So remember last year when I said that the people threatening violence against Greenbridge were doing more harm than good? They made a bomb threat against the building while it was under construction. Did it make Greenbridge better or cheaper or more accessible? Did it help the developers better serve the community? Did it help the community combat the rising cost of living in Chapel Hill? No, but it probably served to make a small group of activists feel better about themselves.
Yesterday, a group of anarchists entered the lobby of Greenbridge intent on destruction. The group of over 30 demonstrators were armed with an anvil, and proceeded to do major damage to the floor, a glass table, and several pieces of artwork. Eight people were arrested Several people were detained, and three were held on felony inciting a riot charges until they were released from the Orange County Jail on a total of $8,000 bond.*
With the news that Greenbridge will probably avoid foreclosure, we should all breathe a sigh of relief. Let's just hope that the new buyers will be at least as invested in the community as the previous partners, so they can continue to make good (and maybe even improve on) their promises to Chapel Hill.
There are a lot of good people doing good work to help Northside (such as the wonderful Marian Cheek Jackson Center profiled in the Chapel Hill News this weekend, and the Counter Cartographies Collective mapping the change in neighborhood ownership), but I hope they realize that there are also some jokers that are too caught up in their own childish agenda. If they are are so passionately opposed to Greenbridge, why did they not speak to the Planning Board or the Town Council when it was being approved years ago? Nearly everyone, including many revered leaders in Northside spoke in favor of it. And what are they doing now to help strengthen Northside, and create their own vision of the community's future?
Many committed activists are preparing for tomorrow night's public hearing at the Chapel Hill Town Council meeting to discuss a proposed moratorium on development in an effort to halt the gentrification of Northside. Meanwhile, these violent demonstrators are stroking their own egos and making life harder, even for the people they say they are trying to help. It's a real shame.
* An editorial note: Much of this reporting come from a first hand account that I received confidentially. I confirmed the aspects I could by calling the Orange County Jail, and was also referred to their jail custody report. If anyone has conflicting or clarifying information, I would be happy to hear it. I also hope that some of the few remaining reporters left in Orange County might be able to cover this, but the lack of information about it in today's media is disheartening.
Issues:
Comments
um yeah...
yeah, no.....im describing a society without slavery OR property rights. btw if you wanna do a little anthropology and history, you ll notice that the origin of modern property rights is pretty intricately intertwined with slavery...everyone from the ancient greeks to the US...sorry... The modern property and capitalist system in the US wouldnt even exist were it not for the "free" labor of africans stolen from their homes....And if money is the product of ones labor, how come people who have so much of it do so little actually productive work? Exactly how is trading hedge funds and picking up a rent check from your tenants useful labor? Because they're "providing" housing that would be free otherwise? Seems to me having to choose between working one shitty job, with no dignity, no decision making power, barely enough money to to afford to get to work the next day, and another job in the exact same condition, IS a version of slavery. And when i look around the world today, i see a lot of people who are pretty sick of it.
Too broad a generalization
Even if this is true "The modern property and capitalist system in the US wouldnt even exist were it not for the "free" labor of africans stolen from their homes", it isn't relevant to what we do now. The past is a sunk cost. We can't fix it, we can't change it, we can only deal with our present circumstances and make the most ethical decisions we can now.The productive capacity of the US did not result exclusively from the product of slave labor. That's far too simplistic a representation of the ante-bellum economy. And: "how come people who have so much of it do so little actually productive work" How do you define "so much money"? And how do you know the work habits of all those you deem as having so much of it? Most of the people I work with work very hard.Curiously salary is often tied to productivity. If I dig a ditch, I make little a money. Most able-bodied people can dig a ditch. My skills aren't special. If I can organize a team of ditch diggers, I make more money. Because I am coordinating the activities of several people, I am more productive than any one of them, so my labor is worth more. If I start a ditch digging company, I'm an entrepreneur. I get to keep the profits from my business if there are any. But that's my reward for the risks I am undertaking. I'm more productive than my managers because I coordinate their activities. So I should receive the greatest remuneration. And best of all, I give my employees a job...a job they might not otherwise have.Regarding your "property is theft" argument, If I've worked hard to buy a rental property, then why shouldn't I collect rent on it? And why should anyone expect to use my property without compensating me for it? I've worked hard for it, right? It has value. If you've ever had to deal with tenants you know that being a landlord is a full-time job and oftentimes a headache.I assume that you would mind if someone walked into your home and relieved you of one of your possessions...something for which you worked hard.
