Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3531 of them)
That's Isreal, not Judaism

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (12 years ago) Permalink

Is a state intolerant for forbidding someone to open his business, or restricting his hours of busines by law on the Sabbath no matter what his religion?

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (12 years ago) Permalink

in·tol·er·ant    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-tlr-nt)
adj.

Not tolerant, especially:
a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
c. Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.


I'd say a) is pretty different to b)

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:38 (12 years ago) Permalink

That's Isreal, not Judaism
-- run it off (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004 1:37 PM.


because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?
-- Stringent Stepper (stringen...), January 27th, 2004 1:30 PM.

there you go mate

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:39 (12 years ago) Permalink

the State may well be intolerant if it restricted business hours for citizens who don't share the law of the Sabbath, but the religion isn't intolerant because the state does this.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:40 (12 years ago) Permalink

So, if the problem is the conflation of the state and the religion, does that mean it is racist to say that Judaism is intolerant instead of saying that Isreal is intolerant?

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (12 years ago) Permalink

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (12 years ago) Permalink

Huzzah, The UK is intolerant (no shock there....)

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:42 (12 years ago) Permalink

Well, a lot of places in London settled by Jews had Sunday trading by dint of being closed on Saturday for Sabbath: see Brick Lane/Whitechapel, Golders Green/Hampstead.

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:44 (12 years ago) Permalink

the religion isn't intolerant because the state does this

I don't know enough about the tenets of Judaism to go into it, but by analogy -- it *is* intolerant if it sanctions the law, surely?

Judaism != Jews, maybe, run it off? It's clumsy, but race and religion are not the same. So it isn't racist to criticize a faith? I doin't know.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:46 (12 years ago) Permalink

Religious Law is not intolerant of those who break religious law.

Surely religious las IS intolerant of people who break it. I'm guessing there must be punishments for transgression, even if it's just an evil look during church - and that kind of emotional punishment can be extremely effective/painful, especially in close-knit communities and ones where the people have a God's good will yo lose.



Laws are not opinions, so flouting the law is not a differing opinion either.
If you are a Jew, you do not drive etc on the Sabbath. This is a ritual by which you live a religious life. It is the code by which you get closer to god. That is not intolerant. Judaism would be intolerant if it forbid non-Jews to drive etc on the Sabbath.

-- run it off (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004.

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.

Also, not being allowed to drive on a Sunday (or Saturday) IS intolerant: intolerant toward Jews. I think most religions are least tolerant of their own.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:52 (12 years ago) Permalink

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.

That's a bit of a shallow view of jurisprudence.

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:55 (12 years ago) Permalink

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

how could a religion as old as the hills sanction a state as young as Isreal? Still less the acts of the leaders of such a state.

The ideological screen idea is itself an ideological screen.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:34 (12 years ago) Permalink

Ideologies don't screen. They are productive not obstructive. Eagleton at one point uses the example of the phrase "the Prince of Wales is a nice chap". This is ideological because it produces a certain effect (support for the Royals as people) not because it hides the real social relations (Royals are social leeches, or etc). The fact that it makes no mention of politics, economics, and so on does not mean that it is a screen any more than a black and white photo can be said to be a screen against colour.

As such, juridprudence is not an ideological screen; it is ideological. That doesn't mean it is no different from other ideas or opinions. Opinions that are ratified and authorised are not opinions in the same way as opinions that are not.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:41 (12 years ago) Permalink

Sorry -- it was just my little joke. Nonetheless, I think it's interestingly provocative to call laws 'opinions'.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:46 (12 years ago) Permalink

yes, I agree.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:02 (12 years ago) Permalink

Hey, we Jews are barely tolerant of each other, let alone the rest of you.

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:12 (12 years ago) Permalink

Enough with the kvetching!

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:41 (12 years ago) Permalink

kvetching - one of my favourites. A friend calls her young baby a kvetch box

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:47 (12 years ago) Permalink

Every time you moan you have to put a coin in the kvetch box.

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:55 (12 years ago) Permalink

[all babies are young, aren't they... doh!]

