The use of the phrase "Nanny State"
Nanny - "children's nurse," 1795, from widespread child's word for "female adult other than mother" (cf. Gk. nanna "aunt"). The word also is a nickname form of the fem.
There has been much talk lately around governments creating "nanny states." This has come up in the discussion of a plastic bag tax, menu labeling and mandatory bike helmets. I don't want to argue those specific topics, rather why we use the word "nanny." I think the use could be considered sexist.
We also know the stereotypes of women, specifically wives and caretakers. These women whine and nag and hover to control their husbands and children. Nannies do all of this when mom isn't around, don't they? Some of you are going to say this is a stretch, but it's not. It seems no matter how far we get in civilized society, sometimes we need reminders that we are using phrases that define and insult a part of society. Turning a government feminine - "nanny state" - and then using that as an insult -"his legislative nannycrat buddies" - is well, insulting.
What about you? Are you insulted?
|
August 5, 2008 |
Karol Collymore | Comments (82 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Not Really Jacoby Ellsbury | Aug 5, 2008 10:48:39 AM
No.
Posted by: Mike Schryver | Aug 5, 2008 10:52:10 AM
I've also heard the phrase "daddy state" used to describe the Republican approach to government.
I don't think that in either case, the terms are intended as sexist, but as verbal shorthand. A nanny does protect you in the ways that the people who use "nanny state" are thinking of, and a daddy usually protects you in a different style.
I don't agree with people who use the term "nanny state", but I've never perceived any sexism in the use of the term.
Posted by: meg | Aug 5, 2008 10:53:34 AM
I would rather It be called " Master State" Yes sir Master.
Posted by: Tim | Aug 5, 2008 11:01:09 AM
The term "nanny state" came from the Tories in Britain back in the 1970's in reference to the way they viewed the government as trying to run the peoples' lives, much like a nanny makes the decisions for small children. They described their conservative movement as trying to treat the people of Britain as adults and to stop "nannying" them. The origin of the phrase is not sexist; though people can always use it in a sexist way if they so choose.
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Aug 5, 2008 11:04:05 AM
I agree that the use of "nanny" is feminine stereotype. This is even more obvious when we understand that men are expected to take care of themselves and not be taken care of. For conservatives, liberals are seen as weak... "feminine" for being too caring and accepting of others. This is supported by Lakoff's writings on political linguistics, et al. Conservatives have mastered this form of black and white, largely generalized communication where liberals have not.
Ironically, our Democratic Party is about as liberal as most of Europe's conservative parties! How's that for a shift to the far right?
Posted by: backbeat, woman | Aug 5, 2008 11:07:24 AM
Of course it is sexist. Damn I get sick of this crap. Now watch Obama selecte Mr. Anti-Choice-Kaine for VP. I'll take a hostage.
Posted by: UJ | Aug 5, 2008 11:08:17 AM
Yea I'm with you. And just because a few choice people had male nannies doesn't change the general and popular understanding of the word nanny. And I've never heard the term daddy state but is it supposed to be a more positive spin on gov't intervention? Do daddies protect us better than nannies?
We all think of women when we think of nannies, it is a distinctly feminine word to the point where when you have men filling that role, you basically have to call them male nannies (can you even think of a nanny in pop culture that wasn't a women and if it was man, wasn't centered around "look at how a man is filling this traditionally female role!"). And the "nanny state" is almost always meant to be an insult to a program or policy. I love when men have never perceived the sexism in a term so obviously it doesn't exist. Men should definitely be the final arbiters of what is and isn't sexism since they experience it so personally.
/sarcasm
Posted by: pril | Aug 5, 2008 11:09:16 AM
No. I'm insulted by people who want to save us from ourselves, though. I'm insulted by government representatives and officials (and regular people, as well) who think we're too stupid to figure out that matches can burn you. That cars can kill you. Etc.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Aug 5, 2008 11:19:35 AM
I am insulted in the fact that some people are getting uptight over this. Considering the word Nanny as sexist is a result of boredom and should be treated as such.
Posted by: Dev | Aug 5, 2008 11:28:47 AM
There is a really interesting history of political movements gendering the state. A lot of enlightenment thinkers talked about participating in open democratic governance as a manly activity. Conversely, fascist tended to portrayed their movements as masculine and democratic governments as feminine. I could see how one could argue that the term nanny state is a part of that history.