Strange assumption
concerning "effectiveness". So the destruction in the lobby was "effective"? It seems like poor strategy to me. It's not as if your arguments are devoid of any merit, but - like the notion of just trying harder - the approach needs to be better thought out. These actions seemed closer to a tantrum than a strategic protest.
destruction?
what destruction? i read about a supposed 2000 dollars damage done by silly string (!), mentioned by one tim toben who was also caught in the paper lying by saying that windows were broken. This is ridiculous -- one should have a little more critical perspective when reading mainstream media accounts written by papers that have consistently supported the project and demonized its opponents. In any case, how was the takeover poor strategy? If the goals were to draw more attention to an issue that many had accepted as "over," and to encourage people to not want to move in there, which is a way to economically directly undermine the development, it seems like a pretty logical protest. By the way, the fairly successful anti-gentrification movement in the early 2000s in the mission in san francisco used the exact same strategy over and over again (among others). it was a way of making unwanted investors wary. Id argue that if you look at the financial straits that greenbridge has found itself in (which is admittedly also due to the recession), this kind of protest is pretty logical and strategic. By itself its not enough, obviously --its just one demonstration, one day. But it makes pretty good sense to me.
To what end?
A facsinating thread. From what I can tell, the only potential benefit of the "protest" would have to lie in the murky area called consciousness raising. And while I admit that "end" may have some inherent value, it seems to pale in comparison to the potential risk.For better or worse, Greenbridge is not going away. The idea that the buildings will somehow disappear from the landscape has a probability of approxximately zero. In the face of that reality, what do the protesters hope to achieve? Do they wish to drive all the tenants out of the building? Do they wish the condos to become some whacked out version of Blade Runner? Do they hope for small town blight to settle in? Do they want the convergence of Chapel Hill and Carrboro to become a no man's land where crime resurrects itself as a leading occupation? Should the building become a giant Self Storage facility? Just exact what do people envision as the outcome of their success?From what I can see, the protesters are not interesting in anything constructive or forward-looking. If they were serious about their passion for the fabric of our community, they would be working to make Greenbridge a strong and bright thread for new possibilities. Instead, they seem more interested in seeing a crater in the middle of the southern part of heaven.
To the end of harming the cause...
The whole thing just seems unfortunate. I think there are a lot of people, myself included, who think that gentrification concerns in Northside, Pine Knolls, and increasingly throughout the rest of town legitimate and deserve more attention from local government. But actions like this don't change anyone's mind; and if anything, they create an unnecessary association in the general public between the anti-gentrification movement and disorganized hooligans. Don't get me wrong, I think protests and occasionally even direct action is with merit. But methods like these aren't helping anybody's cause (except, perhaps, newspaper publishers). Shenanigans like these draw attention away from legitimate issues facing Northside residents.
why?
why do "shenanigans" like these draw attention away from legitimate issues...you re commenting on a (poorly written) article on a blog about this issue that has probably generated more discussion about class and gentrification than anything we ve seen in a long, long time. Over a dozen papers, as well as the AP, have picked up the story and used it as a springboard to talk about the displacement of people in northside, a fact they otherwise would consider an "inevitability" hardly worth reporting on. Just walking up and down the street one can hear people in small groups pass the buildings and talk about the struggle going on.It seems to me you re projecting your own hangups about "legitimate" dissent,etc. onto the broader population. Maybe we would get farther if we talked about our OWN reaction to the demo rather than assume taht every other person in town shares our hesitation towards direct action or violence. Alternatively, if you're also concerned about the displacement of working class people from our town, maybe instead of complaining about the way that other people are struggling, you could actually organize a demo of your own, and do it like YOU want to. Otherwise the whole "i sympathize but tisk tisk you naughty anarchists are just alienating the public..." line comes off as completely disengenuous. And where did you get the disorganized hooligans line from? Reading a little washington post lately? These people put together the largest protest against the development this town has seen (as small as it was), distributed tons of information, have consistently countered local media narratives Theyve never once claimed to represent anyone other than thenselves, and have consistently tried to broaden the topic to the general unaffordability of living here as a service worker...Anarchists in town also have run a really free market host to hundreds of people every month for five years, have run free grocery programs in several different neighborhoods including northside, run a radical local bookstore, a highly active prisoner support organization, have fought numerous eco defense campaigns, including one that saved acres of old growth in WNC, run publishing projects galore, and generally get a ton of things done.So exactly where did you pull the "disorganized hooligans" part from? Was there a soccer game that let out that day that we don't know about? Just because an action turns YOU off, doesnt mean it was ineffective; just because it was aggressive, doesn't mean it was disorganized; just because you aren't angry enough to act out against rich people, doesn't mean other people aren't.