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:59 (12 years ago) Permalink

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.
That's a bit of a shallow view of jurisprudence.

-- Ricardo (boyofbadger...), January 27th, 2004.

Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law isn't it? Isn't what I've said what that all boils down too?

Where _is_ the depth?
It's simple isn't it?

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Can you explain how it all boils down to opinion?

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (12 years ago) Permalink

Hey, we Jews are barely tolerant of each other, let alone the rest of you.
-- Chuck Tatum (sappy_papp...), January 27th, 2004.

See! Told you!

And more kvetchup please!

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (12 years ago) Permalink

Laws (attempt to) make people behave in the ways other people _think_ they should behave.

How humans should behave is a matter of opinion. Different religions, for example, havie differing opinions.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:02 (12 years ago) Permalink

Sorry -- it was just my little joke. Nonetheless, I think it's interestingly provocative to call laws 'opinions'.
-- Enrique (miltonpinsk...), January 27th, 2004.

To clarify, laws themselves aren't exactly opinions, but what they attempt to enshrine as 'right' and 'wrong' ARE opinions.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:05 (12 years ago) Permalink

I might break the law even though I agree with it generally, but I may also break the law because I have a different opinion as to what is 'rihgt' and what is 'wrong'.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:06 (12 years ago) Permalink

who are these other people? Don't the laws apply to the people who write them? (Seriously)

If laws are backed by the state (and, after all, that's what makes them laws, rather than guidelines or codes or something else) then they are not just opinions, they are sanctified, ordered, institutionalied, backed up by the criminal justice system etc. I'm not saying power and hierarchy and stuff aren't involved -- of course they are -- but laws don't get to be laws without going through a socially sanctioned process.

The case of breaking the law because you have a different opinion (civil disobedience etc) does not mean that the law is treated as opinion it means that laws are seen as arbitrary and changeble, so that collective action can bring about social changes that force laws to change.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:07 (12 years ago) Permalink

Yes they do apply to those that write them (or they're supposed to).

Yes, they are socially sanctioned, they are the combined opinions of a lot of people.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:09 (12 years ago) Permalink

By 'opinion' here I mean 'what some people' think is right.

Also, I'm not saying the law is _treated as_ an opinion, I'm saying it _is_ an opinion.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:11 (12 years ago) Permalink

From dictionary.com

o·pin·ion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.

A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).

A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.

A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.

The prevailing view: public opinion.

Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:12 (12 years ago) Permalink

So for example, the law that says "kill someone, go to jail", implies that killing is wrong.

And "Killing is wrong" is "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof".


(The last clause of that definition is a coincidence, and not what I was aiming at really, 'opinion' seems to be fairly slight homonym.)

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:15 (12 years ago) Permalink

I believe killing is wrong, but I'll admit that it's just a belief.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:16 (12 years ago) Permalink

law is not an opinion except in an abstract sense. Even if an opinion is converted into law through the established procedure it is not an opinion. At least it's not an opinion anymore.

That's all I'm saying.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:16 (12 years ago) Permalink

How can 'killing is wrong' be just a belief? Do you mean it's only wrong for you and people who agree with you? What about people who don't agree with you, such as, let me think, ah yes, murderers?

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:18 (12 years ago) Permalink

Our rabbi would curtail his sermon whenever Spurs played home, which was a great act of altruism and tolerance.

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:24 (12 years ago) Permalink

About 40.5% said Jews in their country had “a particular relationship with money”

So what if a culture is associated with professions like banking and so on? My Parsee ancestors held a similar position in India. Big deal.


That is not nearly as harmless an accusation as you may think. The belief that Jews are obsessed with money is one of the foundations to anti-semitism.

Also "playing the victim" in regards to the Holocaust has that vomit-inducing ring of Holocaust denial.

bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:25 (12 years ago) Permalink

Why did people stop writing books of the bible, anyway? There should totally be one tracing the decline of Spurs that culminates in them being cast of the garden of 'big clubs'.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:26 (12 years ago) Permalink

So what if a culture is associated with professions like banking and so on? My Parsee ancestors held a similar position in India. Big deal.