However, regardless of its gendered connotations it is certainly a loaded term. Someone who needs a nanny is weak and or otherwise can't fend for themselves. Therefore, anyone advocating nanny-statist policies must similarly be weak and unable to fend for themselves.
I also don't think that the term accurately reflects the specific concerns Jeff expressed in his posts about plastic bag tax, menu labeling and mandatory bike helmets. Jeff and others, and correct me if I'm wrong, we're concerned that these proposed laws might be too authoritarian or contain elements of totalitarianism.
It’s pretty clear to me that the type of coercion that these laws would employ is totally consistent with democratic principles, but that’s a different discussion.
Posted by: Adam L | Aug 5, 2008 11:31:24 AM
I'll see your 'Nanny State' and raise you a 'Big Brother'.
Posted by: UJ | Aug 5, 2008 11:32:12 AM
Eric Parker for the win! Oh noes! teh women! theyre borrrd!
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/feminism-101-feminists-look-for-stuff.html
"Of all the condescending, dismissive, and factually incorrect accusations used by concern trolls (or hostile trolls) to attempt to silence, shame, or in some other way discourage feminists from addressing sexism in all its manifestations, perhaps none is quite so stupid as the charge that feminists are "looking" for things about which to be offended—as if feminism is a product that will go out of production if there aren't enough buyers and sales are waning because sexism is, like, so over, dude."
(emphasis added by moi)
Posted by: divebarwife | Aug 5, 2008 11:45:45 AM
Not even remotely. It's like spelling women with a 'y' - it's overkill and hypersensitivity. Just because there are roots in something gender based doesn't mean it's sexist. "Nanny-state" isn't used because nanny's are a traditionally female job - it's because they're a traditionally overprotective. Period.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Aug 5, 2008 11:52:59 AM
When I used the word in the post Karol cited, it was with a heaping scoop of context, much like the nearly universally-panned New Yorker cover. It's a stupid, derogatory term that seeks to elide meaning rather than illuminate--SOP for the modern GOP.
Incidentally, it's a specifically feminine term:
[Origin: 1785–95; nursery word; cf. Welsh nain grandmother, Gk nánna aunt, Russian nyánya nursemaid]
So put that in the soup for flavor.
Posted by: Jeff Bissonnette | Aug 5, 2008 11:59:00 AM
Well, as a male who was called a "nanny statist" by no less an authority than the Multnomah County Republican Party, I took it as a badge of honor. And to be fair, the MultCo Republicans were balanced in invoking both Ayn Rand and Franz Kafka to buttress their case. :)
Posted by: Karol | Aug 5, 2008 12:03:20 PM
I want to be clear that I don't think the posters or the subject are at issue, just the phrase. I also want to be clear that my posed question no way implies that people that use the phrase are sexist. I'm just considering that the words we use are so heavy in meaning and we are so socially conditioned that we don't know what we might actually be saying.
Posted by: Dave Porter | Aug 5, 2008 12:20:26 PM
Interesting. I confess to using the word recently. Perhaps innocently, perhaps not. Give me another term and I will use it. I do not mean to offend women unnecessarily but would like to confront those who believe in an overly protective and intrusive state.
But here’s the rub. Nannies are women, mostly (see wikipedia here, note term mannies). Nannies take care of children. Nothing wrong with that. But there also is a whiff of something foreign, as in the British class system, that makes the term somewhat suspect to our nativist ears. So “nanny state” also has the connotation of something foreign, and therefore bad (this knee jerk reaction that anything foreign is bad worries me as much as "sexist" sensitivities).
Is it an inappropriate stereotype to assume that nannies are very protective of their children. This is good, and as it should be. But what is an admirable quality toward children is not an admirable quality toward adults. And what is good on an individual level is not always good when done by the state to us all. This is the primary thrust of use of the term, with the further whiff of something foreign, and, therefore, inappropriate.
Posted by: Joel H | Aug 5, 2008 12:34:37 PM
Dave: I agree with Karol and you; this term is both sexist and nativist. But it seems to me that one of "paternalistic", "moralistic", "invasive", "authoritarian" or "unconstitutional" would equally well substitute for most intended uses of "nanny state" and IMO would be significantly more effective.