Read the handbill?
Interesting that people keep bringing up the idea that the protesters have proposed no viable solution, when in fact over and over on this blog and in the handbill have pointed out that a first step is filling the empty parts of the building rent-free with families that have been displaced. It wouldnt house all the renters that have had to move by any means, but it would be a start. Give neighborhood residents control over the building - let them have their own assemblies and organizations take it over from a bunch of millionaires and bankers who arent from the neighborhood. Hows that for a program? Of course everyone committed to "working within the system" will point out that this unrealistic, as indeed ANY solution to poverty or evictions is under capitalism, because capitalism CREATES these problems. The solutions necesarily run counter to the logic of the economy we 're stuck under, but theyre not impossible -- its already been pointed out that there countless examples around the world, from argentina to greece, where neighborhoods have taken over buildings and done exactly this. No anarchist has ever yet said they believe the building will dissapear. It has been built, with the more or less passive complicity of most of the liberal demographic that now feels it acceptable to complain about it. But that doesnt mean the fight is over -- like you say, if we want Greenbridge to be a "strong and bright thread for new possibilities." THe way that this is possible is difficult to achieve but fairly simple to understand: 1.it CANNOT be housing for the rich. period.2. The mythology of green condos needs to be exposed for what it is, a myth, just as much as green toilet paper or green cars.3. what happens with the development needs to be decided and determined by people who have been displaced, people who cant afford housing, people who bear the brunt of a chapel hill that has been designed for the white and middle class. In other words, self-determination. 4. In light of these things not happening, people will continue struggling, not just against greenbridge obviously, but against the entire web of realtors, commercial developers, landlords, and the university, etc. that make it impossible to afford to live in this town. Because, as people have pointed out, the problem of housing in this town is broader than any one development. It is structural.
An idea
It seems to me that the best way to demonstrate how a community without landlords and monetary exchange is a good idea is to put one together somewhere in a place of least resistance. The experiment would come to fruition much sooner than busting into an existing property and spraying silly string. That is the quickest route toward convincing people.
How about Cuba or Venezuela?
Not sure how you'd get by without using cash as a medium of exchange, but maybe if there's no price system for valuing assets, then everything from a thimble to an automobile are worth the same. As for no landlords, aren't Cuba and Venezuela landlord-free? Or does the state assume that role?
it depends...
in cuba the role is largely assumed by the state, in venezuela there is still a more traditional capitalist class. both of these examples, which are quite different from each other, are also remarkably different from an anarchist position outlined above, and, not by coincidence, both also still operate with a money economy. Anarchists have been active in opposing both chavez' regime, pointing out its flaws and the authoritarian nature of its "socialism." Ditto for Cuba, although anarchists were imprisoned there early on and have had little affect of the political life of the country. (They were highly active in the labor movement and in the earlier efforts against the Bautista dictatorship, though...its a long history...)you ll never hear an anarchist advocating for a tyrannical state to run industries of human necessity (or any industry at all for that matter!). in various experiments with collective and communal nieghborhoods etc, decisions are, generally speaking, made in large group assemblies constituted by residents. Decisions about individual houses etc. is obviously up to those that live in them, but larger concerns like municipal issues (water, electricity, sewage, etc) are often dealt with by group assembly. A good example of this is the neighborhood of La Victoria, in Santiago, Chile, which was declared autonomous in resistance to the Pinochet dictatorship, and has remained autonomous ever since. A good documentary which includes information about la victoria was actually made by a filmmaker once from chapel hill, called "The Chicago Conspiracy." As for those suggesting starting some experiment of such a nature in some place of "least resistance" -- im sure many people would be interested in such a place were it to exist. BUt unfortunately global capitalism has pretty much covered the globe, so i think its fair to say we will have to struggle where we stand. (Or perhaps the commenter who suggested this was merely making a disengenuous attempt at getting those darned anarchists to go muddy the otherwise clear political waters elsewhere?) Also, these kinds of "experiments" do not arise out of a vacuum or spring like athena fully developed from the brain of some utopian theorist: like La Victoria, they arise over time from concrete conditions of struggle and resistance. In other words, as silly as it may sound, from struggles like this one over development, land occupations, or housing...While i think it unlikely that we ll be seeing any la victorias in chapel hill any time soon (landlords of the world, relax! your property rights are temporarily secure!) i would suggest people attempt to struggle here, rather than rely on utopian blueprints situated outside of the context in which they find themselves. Greenbridge is part of this struggle, though by no means the only part.
