Spirit in Action
Dan Nerhaugen - Civic Engagement and Literacy
Dan Nerhaugen has a deep concern that we build literacy in the USA - in our schools, but especially in our citizenry. Civic engagement and political literacy are built by reading, and reading books in particular. On his web site, The48er.com, Dan highlights resources to strengthen the civic mind - books and other publications which will help folks in the USA to competently uphold our democratic republic.
- Broadcast on:
- 09 Mar 2008
- Audio Format:
- other
I have no hands but yours to tend my sheep. No handkerchief but yours to dry the eyes of those who weep. I have no arms but yours with which to hold. The ones grown weary from this struggle and weak from growing old. I have no hands but yours with which to see. To let my children know that I am up and up is everything. I have no way to feed the hungry souls. No clothes to give and make you the ragged and the morn. So be my heart, my hand, my tongue, through you I will be done. The enders have my none to help and die, the tangled knots and twisted chains that strangle fearful minds. Welcome to Spirit in Action. My name is Mark Helpsmeet. Each week I'll be bringing you stories of people living lives of fruitful service, of peace, community, compassion, creative action and progressive efforts. I'll be tracing the spiritual roots that support and nourish them in their service. Above all, I'll seek out light, love and helping hands, being shared between our many neighbors on this planet, hoping to inspire and encourage you to sink deep roots and produce sacred fruit in your own life. I have no way to open people's eyes, except that you will show them how to trust the inner mind. My guest today on Spirit in Action is Dan Neurhalken. Dan has a deep concern that we build literacy in the United States, in our schools, but especially in our citizenry. With engagement in political literacy are built by reading and reading books in particular. On his website, the48er.com, Dan highlights resources to strengthen the civic mind, books and other publications which will help folk in the USA to competently uphold our Democratic Republic. Dan's efforts at supporting responsible citizenship have included teaching high school English for nearly a decade, editing a couple small town newspapers, and creating syndicated history items for newspapers, items with substance and import to inform wiser decisions by "We the People." Dan was raised Catholic, and his seeking has included exploration of evangelical Christianity, philosophy, Buddhism and Unitarian Universalism. Good afternoon, Dan, welcome to Spirit in Action. Thank you, Mark. It's great to be here. Dan, you're an activist. Your mode of activism has been the web of recently. What's your objective for the world? Well, you mentioned the web, Mark, that, as you say, it's gotten a lot of my focus particularly in the last year. In that, as was the case with my teaching, I taught for ten years in high schools, various locations in Wisconsin, and it's about literacy, and I was teaching in the high schools, obviously, we were talking about the literacy of teenagers, but in my activism, as you put it on the web, my concern is the literacy or lack thereof of adults. I think we need fundamentally better class of citizen in America, and I'm trying to do what little bit I can to foster Democratic ideals of civic competence, give people an opportunity to find some worthwhile books as judged by the mainstream book reviewers, media, folks who work in these areas. So you think that if we had more literacy in this country, you think it would make a positive difference in terms of democracy, in terms of how our country runs? Mark, I don't think that democracy is possible without a highly literate citizenry. Once upon a time, when we put the reins of power in the hands of those who had unlimited leisure time to study and learn and season themselves for political service, maybe, maybe it was possible for a citizenry to be not necessarily all that literate, but when at least in theory, all of us have our hands on the reins of government, that puts a very heavy responsibility on all of us, and we need to do the best we possibly can to stay apprised of issues that matter, and in a democracy, that's pretty much everything. To a certain degree, we all have to be experts in a sense. We all need to know a little something, at least, about pretty much everything in a democracy, whether it be science, even engineering to a certain extent, or political theory, international relations in a democracy, we all need to know at least something about all of those kinds of areas, because we'll be called on to make decisions at the ballot box at the very least, and the only way we're going to be able to do that is to turn off our TVs for a little while and look at some worthwhile books, and that's what I feature on the 48er, is books that have been judged to have been worthwhile. You know, for example, today's is a piece called Blind into Bagdad, America's War in Iraq by James Fallows. He was a speech writer for Jimmy Carter for many years, and he's been writing for the Atlantic Monthly. It's a collection of some of the essays he wrote about the Iraq War in the early stages and published in the Atlantic. There's information that we all need in his magazine articles, in