Posted by: Joel H | Aug 5, 2008 12:36:11 PM
Actually "classist" might be more accurate than "nativist".
Posted by: carla axtman | Aug 5, 2008 12:43:46 PM
Adam L: I'll see your 'Nanny State' and raise you a 'Big Brother'.
Game, set and match to Adam.
Posted by: Joseph | Aug 5, 2008 12:48:20 PM
Offended? Seriously?
Nothing else going on in your life, so you allow yourself to be offended by something like this?
It's just a freakin' figure of speech! It's not like somebody isn't being allowed to buy contraceptives because the pharmacist is Catholic. Now THAT is something to get offended about.
Posted by: Not Really Jacoby Ellsbury | Aug 5, 2008 12:51:23 PM
As stated by another poster above, I think the idea behind the use of the word "nanny" is that the government is treating us like we are children, in telling us what we can and cannot do. As the government is not, strictly speaking, our father or our mother, the person treating us like a child has to be someone else who (a) minds children and (b) who has some authority to act as if they were a parent raising the child. I think that's what is being implied here by use of the word nanny in the phrase "nanny state." Of course, nannies were traditionally female and I would say the overwhelming majority of them are today, but people employ mannies today as well.
I think where your analysis runs off the rails is when you say that "These women whine and nag and hover to control their husbands and children. Nannies do all of this when mom isn't around, don't they?" I think the things you are describing -- whining, nagging, and controlling the husband -- goes beyond the traditional duties of a nanny. I think you might have to go to some movies produced by Phil Gramm to find a nanny treating the father in the family like that. Nannies traditionally are supposed to act as a stand-in parent for the child, to be there to play with the child, to instruct the child, and to correct the child when necessary, but not, strictly speaking, to whine, nag and control the child OR his father (generally, I think nannies have what could probably best be described as a management-employee relationship with the parents).
I'm no more insulted by the phrase "nanny state" than I am by a phrase like "wingnut welfare".
Posted by: AdmiralNaismith | Aug 5, 2008 12:57:02 PM
Nothing the matter with it.
I'd rather have a nurturing, caring government that wants the best from its citizens and gives all of them the means to get there, than the "Abusive, Drunken Husband State" or the "Absentee Deadbeat Dad State" promoted by the Republicans.
Posted by: mamabigdog | Aug 5, 2008 1:10:39 PM
I don't know that I'm offended by "Nanny State", as I have a negative connotation to the word "nanny" in the first place.
What wording would you suggest instead? Hall Monitor State? Yard Duty State?
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 5, 2008 1:12:47 PM
Posted by: Not Really Jacoby Ellsbury | Aug 5, 2008 12:51:23 PM
Ditto.
The focus of the imagery is on the ostensibly naive child who needs adult guidance, who needs to be guided and molded by a wise adult. The gender of the adult is utterly irrelevant to the political usage of the term "nanny state" because the gender of the adult isn't the point!
Posted by: tl | Aug 5, 2008 1:20:03 PM
Karol: I want to be clear that I don't think the posters or the subject are at issue, just the phrase. I also want to be clear that my posed question no way implies that people that use the phrase are sexist.
Karol is correctly making the distinction between "what they did [said]" and the "what they are" so well described in the popular video "How to tell people they sound racist" that has been making the rounds. She is not accusing you of being sexist. She is suggesting that using the term "nanny state" sounds sexist. There is a difference.
-tl
Posted by: Joel H | Aug 5, 2008 1:24:49 PM
mamabigdog: Just be more precise... the offensiveness comes from the implication that the government is being overprotective and disapproval of this as a specifically feminine (and perhaps additionally European/upper-class) quality. So (just as an example) instead of "Menu labeling laws are a product of the nanny-state", you could say something like "Menu labeling laws are motivated by the invasive, moralistic desire of some elites to control regular peoples' eating habits." No femininity implied.
Posted by: jaybeat | Aug 5, 2008 1:25:50 PM
Admiral, I'm with you, there.