That is not nearly as harmless an accusation as you may think. The belief that Jews are obsessed with money is one of the foundations to anti-semitism.

I think N made his point well, actually, in that within the matrix of (especially central and eastern) European culture, the link between Jews and banking/trade was made into an ideological justification for anti-semitism, and was therefore more harmful than in other contexts. Stereotyping according to race/culture is a touchy area, but the association, or the making of associations, is/are not in themselves bad.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:30 (12 years ago) Permalink

Sorry for crossposting with a serious post.

bnw - I know that about the money thing. But the question didn't ask 'are Jews intrinsically obsessed with money?'. I know that a good number of the people who answered yes to the question are probably horribly anti-semitic, but I resent the implication that they all have to be. 'Vomit inducing rings' are what all these questions work with, but I prefer my anti-racism to be less 'you must mean that really', in character.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:31 (12 years ago) Permalink

"mentality and lifestyle" different from, and this is the important part, "OTHER CITIZENS." Reminds me of that Bojeffries Saga story where the cops burst in to see a slavering werewolf standing on the table in a restaurant, say "well, it's obvious what our job is here," grab the one black guy in the restaurant, beat him up and drag him away, as one of the other patrons says to his companion "I'm not racism, but they ent the same as us, are they?"

Douglas (Douglas), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:32 (12 years ago) Permalink

I know that a good number of the people who answered yes to the question are probably horribly anti-semitic, but I resent the implication that they all have to be.

My problem with it is how reasonable and academic it makes anti-semitism sound. It allows people to hold onto their suspicions about Jews, and not have to consider themselves anti-semites.

Really, what's the point of the association between jews and money if not anti-semitism? Have you heard this made in a positive light?

bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:45 (12 years ago) Permalink

No, but I've heard it said in a neutral light, by Enrique four posts up.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:46 (12 years ago) Permalink

This thread made it past 60 posts without anyone mentioning the link to the article doesn't work?

Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:52 (12 years ago) Permalink

Another thing is Jews are what.. like 3% of the population? That makes an 18% anti-semitism rate scary enough.

bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:52 (12 years ago) Permalink

bnw - I completely agree with that (though I don't understand what the 3% has to do with it)

Stuart - oops! I pasted all the text anyway but the link is here

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:55 (12 years ago) Permalink

I found it too just now. I didn't realize you'd posted the whole piece. I'm looking for the original survey but not having much luck so far.

Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:56 (12 years ago) Permalink

More at good ol' Al Jazeera - including the delightful headline: Jews urged to stop playing Holocaust victim

It also makes note of this, which I hadn't heard about: One in seven Britons says Holocaust is exaggerated.

Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 19:09 (12 years ago) Permalink

This stuff scares me a lot. Because, unless I just had my eyes closed as a young man, it seems that anti-Semitism has really grown just in the last five years. Since 9/11, really.

paulhw (paulhw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:31 (12 years ago) Permalink

the Jewish perspective on life in a nutshell

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Monday, 13 June 2016 22:32 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

yeah the anti-Semitism in my life has primarily come in the form of "microaggressions" -- people asking me a lot of suspicious questions in school, mockery of "funny hats" or holiday traditions, being cornered to answer questions about Bernie Madoff or the Netanyahu administration or something, etc. And that was mostly in my pre-NYC-area life, whereas here there are so many Jews that I think that behavior is less prevalent.

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Monday, 13 June 2016 22:35 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

FWIW I only experienced very minor anti-semitism in the USA; when i went to france there were a few jaw-dropping incidents where people confided to me what I felt were obviously anti-semitic views which they (I guess) thought i would accept or excuse because I was "on the left" or "one of the good ones" or something.

to be fair the vast majority of French folks I met would hold such views abhorrent. but i hadn't really heard them out in the open until i went there.

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 13 June 2016 22:43 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

(and FWIW i worked for two jews in paris so it's not like i was surrounded by this stuff. just a few people i met at parties.)

