it comes in varying shades of color, darker shades attempting to hide the decrepit core within). They’re all very thick, however; I have yet to see bagged bread for sale in more than four slices. Their texture (squishy) seems to be a selling point, as I’ve seen a handful of TV commercials for various brands that revolve entirely around children laughing as they bend and squish their pillowy slices of bread. I guess the best description would be a piece of texas toast bleached damn near whiter than Wonder Bread, with the physical feel of a foam soap sponge.
In any case, it’s pumped full of milk, sugar and butter, I imagine to make up for the distinct lack of actual bread involved. It also manages to offend my sense despite my non-consumption, because large aisles full of it tend to waft a slight scent that makes me feel a bit nauseated. To this point, I have found no market that has been able to offer me vegan bread. Apparently there’s a health food store with a lot of vegan fare in Esaka (which I wish I’d looked up during the week I was staying there), so I’m hoping to hit that up tomorrow. It’s an odd feeling knowing how difficult it would be for me to just make a sandwich.
In any case, the aforementioned vegan buffet was just a brisk jaunt from Osakako Station, on the Chuo Line (my primary line out of Bentencho), which happens to be the same place I went with Jesse and Brian when they were coming through. I recalled that during our brief visit to the Suntory Museum they were advertising a couple of sea life flicks in 3D on their IMAX screen. With my stomach full of wholesome goodness, thus feeling more content than usual, I decided to scope it out. The big thing playing was Under the Sea 3D! which to my concern was narrated by Jim Carrey. The show was also sold out. I decided to buy a ticket for a later show and come back, as I had been mulling over a haircut anyways.
The haircut in question was a big relief; my hair had grown to the point that it was always blowing in my face, and due to my hair’s proclivity for oiliness, this generally coincides with a rash of zits and blemishes. Thankfully, I think I headed off the worst of it.
My return for the IMAX flick was reluctant; despite having already payed for the ticket, I suddenly felt somewhat sick and strange, and I felt the instinct to either head home, or to find a nice scenic spot by the harbor and chill out. The consumer in me led me back to the theater, nonetheless. The movie was as I had expected, high on impressive and wonderful footage (made better by the enormous 3D immersion), but also heavy on Jim Carrey trying to charm me with his Jim Carrey ways. Not the crazy slapstick way, the more grounded, whimsically musing way. I could ignore it, for the most part, but one distinct issue I took with it was the personification the narration lent to the sea life. A scuttlefish fails to nab its prey, “that must be annoying!” A potato cod gets its face and mouth cleaned by some symbiotic fish, “she’s getting her face done, and when you’re a potato cod, you need all the help you can get!” A ground trawler rushes at a crab and devours it, “he doesn’t want to get pinced by the claws, but it’s worth it for a crab dinner!” If they’d just had no audio track, it would’ve been an infinitely more enjoyable experience.
It was also only forty minutes long, which I was completely not expecting. It’s an odd feeling to be strapped in for another hour or so of movie only to have the credits suddenly start rolling. Given the ten dollar price of admission, I paid a buck every four minutes of that thing.
In closing, here’s a couple other snapshots from around Osakako:
Thought about it, but I didn't feel well enough.
Couldn't they just hire me to fix all these signs? I'd be the only guy they'd need.
A crazed/happy vegetable man carting around his cautiously optimistic vegetable buddies?
It's your oldest and dearest friend.
The Crater 