you are dodging
My suggestion was real. How can you just brush it off by saying "unfortunately capitalism has pretty muchcovered the globe"? It's a big country. Surely a place can be found to begin such an experiment. It would be hard work and time-consuming. However, the results would be authentic. Of course, it's a lot easier to spray some silly string in a lobby and pontificate about it.
Not brushing it off
I dont think that is brushing it off, nor do i think it a bad suggestion. My general point is simply that there isnt really a giant no mans land (a frontier, if you will...) where people can go off and have social experiments starting from a "blank slate," that whereever one chooses to build this kind of community will be in a place with preexisting patterns of class domination and inequality. And i think that that is ok, because its that context (going back to the la victoria example) where such experiments gain their character and relevance, and motivation.But probably a more important thing to point out is that, if such an experiment were to exist as a model, with the goal of inspiring other autonomous style neighborhoods etc., then all the more reason for it to take place in contested territory with preexisting tensions. Otherwise, the response from people who see it and admire it will always be, "Sure, yall can do that out in the middle of the woods or whatever where there s no cops or town officials or burueacrats or large landowners, but what about here in ____?"--- Of course, here we are with the silly dochotomies again: "spray some silly string" (i.e. this action, which people seem to want to at once deride as silly and at the same time condemn as a felony riot!) vs. serious hard work of building some kind of alternative community. Its already been pointed out over and over again why a dichotomy between doing actions against a wealthy developer is hardly in contrast with building a community of resistance to said developers -- they are part of the same process, and ANYWHERE in the world you go where communities like this exist you will ALSO see actions taken against the wealthy developers, police, and landlords who work to evict or displace said communities.Taking action and building community are not mutually exclusive, they in fact need each other to acquire meaning and relevance. One might deride this action as simpleminded or what have you, but its arguably done more to bring attention to the opposition to this development and to displacement of poor folks in general in this town, than anything else in the past year. It also clearly struck a nerve--for something that is supposedly silly or childish its got the mayor personally calling for blood and attempting to paint a picture of a crazy riot. And clearly, whether people agree with it or not, the anarchists involved most definitely have put a lot of thought and effort into their analysis of class and housing in this town. They have agitated against Greenbridge for years, and done a huge amount to get it into the spotlight as a symbol of racist elitism.
this idea isn't new
There have been utopian/collective societies in this country since it was originally settled (the Shakers, Harmony IN [film called Raintree County], Oneida, etc]. The Native Americans did not own land, although they did have tribal boundaries. And, of course, socialists and communists would be supportive of the protester's support for free rent and community ownership of the Greenbridge property.
Harmony, IN
I know nothing about the town, but we spent the night there 3 weeks ago while driving through on our trip out west (ok, so I know it is near I-64). My entire family agreed it was the worst night of the trip -- wasn't really their fault, but it was a hot night and there was absolutely zero wind. Lots of mosquitos. Very tough sleeping in the tent. And the bathroom at the campground was pit-toilets.... So if Harmony, IN is the model for Chapel Hill, count me out! :)
Successful models for society?