his book, to get a handle on what's going on in Iraq, so that we can understand how things have unfolded, what mistakes have been made, and how deep the problems are there. I think we all need to at least be aware of what people like Fallows are saying, which is one thing I try to accomplish with the site, get a broad overview of the book, make it available so that folks can, as I say, at least know what he's saying, and if at all possible, get a hold of a copy of the book and or at least read portions of it. I don't think this is optional in a democracy. I think the democracy simply does not work if you don't have large percentages of your citizenry doing exactly these kinds of things. I'm inclined to believe that if the vast majority of a republic's citizenry are spending the overwhelming majority of their leisure time watching television, it ceases to be a democracy. It becomes something else. It becomes an aquacracy, which, of course, is mob rule. I think that's where we're at today. I think we're mired in the pits of a mob rule in which the vast majority of our citizens have neither a clue nor a care about life on this planet, much less the life of a 21st century democratic republic. You seem to put great stock in print literature as opposed to TV or radio. Obviously, this program's going out on radio. Why can't we depend on radio or TV? I mean, some of us are just audio oriented as opposed to visual oriented. Why can't we take in the information, make our decisions that way? We could be reading nothing but romance novels and be no further ahead, even though we read 400 books a year. Right. Right. I am in complete agreement with you. As long as we can leave television out of the equation, I'm a huge fan of national public radio and I think it's an excellent way to get one's news. But it's not as stultifying as television. It's not as passive. Television tends to demand you're full and undivided and makes it virtually impossible to do anything else. Or as a good radio station, if you're cooking dinner, you can take it in. If you're working on something that doesn't require real tight focus, again, you can listen to an excellent radio show and get your news and features and information that way. And I have no quibble with that. However, one thing that radio can't do, that the net can't do, that only books, really only books can do, is consistently demand nuanced thinking and sustained thinking. And I think those are two absolute prerequisites for democracy. If you're not able to sustain your thought, hold an idea in your head and turn it over and over and over and see nuances and shadings and spend time with it and walk around with it and live with it, you're really not capable of practicing democracy. So from that perspective, in my mind at any rate, books are the ideal calisthenics for a democratic mind, not only for the information that one can glean from high quality nonfiction in particular, but also from the habits of mind, as I say, the practice of looking at ideas with nuance and in sustained sorts of ways. You've been active in newspaper work. Why couldn't it be newspaper inspiration, newspaper insight, as opposed to depending upon books per se? I think newspapers are indispensable to democracy, just as surely as books are. Jefferson nailed it. I can't remember the exact words, but I think it was something to the effect, given a choice between a democracy and a free press, I'd take the free press every day. I'm sure I just butchered that, but something to that effect. Again, I think newspapers are indispensable to democracy. When I log on to the net in the morning, the first place I go is Google News, New York Times, Washington Post, you know, that's the only way to get that kind of information. However, if you want to go into any kind of depth, again, if you want to engage in any kind of nuanced thought, newspaper just isn't the medium that's going to do that for you. It's a matter of picking the right tool for the job, I guess. There's as much time as I spend on the internet, you know, it's just not appropriate and not helpful for some sorts of things. It tends to encourage the same sort of butterfly mind approach to reality that television does as you flip from idea to idea to idea, never really going into great depth, never really holding an idea in your head for any length of time. That's obviously something we need to do as a species. That's how we take ideas apart. And if we stop doing that, well, then we're not evolving, we're devolving. But originally when TV was coming up, people thought that TV could be this great information disseminator, a great source, and then later it got labeled as the vast wasteland. From my point of view, the difference between some of the books that you're talking about and television is that television is seen primarily as entertainment, relaxation, kicking back, it's put your mind in neutral and let someone else drive. Well, you know, that's true and there's room in the world for entertainment. Unfortunately, it's how television gets used. And I should say this, I'm not really concerned at this point about the so-called quality or lack there of, I think we can leave that aside and keep it to a simple matter of arithmetic, a simple matter of counting to 24. There are just so many hours in the day. Most of us have to