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 13 June 2016 22:43 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i have to be careful about extrapolating too much from my personal anecdotal experiences tho bc for a number of reasons (my academic + post-academic interest in hate communities, extensive critical reading + thinking about anti-semitism, reading a lot of the jewish press, walking around w/ a kippah on my head) it seems more looming than it may for someone else. my impression is that in the US overt hate or holocaust denial is pretty taboo or at least pretty non-mainstream - online it's almost exclusively anonymous and even in these weird "is it anti-israel or is it anti-jewish" left-wing circuits i think ppl would generally be horrified to be seen as antisemites (whereas the term initially was a pt of pride for its practitioners) judging by how fervently they defend their actions + words on a basis of not hating all jews qua jews. i still think that prof karega ranting about the rothschild family controlling our government is classic enough antisemitism that i don't have a problem citing it as an example of a regressive antisemitic left but even she is trying to square a circle that doesn't close w/ her being a jew-hater -- plus she's pretty fringe. my impression is that in europe it is worse, and that in the middle east it's just over-the-top psychosis. i guess my feeling about antisemitism on the left is that it's more disappointing because i expect more vigilance/care from ppl who cite tolerance/anti-hate as the basis of their politics, but also that they do ascribe to that ideology means that there are more safe guards in place to keep it from ever devolving into what it could on the right.

lol i feel deja vu and i think i must've had this exact same conversation on this exact same thread at some other pt in time.

Mordy, Monday, 13 June 2016 22:56 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

some interesting thoughts on the antisemitism + marxism nexus:
https://cominsitu.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/reflections-antisemitism-anti-imperialism-and-liberal-communitarianism/

Mordy, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 20:17 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i grew up in a southern town at least an hour's drive from the nearest yeshiva. we were not in any way religious; my folks were raised jewish, sorta and i'm bloodline but that's about it. we were cultural jews and such an anomaly that no one in my small town knew what the hell a jew was. the only time i remember getting into anything with anyone even vaguely anti semitic was when the guy who sold me my first car promised my dad he wouldn't "jew down the price". We sorta winced and paid him.

De La Soul is no Major Lazer (ulysses), Tuesday, 14 June 2016 22:16 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

(xp) Interesting but I do kinda wish he'd spelled Ken Livingstone's name right, if he had to mention him at all, which I wish he hadn't.

Larry 'Leg' Smith (Tom D.), Tuesday, 14 June 2016 22:46 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Do you think "Jew down" has become kind of like gyp/gypsy where people don't even think about what they're referring to?

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Tuesday, 14 June 2016 23:02 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

maybe similar but the presence of jews in american life far outstrips the role of gypsys so it's hard to believe that they haven't considered where the expression comes from

Mordy, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 23:05 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

This doesn't seem to be an expression that's used in the UK, I've never heard it anyway.

Larry 'Leg' Smith (Tom D.), Tuesday, 14 June 2016 23:07 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I walked up to someone on the phone a few weeks ago and overheard him calling someone a "shylock;" that was weird. After he hung up, I said, "Excuse me, did I hear you correctly? Did you really just call someone a Shylock?" and he said with surprise that it just meant a loan shark. I think he had no idea it was antti-semitic? Otoh that may just speak to how embedded discriminatory thinking is in some circles.

If authoritarianism is Romania's ironing board, then (in orbit), Tuesday, 14 June 2016 23:07 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i totally believe dude wasn't saying anything offensive. i grew up playing a less-than-well-thought-out version of pseudo rugby (ball is thrown at a scrum of kids, kid who catches the ball must get to a goalpoint, everyone tries to knock the ball out of kid's hands and run to the opposite goal point) as a grammar school kid in 1981 that the teachers informed us was called "Smear The Queer." Different times.

De La Soul is no Major Lazer (ulysses), Tuesday, 14 June 2016 23:26 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Yeah we were subjected to smear the queer in grade school gym (1970s). By somewhere in the early 80s it became tackle the bum.

scarcity festival (Jon not Jon), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 00:38 (1 week ago) Permalink

we played smear the queer in the 80s and I did not have the slightest idea what a queer was

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 02:52 (1 week ago) Permalink

was this an everybody thing? thought it was just me.