If these were successful models for a society, how come they didn't persist or win out against our current tepid form of a free-market republic?While most American Indians didn't feel they individually owned land, they certainly believed in a tribal form of property rights. And they vigorously defended their lands against appropriation by other tribes. The tribe was an extended family, so I think this made it easier to for individuals to feel a strong bond with the collective. Having said that, there was a lot of land to go around, so if you didn't like your cousin next door, you could move pretty easily and pretty far away.With respect to Greenbridge: Which community would "own" it? All of Chapel Hill? One neighborhood? One demographic subset of a neighborhood? Who would decide who occupied the building? Would those left out be compensated? If so, how? Who would pay for the building's upkeep?
good questions...
these are reasonable questions. towards the last paragraph i would simply submit my response that an assembly of northside residents should be able to decide what to do with the building. what that would look like would be up to them, not random commenters on a "progressive" blog. But of course making decisions about a place is not necessarily the same as "owning" it: in that question i would personally think of it as noone owning it, or alternatively, everyone. If you're interested in questions of deed, title, etc., then im sure that is an unsatisfying answer, but talking about the problem in that way is the wrong framework in which to be thinking. I have a pretty good feeling that if this situation were to arise, though, that a much larger portion of the town would end up feeling entitled to entering and using and interacting with the buildings (currently its alienating even to walk by the place, much less go in...) This shouldnt be surprising, the place is currently a gated high rise community, literally! Electrically controlled fences to guard the parking deck, security guards everywhere...Why would the general public ever feel comfortable using such a building as it currently stands? Even given whatever logistical complications arose as northsiders started meeting to discuss the whole thing, the collective ownership by people from the neighborhood could only be a positive step in the right direction. as for questions about why earlier models such as the native americans (who had many different, non static, models , btw) for property ownership failed: they didnt, they were exterminated by technologically advanced but morally and politically regressive white folks-- many of whom, however, did actually defect to native settlements. This is the origin in NC, for example, of the Croatan settlement, as well as the many maroon settlements in the great dismal swamp area, which were a multiracial mixture of poor whites, escaped black slaves, and native americans, who joined together and often raided plantations to free slaves, fought a rearguard battle against confederate soldiers during the civil war, and generally tried to live a different kind of life...Of course, no one is proposing an "escapist" approach whereby we try to go "back to the land" or whatever else like some hippy commune...i think what is being talked about ehre is the revolutionary transformation of the society we actually inhabit and live in. Not of some mystical utopia in never never land, but of a totally different kind of "chapel hill."
Northside residents should purchase Greenbridge
Northside residents include students. Would they form part of your assembly? Where would you draw the line? Black only residents? Residents with certain income levels? Pretty sweet to be a student living in a luxury condo for free. I recommend that Northside residents band together with people likeminded people and purchase the building. That way they have a legal claim to the property and can use it as they wish.The utopian communities to which I was referring included the Shakers etc., rather than Am Indian ones, which were far from utopian."...they were exterminated by technologically advanced but morally and politically regressive white folks...." Aborginal peoples usually don't fare too well when confronted by a more technologically advanced people. I wouldn't generalize and be too hard on any specific race though. There's some capacity for selfishness, brutality and violence in everyone.
local poor people involved in the protest
From what I've heard about this action, it doesn't sound like hardly any local oppressed people were involved. Is that true or have I missed news of Northside residents and community leaders being involved?
how do you know?
how do you know? reading well informed articles like the one on this blog? did you do a poll of the masked "rioters?"cus i d be willing to bet that at least a few of them pay rent or work a wage job, given the demogrpahic that was reported...and just because there was no "community leader" there that you recognized, doesnt necessarily mean that no one there is oppressed or that people there dont have a right to be angry...But if making assumptions about the actors involved makes it easier to dismiss concerns about how incredibly difficult it is to afford to live in this town for most of us, well, go right ahead...
I asked a question
No reason to go off on me for not dropping what I'm doing and interviewing the masked protesters. Or, as was suggested somewhere above, stating that I can't have a valid opinion on this unless I choose to drop what I'm doing and organize an alternative protest, Give me a break. If you don't have an answer to the question, just say so. I'll ask it again a little differently just to be clear - were there identifiable long-time Northside community members who participated in the planning and carrying out of this action?
Political opposition
I was a teenager in the late 60s and early 70s when there was daily opposition to the Viet Nam war and many other aspects of society, including racial prejudice and materialism. Dylan and others wrote protest songs, students occupied administrative offices, and race riots changed the face of society. The protesters didn't call themselves anarachists, but they did oppose 'the man' and everything he stood for, the same as the Greenbridge anarachists are doing.Without opposition, the war might have gone on longer, we might not have made the relatively modest progress we've made since in racial equality, and we would have missed out on some great music. What happened at Greenbridge was mild, comparatively speaking. Like the youth of the 60s, the Greenbridge protesters are making their values known. Although I don't think tearing up a building is a laudable action, I do applaud their willingness to speak out for what they believe in (I'd be more impressed if they hadn't worn masks). Many of us spoke up in opposition to Greenbridge and the escalation of gentrification in Northside. But our opposition was ignored and we allowed ourselves to be ignored. For those of us who let it drop, maybe we bear responsibility for this physical damage. We left it blowin' in the wind. And the protesters picked it up and took it in a directions many of us don't feel will achieve change. So the question is, what kind of opposition/actions will make a difference?