spend some of that time sleeping, some of that time at work or at school, eating, brushing our teeth, et cetera, and there are just so many hours left to pursue other things, leisure, time, whatever you want to call it. It's something for most of us probably in the neighborhood of about four hours a day. On average, Americans watch over four and a half hours of television a day. So that's my concern, not so much the idea that television is a vast wasteland, I'm not even going that far. I'm saying let's just look at the simple arithmetic. If you're spending four and a half hours of your day, every day, on average, watching television, you simply don't have the time to become a functional citizen. Again, it has nothing to do with quality or lack thereof, it's just simple arithmetic. We need to turn off our TVs once in a while and take our citizenship seriously because the consequences of failing to do so are so spectacularly frightening that I would hope it would be unthinkable for anybody to do otherwise, although apparently such is not the case. So in the meantime, I guess that leaves those of us who do think about such things just to encourage those around us to give some thought to these kinds of principles, to turning off the TV. You know, there are books that we've read that we can recommend to people, websites that we can recommend to people. I think we all, those of us who are, which shall I say, civically engaged, I think all of us can probably do better jobs of encouraging and enabling those around us to follow suit. Well, one way you're doing that is by your website, the48er.com, and that's for those who are just listening, it's T-H-E-E-4-8-E-R.com. That's how you're holding up literature that you think is valuable for people to read and get them connections. I'd also mention on that website that you have a nice link to World News Portal, which is a connection to all kinds of newspapers across the world. In the US, we get such a small section of what the news is really about. I experienced myself when I was a Peace Corps volunteer in West Africa, that my students there, poor, rural students, were better educated about World News than the people I knew in the United States. Well, there again, I think you've got to blame television, Mark. I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but I just can't begin to tell you how evil I think that box has come to be as far as the disservice it does to our republic and the world. What most people in America think of as news is so far from it, it's just a pathetic joke. You know, the network news, the Fox network, CNN, it's just, it's pathetic. You've got 24/7, John Benet Ramsey. Come on now, that's not news. That's sensationalistic, very sad information, but it's, it's tawdry, it's not news. It was news when that poor little girl was killed, but the idea that that's what we're being bombarded with instead of factual, well-researched information about what's going on in Iraq or Afghanistan or Indonesia, it's a terrible thing. And all you've got to do since the advent of the net is make a couple clicks to get a different perspective. As a matter of fact, something that, you know, I appreciate your mentioning that world news media and English, because that's my page, but there's an even easier way to access that kind of information. That's Google News. Anybody who's not checking Google News every once in a while, it's really missing out because it gives a person an opportunity to, at a glance, see the perspectives of people from all over the world. Instead of just the standard party line from America, which of course is ultra-conservative, corporate-oriented, pro-capitalist, militarist, you know, there are other perspectives in the world. And because we in America, or because our republic wields the kind of power it does, I think it's the responsibility of all of us to have some idea of what people in other places are thinking. And you're not going to get it from the mainstream American media, you're just not. You're going to get sensationalistic garbage. Turn off your TV, check out the internet, the New York Times, read some good books. Is there more diversity in books? Is there more diversity in print literature than there is in newspaper or radio or whatever? It depends on where you look. You know, the diversity is there, but you've got to seek it out. I feature a different book that I judge to be worthwhile every day. And it costs me about 20 hours a month finding those books. There's all kinds of stuff published in the United States and elsewhere. But as far as something that's really of value in some way to an engaged citizen, you're not necessarily going to find the kind of diversity you're talking about, simply by walking into a bookstore at your mall. So you get a dig to find that kind of material. For example, yesterday I featured a book by a fellow by the name of Vali Nasr called the Shia Revival. How conflicts within Islam will shape the future. And I think it's vitally important information that Mr. Nasr presents because we're talking about the fundamental divisions in the Middle East between Shia and Sunni. I think most of us in the West, and I certainly include myself when I say most of us, know virtually nothing about that fundamental divide in that part of the world that's so critically important to our