But, in general, I AM offended by both the phrase, and its implied sexism, cutting both ways (a nanny wants to treat us like children and kiss our boo-boos, and act like we can't handle anything or do anything for ourselves, while a male caregiver, if there were such a thing, would tell us to "grow up" and "be a man" and encourage us to find our own way via the school of hard knocks) AND by the whole notion that the government is some external entity trying to tell me (the rugged "I'm a grown up and can take care of myself" type of "me") how to live and what to do.
The government is US, protecting OURSELVES, usually from the predatory and often downright lethal practices of for-profit corporations. Their charter has one and only one value--profit, growth and ROI for shareholders. The only entity concerned with the safety, health, welfare and well-being of me and my fellow human beings is US, banding together to act together through government in ways that we feel are in OUR best interests.
It is all a huge exercise in doublespeak, really. When private companies want government to protect them from risk but keep their profits private (pick your favorite bailout or cost-plus defense contract), nobody screams "nanny state!" But if our elected representatives want to protect us from the very real costs of bad food, bad water, dangerous products or people's own stupid decisions (the financial risks of which ARE shared with all of us--every see an emergency room bill?), then Lord Help Us if those damned socialist liberals aren't trying to tell me where I can and can't take a dump. Give me a break!
Good thing they are, too. Do we really want raw sewage everywhere in the name of personal freedom!
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Aug 5, 2008 1:40:43 PM
I guess in the Brave New World, there will be no metaphors or analogies.
Drill deep enough and you can find something to be offended by, while driving all discourse toward the literal. Maybe that's not a bad thing, but at this point what's not "off limits" in some very concrete way?
The only safe allusions are to:
Attorneys
White Men
Old White Men
Old White Attorneys
Rednecks
Crackers
Angry White Males
Wealthy White Males
The Old Boy Network
Corporatists
Racists (everybody that I disagree with on poicy issues relating to any other subset of humans)
White Racists (There are NO racists of any other ethnicity)
The Religious Right
Neo-Cons (The latest in a long list of objectionable Cons)
Does anyone else see a pattern here, regarding what makes US mad and what's just fine with US?
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Aug 5, 2008 1:54:03 PM
nobody screams "nanny state!" But if our elected representatives want to protect us from the very real costs of bad food, bad water, dangerous products or people's own stupid decisions (the financial risks of which ARE shared with all of us--every see an emergency room bill?), then Lord Help Us if those damned socialist liberals aren't trying to tell me where I can and can't take a dump. Give me a break!
Huh?
I'm arguing opposite you on this particular issue but I posted a Blog here on 8/24 that attacked the very people and groups that you say I ignore.
Nuance please, or absent that, please at least pretend to pay attention to the actual statements and history of your opponents of the moment.
**********
While it may be true that "In the country of the blind the one eyed man is king, Blue Oregon is not that country.
(and I apologize in advance for the fact that the above quote is clearly sexist.....by some measuring tapes.)
Posted by: Karol | Aug 5, 2008 2:01:17 PM
Alright Pat, you got me out of my hole to comment. Like I said before, I do not think because one may use a term that is perceived as sexist, that that person suddenly IS sexist. I did quote you in my post as an example of the words being used.
I do not believe that the metaphor is dead. There has to be room for dissent with some of them. We no longer say "sitting Indian style" because it can be perceived as offensive. Do preschool teachers mean to offend Native Americans when they say it? No, but we all know that isn't right.
And I don't need the sarcasm, I was just discussing. After two years of this my skin is still a little thin.
Posted by: Oregon Independent | Aug 5, 2008 2:17:48 PM
Pat, you are mistaken. Newspeak is doubleplusgood. Please report to MiniTruth shortly after today's five minute hate for re-education.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Aug 5, 2008 2:18:54 PM
And I don't need the sarcasm, I was just discussing
Karol, we've never met but I suspect that you're a kind and polite person.
I've never been noted for either virtue.
If sarcasm is off the table, I'm left without tools.
And seriously, I mean no personal attack here, and hope that my style is not a deal breaker. I do value the exhortation to attack the beahvior rather than the person, although in some cases, (not addressing you), where Godwinesque comments come my way, I'm most likely to offer as disproportionally over the top response as I can muster.