An analogy
It's as if we in the 60's & 70's had vehemently protested the proliferation of new baseball and football stadiums while choosing not to protest the Vietnem War. And then gone off on the "liberals" who didn't understand the profound injustice of building those stadiums.
talk about a false dichotomy
talk about a false dichotomy! why not do both! The struggle for the self-determination of a neighborhood is not somehow in conflict with the struggle for self-determination and autonomy of a people (arguably, the vietcong's intents would hardly match up with an anarchist take on these concepts, but the point remains the same).One might point out, as many, many anti-colonialist groups and movements around the world did in the 60s and 70s, that the best way people could have fought the US government's wars abroad was undermining the governments control of its population and economy AT HOME. In other words, local anti capitalist battles, however small they may seem in comparison to the "War in Vietnam" or whatever issue is chic at the time, have a role to play. It is a fact, after all, that the only way these wars are ever going to stop is if we take down the economy and states that render them necessary. (You ll notice we ve had some wars since vietnam....) Protest-hopping from one war to the next every few years without ever "connecting the dots" doesnt do much -- im willing to bet that having an ongoing, powerful anti capitalist movement in this country might. And, on a sidenote, if my historical memory serves, probably the biggest crackdown on dissent during wartime this country's government has ever orchestrated occurred during WW1, not so much against the variety of progressive groups that opposed the war (womens league of peace and freedom, quakers, etc.)but against anti capitalist contingents like the anarcho syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World , the socialist party, and a variety of radical trade unions. I wonder why that was?
Anarchists revisit Greenbridge tomorrow
A couple of people have told me that there will be another protest by the same general folks at Greenbridge tomorrow.Also a fourth protester (I guess from the June 18th event) was arrested yesterday. My original source (wow, that sounds cheesy) says he's from Knightdale and was released on a $3,000 bond.
Any reports?
Did a second protest happen, or is it scheduled for later in the day? I drove by around 2pm and saw an empty squad car parked out front but otherwise it seemed pretty barren.
Do real anarchists wear ties?
He was looking very obeisant to the status quo in his picture. I'm guessing he (or maybe his poor parents) got a lawyer for him, advised him to put on some Capitalist-wear & turn himself in.Simon - "the "War in Vietnam" or whatever issue is chic at the time"? Really? Wow.
I heard a rumor
I heard that the anarchists are next going to target our corrupt food system to protest the way huge agribusiness concerns dominate our farm and food economy. Apparently they will be protesting the Carrboro Farmers Market because the farmers don't give away their food.If you are interested in attending, the organizers say you can park in the local Food Lion parking lot. Or, if you are coming from the east, meet at the Bayer Crop Science parking lot in RTP.
The gentrification of
The gentrification of Northside began long before Greenbridge came along. In fact, that can be said of Chapel Hill as a whole. I remember early press releases stating that Greenbridge hoped to be an example of green construction and to provide jobs for a neighborhood that needed them. I remember during negotiations with the town Greenbridge was hoping to substitute in place of affordable housing, paying for consultations and upgrades to individual Northside homes to make them more energy efficient and affordable, thus saving long term neighborhood residents significant money. The council vetoed that idea. That would have put money in Northside pockets. Unlike many construction projects where developers come from out of town to make their money and leave, the Greenbridge partners were from this area, even were planning on living in the building. I regret the loss of the Ethiopian restaurant, but not the loss of the incredibly cheap, fenced up hotel/flop house. I remember when Chapel Hill first proposed the idea of a neighborhood preservation district. It seemed to me that as long as it only concerned the Northside area, the council took its own sweet time in stalling approval. When it finally concerned neighborhoods in which council members themselves lived, such as Greenwood, action was swift. Greenbridge is not perfect, but it deserves a break.
Pages