country right now. The book's gotten good reviews. Mr. Nasr is highly respected. He's written this one for a general audience instead of fellow academics as is usually the case. So we've got a high quality, important volume here that's going to be read by virtually no one because unless you dig for books of this nature, you're not going to find them. And let's face it, most people are not going to buy books of that nature. That's not, you know, when you raise the kind of concerns that I raise about people not reading, there are always going to be those who say, well, you know, we've never read more books than we do right now. Sales are astronomical. What are you talking about? What I'm talking about is this. Take a look at what's selling. It's not books like the Shia revival that are selling. It's self-help books, genre fiction, romance novels. That's what people are buying, overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly. So is there diversity there? Diversity available in books only if you dig. It's a lot easier to find it on the internet, that's for sure. But again, you're not going to get the kind of depth that you do from a well-made book. And I think there are objective ways of judging what is a well-made book and what isn't. You know, you can take a look at things such as what are the qualifications of the author. In the case of the book that I cite, the qualifications are superb. It couldn't be better. You can take a look at the prose. Is it clear and easy to understand for the intended audience? And again, very definitely, that's the case. And I try to apply these kind of criteria to every book that I pick for the same. Tell me a little bit about how U.S. compares in literacy to the rest of the world. It depends on what sorts of categories you're applying. I complain a lot about the amount of television we watch. Again, not necessarily the so-called quality, but just the simple amount of time. If I'm not mistaken, Japanese viewers watch as much TV as we do. So in some ways, folks in other countries are in very similar positions to those of the United States. Then you can look at high school graduates. People in many countries are tested throughout their school careers so we can compare American students to those in other countries, and in a lot of areas, American lags. But I've got to say, Mark, that doesn't really concern me. We often end up comparing American achievement or lack thereof in basic literacy with the achievement or lack thereof of people in other countries. I think it's more important that we look at what we're doing in absolute terms, just in terms of what we know and what we don't know. Based on its own merits, because if we do indeed have an average of roughly four hours of leisure time a day, then somebody is going to need to explain to me why we couldn't all be philosophers and engineers. And when we have 13 years of education, minimally, why aren't we capable of functioning as rudimentary citizens? Let me run a couple of numbers by here. I would guess that many of the things I'm saying sound pretty darn negative and not terribly democratic, elias, perhaps. But I'll tell you some of the indisputable facts that make me pretty sure I'm right about some of these things. 70% of us can't name our US senators. These are the people who represent us in the United States Congress. 71% can't name their US representative. 84% are unlikely to grasp the essential ideas in an ordinary magazine article. And I've seen some information that suggests that it's even higher. Let me say that again, 84% of us are incapable or likely to miss the main ideas in an ordinary magazine article. Aren't those written towards an eighth grade education or something? Hasn't there been some standard like that that's generally adopted within the industry? Well, supposedly. Supposedly. I've seen the articles that people from the Education Testing Service used to generate those kinds of numbers. And let me tell you, they're not complicated. They are not complicated at all. Even worse. The Testing Service several years ago used a one-page drawer information sheet, something you'd be handed if you were going on jury duty. I don't remember the specifics, but I think it was something of the effect that preptery challenges and challenge for cause or something like that. That's basically all you had to take away from this one-page sheet. They determined that 97% of Americans were unlikely to grasp that basic idea. Here's another one that just makes me want to tear my hair out. 83% of us either don't believe in evolution at all or seriously doubt its basic tenets. And you know, this list goes on and on and on. And again, critics oftentimes will say, "Oh, that's not only that elitist, that's just trivia." Well, baloney. These are not trivial matters. These are extremely important matters that go to the core of what we are as a Republican, what we can do as a Republican, when you take these sorts of things together, this endless list of just basic things that we can't do, mainly because we don't exercise our minds, we see that the average American is just completely disengaged from the real world beyond her own little sphere or spheres. Beyond that, forget it. I can see it's so clear. The very first time I met a game with my dad. And I was eight, maybe nine. We all rose to our feet, before the ballgame could start. We took off our caps, we put our hands to our hearts. It was more than a banner. It was more than a song. I sang because I believed. I sang because I belonged. I sang for all those who dreamed. For all those who dared. We looked to the heights. And our flag was still there. ♪ I see it passing on cars. I see it passing for war. I see it passing for patriotism. We've all seen that before. I've seen it used as a weapon. You brand some as wrong. No one has the right, I'll stand up and fight to say I belong. 