Posted by: karol | Aug 5, 2008 2:24:13 PM
Ok Pat, you won me over. Now I want to smother you in kind and polite kisses! :)
Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Aug 5, 2008 3:56:38 PM
Yeah, I think it's sexist. More obnoxious to me is that the polarization promoted by this term makes juvenile what is mature.
The "nanny State" implies that the people it serves are children. That the people are too immature to make correct choices, so the State does it for them. The reality is that mature people who are beyond the frontier thinking of "every man/woman for themselves" will join together to do those things that are best done collectively.
Think of the Fire Department. According to those that accuse us of having a "nanny State" when government does things for us, everyone should have their own fire fighting system, and if your house burns down, its your own damn fault. Mature people realize that it takes special equipment and trained people to effectively fight a house fire, and what if you aren't home when there is a fire?
This is an example of how the Republicants are using negative stereotypes against all of us. This isn't just a sexist issue, it is an issue of using images to demean and deplore what is the best of our society, to advance an overall agenda of "everyman/woman for themselves", and in the process that becomes more corporate profit. Just imagine how much money would be made if in fact all fire departments were disbanded. Sensible people would find and install automatic fire fighting systems such as interior sprinklers - at a cost of thousands per house - and the poor would do without.
Anytime you hear "nanny State", it is code for privatization. And that is a destroyer of civilization.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Aug 5, 2008 6:30:12 PM
"I don't want to argue those specific topics, rather why we use the word "nanny." I think the use could be considered sexist."
A nanny is a person, male or female, who takes care of people who can't take care of themselves. That's why it's applicable.
There's nothing sexist about using the term Nanny-state.
It's more sexist to assume all nannies are female.
This post is silly. Things mi=ust be pretty darn good in America if we've got time to get our boxers in a bunch about this.
Posted by: jaybeat | Aug 5, 2008 7:47:26 PM
Steve sez:
Anytime you hear "nanny State", it is code for privatization. And that is a destroyer of civilization.
Whew! For a second I thought I had fallen through the Radical Right's Rabid Rabbit's Hole (RRRRH!), but now I realize I'm still here at Blue Oregon.
Meanwhile, Pat sez:
Huh?
I'm arguing opposite you on this particular issue but I posted a Blog here on 8/24 that attacked the very people and groups that you say I ignore.
Nuance please, or absent that, please at least pretend to pay attention to the actual statements and history of your opponents of the moment.
Pat, as much as I love your posts generally, and the one you cited in particular, I, um, don't know how to break it to you, but, *I wasn't talking to you!* I was responding, in general, to the *concept* of the nanny state, as it is used generally by right-wing assholes who are happy to let granny freeze to death while Enron makes a killing but insist that all their rich friends deserve to be protected from risk at taxpayer expense. The recent posts about that dreadful anti-union, anti-consumer lobbyist scum with his Jeff Merkley in his cross-hairs was really who I had in mind, as he was the first person I've heard use the "n-state" term in, well, forever.
I'm all for nuance, but in my case I was using a broad brush that was not meant at all to include you, since you clearly *don't* subscribe to the ideology behind the pejorative use of the term in question, even if you do think it is otherwise not "sexist" or whatever. On that, we can agree to disagree and join forces to fight the really serious fights that we all know need fighting.
Peace, bro! (And sis!)
Posted by: Rick Hickey | Aug 5, 2008 8:38:35 PM
Nanny State referring to Women and Babysitters?
You Far Lefties may have a hard time understanding BUT Women have Breasts (for feeding) Ovaries (where the Human Egg is)and a Womb (for the Baby to develop in) and a Vagina (for the Baby to come out and to make a Baby in the 1st place). So we naturally relate to Females and taking care of a Child all together for some reason, sorry.
Men provide the Fetilization of the Egg via Sperm! Surprised?
Just some crazy Nature stuff I learned about in Grade School.
Sorry if it doesn't fit that Gay Agenda you push.
And I do like "Big Brother" more as it relates to the Book "1984" by George Orwell, a good example of what you Democrats are doing to us, twisting every word there is to mean the opposite of what it really is.
Example - "Pro-Choice", without science/abortion delivering a Baby is NOT a choice, it happens naturally after about 9 months of being Pregnant.
"Un-documented Immigrant" - They Have documents, many times Your S.S.# OR they couldn't take a Job or a place to live. Ask the Agency that hired all those Illegals for Del Monte.
Posted by: tr | Aug 5, 2008 9:41:00 PM
Grow some balls and deal with the fact that you progressives are the biggest advocates of the nanny state -- which is the red-headed step-child of your other favorite "big brother"
(Is big brother sexist / or masculinist" ? )
Posted by: Kristin | Aug 5, 2008 9:56:58 PM
Wow -- I nominate Rick for the biggest a-hole on the planet, but then again, he's most likely happy with that.
It's extraordinarily sexist, thank you for the insight, once again, Karol.
I do admit, though, that I have a bit of a fantasy of Mary Poppins being the President.
Posted by: paul g | Aug 5, 2008 11:38:16 PM
I vote no, not sexist. Return to the phrase mentioned above--when someone describes a proposal as "big brother" (e.g. the Patriot Act)--is this also an example of sexism simply because we are drawing a negative analogy using a gendered metaphor?
Are all gendered metaphors automatically sexist? Or are they just gendered?
The best analysis in this thread is here: Posted by: Not Really Jacoby Ellsbury | Aug 5, 2008 12:51:23 PM.
Just to repeat in brief: Nannies are protective--sometimes overly protective because, after all, they are paid substitutes for parents. Nannies also tend to be female.
The analogy gains it power from the (over)protectiveness of nannies, and only secondarily from the gender associations. Gender is surely there, but is secondary.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Aug 6, 2008 12:05:10 AM
liberalincarnate:
Ironically, our Democratic Party is about as liberal as most of Europe's conservative parties!
Bob T: No surprise there -- the "liberalism" of
the Democratic Party has never been about what real
liberalism is.
Bob Tiernan
Posted by: Tamerlane | Aug 6, 2008 12:44:27 AM
Obviously the term isn't sexist. If it were, somebody would have noticed by now. This is just sort of tacky. At best, this is a red herring argument in favor of bike helmet laws, etc. It certainly doesn't address the issue on its merits. As a liberal, I hate it when people make supposedly liberal arguments in a way that makes liberals look petty, banal, frivolous, and sort of pathetic.
Posted by: edison | Aug 6, 2008 1:04:40 AM
Steve said: "The "nanny State" implies that the people it serves are children. That the people are too immature to make correct choices, so the State does it for them. "
Yeah. That's what I think when I hear that phrase. And I’m reminded of it by far too many of the current crop of elected representatives who in their words and attitudes appear to think they’re somehow in possession of superior intellect and so, naturally, only they know what's good for us. The most disgusting example I can think of right now is Lindsey Graham.
Oh, and John Boehner.
Yeah, and then, of course, there’s George Bush. I hate it when he speaks to the people of this country as if we’re toddlers.
Oh, and Dick Cheney.
And also John McCain.
Gee, there's a lot more when I think about it.
Oh, nearly forgot, Gordon Harold Smith is like that too. Disgusting.
P.S. Damn your eyes, Jeff! "Elide", indeed! LOL
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Aug 6, 2008 8:19:57 AM
OK, here's a little thought experiment for all of those who say there's "sexist" component to the "Nanny state" meme:
Let's concede that the basic idea behind "nanny state" is that government is infantilizing people by being overly protective. How is that image/language different from the "Big Brother" image?
To me, at least, "Big Brother" also suggests an over-protective, overbearing state - constantly on watch against potential subversives. But it's used in very different contexts, and with different nuances that "nanny state," right?
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Aug 6, 2008 8:48:53 AM
That should have read "...no sexist component"
Posted by: Karol | Aug 6, 2008 8:54:33 AM
Yowza, people are uptight in the summertime. Glad I gave ya'll something to do, especially you Tamerlane. Give you a chance to flex those insult muscles!
Posted by: genop | Aug 6, 2008 11:26:37 AM
Subtlety. "Nanny State/paternalism" evokes govt. regulation saving us from ourselves. "Big brother" on the other hand, evokes govt. intrusion into privacy to make sure we are saving us from ourselves. PS would "maternalism" be less sexist?
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Not Really Jacoby Ellsbury | Aug 5, 2008 10:44:30 AM
No.