De La Soul is no Major Lazer (ulysses), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 03:31 (1 week ago) Permalink

also had smear the queer

riverine (map), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 03:46 (1 week ago) Permalink

i never played it though, it was sort of taboo, 'unsafe', for older boys, etc. and i also didn't know what queer was even though i was one.

riverine (map), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 03:49 (1 week ago) Permalink

Smear the queer was banned in my school, but there was a brief period where my friends and I played it after school. I was always the queer! I didn't even know it was supposed to be offensive until one day I went home and told my mom what we had been playing. We came from a good progressive neighborhood, so it was obvious we'd have to change it. From there on out, we played Stymie the Hymie.

how's life, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 09:55 (1 week ago) Permalink

I didn't learn that name for the game until I moved to Georgia as a teen, by which time I knew that it was a slur. in FLA it was Kill the Carrier.

droit au butt (Euler), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 15:24 (1 week ago) Permalink

Does anyone remember how the game worked, i.e. how the "queer" was chosen? My memories of the game are very vague, except feeling like there was something menacing about it and not really wanting to play.

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 15:42 (1 week ago) Permalink

i remember it very clearly and enjoyed it heartily as a rambunctious 7 year old. the teacher had all the kids mob up and they threw the ball in the middle and whoever got it took off running in one direction.

De La Soul is no Major Lazer (ulysses), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 15:57 (1 week ago) Permalink

^ that's how i remember the rules, such as they were. a nerf football is thrown or kicked & whoever catches it gets mobbed by everyone else. you could throw the ball away to avoid getting pigpiled, but having it was both goal & curse, so everyone was trying to grab it. fun, brutal game. and, yeah, we always called it smear the queer. this in the DC suburbs, mid-to-late 70s.

oculus lump (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:14 (1 week ago) Permalink

v familiar with this game, def played it, also known as Kill the Pill etc.

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:22 (1 week ago) Permalink

We called it Smear the Queer too but we were elementary students in a glorified farm town before the invention of the internet. This guy I overheard was a 50-something lifetime New Yorker.

If authoritarianism is Romania's ironing board, then (in orbit), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:24 (1 week ago) Permalink

really thought this was a "just me" thing

http://ask.metafilter.com/284756/Do-kids-still-play-a-game-they-call-smear-the-queer
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40545754?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://ittakesateam.blogspot.com/2010/12/smear-queer-when-tradition-needs-to-be.html

in even more pernicious childhood memories, i also recall a grammar school varietal of freeze tag in our recently segregated school called "run nigger run" where whoever was 'it' had to keep running until they tagged someone else or couldn't run any more and if they stopped they were out. then the teacher (or was it the oldest or strongest boy? i only remember it was someone in a position of primacy) would tag another kid, yell "run nigger run" and then that kid is it and we all kept playing until no one could run anymore, last man standing wins. i liked to run a lot and i was pretty good at it. Came home one day after i won to proudly tell my parents and that's when i found out that was a word we weren't supposed to say. after that i didn't play that game anymore. at some point our school followed suit; i don't remember when it stopped but it was after fourth grade.

i'd check to see if this was a 'just me' thing as well, but damned if i'm gonna google that. i have a sad roster of grammar school bigotry stashed in my memory; i imagine that's common for all gen-xers and peripheral 80's babies.

De La Soul is no Major Lazer (ulysses), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:28 (1 week ago) Permalink

this is maybe a different thread

De La Soul is no Major Lazer (ulysses), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:29 (1 week ago) Permalink

it's super obvious in retrospect but "smear the queer" was essentially a tool to teach gut response mob reactions to seven year olds

De La Soul is no Major Lazer (ulysses), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:34 (1 week ago) Permalink

i've told myself i won't watch holocaust movies any more but this one looks interesting:

Mordy, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 23:08 (1 week ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.