'Cause our flag is still there. For all the saints and the sinners. Yes, our flag is still there. For all the losers and winners. Those of us who still dreamed. Those of us who still dreamed. And the outcasts and forgotten. The flag is still there. ♪ From Lawrence to Lexington. From Concord to Kent. You can see Adel and Selma. We are born of descent. And on this native ground. Blessed by immigrant blood. In the river of freedom. We're all washed in the flood. 'Cause our flag is still there. For all the saints and the sinners. Yes, our flag is still there. For all the losers and winners. Those of us who still dreamed. Those who still dreamed. All the lost and forgotten. The flag is still there. Still there though we might disagree. If you are brave in the land of the free. We have weathered so much. We have traveled so far. We are woven together. We are spangled with stars. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ So as we take off our caps. And as we all rise. Put our hands to our hearts. And as we lift up our eyes. We begin with a question. We ask of say can you see. Stand and be strong. Believe and belong. Be brave and be free. 'Cause our flag is still there. For all the saints and the sinners. Yes, our flag is still there. For all the losers and winners. Those of us who still dreamed. Those of us who still dreamed. For everyone in this country. ♪ The flag is still there. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ That was our flag was still there by John McCutchen. You're listening to an interview with Dan Nierhagen of the website the48er.com. A thoughtful advocate of civil engagement and political literacy. Considering the kind of technological power we now possess. And the kind of obscenely high levels of population we've generated. We need to do something about that. Or I just don't see that there's any way in the world that human civilization makes it out of this century. I think there's a pretty good reason that Stephen Hawking a couple months ago said that we've got to start looking at populating the moon and Mars. Because we're not going to make it here. We're doing too many things wrong. If this was just Dan Nierhagen saying this, maybe there wouldn't be so much cause for concern. But we're talking about Stephen Hawking. One of the brightest guys in the world right now. I think when somebody like Hawking speaks in such terms, it behooves the rest of us to pay attention. Dan, it's kind of interesting to hear these things coming out of your mouth. Essentially you're asking people to be better educated. And one of the interesting things about your past is that you dropped out of high school. Can you tell us about why you did that, what that meant, and your path since then? Well, there were a lot of reasons, and I don't know if I know all of them myself, but I know one of them. It's that I thought a lot of my time was being wasted. I just had this sense that I wasn't getting the good stuff. You know, spending all this seat time in school, and I wasn't getting the best of the best. The best that's been known and thought in the world, as Matthew Arnold said. So I pulled the plug on it, and to make a long story short, ended up at college a few years later. And boy, it took me about ten minutes to realize there's nothing wrong with this at all. Because unlike many public high schools at college, you're talking about a highly educated professoriate who can give you the good stuff. A professoriate that does know where the intellectual bones are buried. And then later when I went back myself to teach, I guess it was always a concern of mine, that I'd be ready to give my students to make the introductions to the best minds, the best literature, the best ideas that I could possibly find so that I'd not waste their time. Because I think that's one of the greatest sins that we can possibly commit with a public school. Particularly, I guess it's just a bias of mine. I like kids. I like high school kids. A lot of folks over the years have said, "Geez, how could you do that? How could you teach teenagers? Didn't it drive you crazy?" And I thought, "Their minds are at least as strong as ours, but unlike ours, they're not closed yet. They're willing to give ideas a fair shake, and it's absolutely our responsibility to provide them the best of the best and not waste their time if they're willing to bring open minds to the classroom." And generally they are. I always found. What did you teach them? How did what you present differ from what you got coming up in high school? Well, to the extent that I could, I tried to teach world literature, not just English literature, but I tried to bring in important worthwhile work from cultures gone by. For example, Plato was something I taught sophomores, including remedial sophomores. And I found that would not be tried in most high school classes. And yet I found that even my remedial classes could grasp the ideas, could make interesting and worthwhile connections, and hopefully they can carry some of that information with them even today, many years later. I hope they do to some extent. You know, I think there's almost nothing if you're talking about literature or philosophy at least, that you can't do at least on an introductory level with high school kids, and possibly with kids a lot younger. I don't know. I work with high school kids. That was my thing. But, you know, Mark, the problem was never the students. It was never the teenagers. The problem tended to be the so-called adults. As I say, I taught a lot of world literature, and at one point my curriculum was challenged by the parents of one of my students on the grounds that it was too hard, that it would be better to read teenage novels, that it would be better to use canned worksheets. And I saw this sort of thing again and again and again. The kids come into your classroom and they're ready to go, as long as you don't snow them, as long as you don't waste their time. But when you're forced to deal with the so-called adults, you're going to get another story altogether. Another instance, I'm not going to go too in-depth here because there are probably legal issues involved. But, in other instances, I found parents not only doing their children's homework, doing major papers for their sons and daughters, but plagiarizing to do them, and doing poor jobs on them. So, we got mom and dad doing the papers and getting lousy grades on them for junior. The kids tend not to be the problem. It's about adults. We talk a good game with our kids, stay in school, study hard. What about us? What are we doing? What are we doing for our own minds? And in too many cases, the answer is not really one that we're too proud to give. Dan, I want to get back to your site, the48r.com, and your effort for what I would call political literacy. Why did you choose that name, the 48r? For those of us who are illiterous. Well, it has to do with the neck of the woods in which you and I grew up, Mark. One of the most famous 48ers of them all, Carl Schurts, lived a few miles from Oconum, to Wisconsin. He lived in Watertown for a time. The 48ers were German intellectuals who provided some of the mind power for the European revolutions of 1848, and they were very progressive revolutions. Attempting to throw off centuries of monarchical rule, attempting to stand up for the rights of working people, the revolutions were ultimately unsuccessful. They were crushed by a right-wing backlash, so that many of the leaders of the revolutions of 48 came to the United States ultimately. As did Carl Schurts, probably the most illustrious of the group. And here in Wisconsin, the traditions of German liberalism were very, very strong in the late 19th century, and to some extent still are today. And I think any of us, reading the story of some of the 48ers, certainly Carl Schurts, probably discover we just have some natural affinities with him and some of the fine things that he and his colleagues did. There were some other elements relating to 1848 that made me like that title. The American women's movement was essentially born in 1848 with the Seneca Falls Convention, attended by Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Other leaders, they published the Declaration of Sentiments, which was sort of like the opening salvo in the efforts for women's rights in America. You knew Lucretia Mott was part of that, didn't you? Ah, yes, of course. Frederick Douglass, too, if I remember correctly, but... At the women's Tea Party, I don't think so. It's like four women present, and three of them were Quakers. Oh, no, no, no. I'm talking about the Seneca Falls Convention. I think there were three or four hundred people for that one. It was a big one when they drafted the Declaration of Sentiments. Oh, yeah, but it originated from essentially kind of a little get-together of four women. Oh, I see what you're saying. Three of the four who were Quakers, and they came up with this project, and within a few months they pulled it off. Well, it shouldn't surprise anyone that that was the case, particularly at that point in our nation's history. Many of the great moral leaders, not only the women's movement, but also in the abolition movement were Quakers. And that record, I think, speaks for itself. But there are other elements, 1848 elements, that make me think that the '48er isn't a nice thing to call this. Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, published at least in 1848. I'm certainly no apologist for what the Soviet Union did, so I should make that clear off the bat. On the other hand, I think anybody who can read the Communist Manifesto, Marx's Communist Manifesto, and not sympathize with a great deal of what he's saying isn't paying any attention. The form of global capitalism we know today is often called neoliberal capitalism. You know, I see very little different from that mark, from the laissez-faire capitalism that Marx was attacking. The exploitation is just horrible. What it's doing to the environment is horrible. So anyway, I'm a big fan of the Communist Manifesto. [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING]