Zack Kopplin gets nice write-up in Mother Jones

Posted 26 June 2015 by Matt Young

You can read it for yourself here. But, for my money, Mr. Kopplin exposes Gov. Bobby Jindal's inner hypocrite with these too kind words:

"I mean, who knows? I could be totally wrong, and maybe Jindal believes this [creationism] with his whole heart. Which is more why I go back to what his kids are learning. I had their seventh-grade biology teacher at [University Laboratory School] where I went for middle school, and I know she doesn't just teach evolution--she's absolutely obsessive about it. If Jindal actually was a creationist, I think he'd have a much bigger problem with his kids being taught what evolution is."

Mr. Kopplin, who is on the verge of graduating from Rice University,

has continued to beat the drum on what he views as the erosion of public schools. He has broadened his focus to include the governor's voucher program, which diverts state money to religious schools that question evolution and openly discriminate against students who violate their moral code. ... And Kopplin has expanded his push to Texas, where he discovered that students at the state's biggest charter school network were being taught that the "sketchy" fossil record undermines the theory of evolution.

21 Comments

Joe Felsenstein · 26 June 2015

Very interesting article except for one word: "troll". Kopplin is not a troll, because he's not out to disrupt or divert an ongoing discussion. And I'm not just saying that because he's on my side. In the June 7 New Yorker there was a fascinating article by Adrian Chen about a private agency in Russia associated with Vladimir Putin which spreads pro-Putin misinformation on the Internet and creates the illusion of a large number of commenters agreeing with this misinformation. I'm thoroughly opposed to what they're doing. But the article also calls them trolls, which is the one thing they aren't.

Pierce R. Butler · 26 June 2015

I think the word MoJo's headline writer was grasping for is "gadfly".

On reading the article, which goes into whether Jindal knows better but prefers pandering to the fundagelicals in his constituency, I wondered briefly whether "conscience" would better suit the context - but no information indicates that the current governor of Louisiana has receptors for any molecules of that shape.

Robert Byers · 26 June 2015

its all about the establishment picking a spokesman for their beliefs which they must pretent they are not agitating on with the trust in their positions before the public.
Again if one person natters more then why not all the people on these matters. / why deny the people of this state the right to decide what is taught on these matters? The people have spoken and the elected officials of the people have spoken, and elected opponents, so why such dismissal the the people? Just because of defeat.

Just Bob · 26 June 2015

Robert Byers said: its all about the establishment picking a spokesman for their beliefs which they must pretent they are not agitating on with the trust in their positions before the public. Again if one person natters more then why not all the people on these matters. / why deny the people of this state the right to decide what is taught on these matters? The people have spoken and the elected officials of the people have spoken, and elected opponents, so why such dismissal the the people? Just because of defeat.

My brain hurts. Quit skipping those doses, Robert.

Dave Luckett · 26 June 2015

Matt, I hope you will indulge me. I did this once before with Byers, and I find it fascinating to try to tease elements of meaning out of his prose. What on earth is one to make of his last? It can only be done one small step at a time. Take his first, er, sentence:

its all about the establishment picking a spokesman for their beliefs which they must pretent they are not agitating on with the trust in their positions before the public.

We start by correcting the obvious orthographic errors:

It's all about the establishment picking a spokesman for their beliefs, which they must pretend they are not agitating on, with the trust in their positions before the public.

This has not increased coherency by much, but the first pointers emerge. Now, we use a process rather like restoring the missing or broken elements of a shattered pot found in an archeological dig:

It's all about the establishment picking a spokesman for their beliefs, which they must pretend they are not prosyletising, given the trust the public has in their positions.

Better? A little. But the subject of the sentence is merely "it". Byers has compounded his incoherence by eliding his actual meaning. What does this "it" refer to? We can only guess, but the most likely subject is Zac Kopplin's prominence. So:

Zac Kopplin's prominence is all about the establishment picking a spokesman for their beliefs, which they must pretend they are not prosyletising, given the trust the public has in their positions.

But Byers thinks in cliches, and they only approximate his likely meaning. Let's try removing one:

Zac Kopplin's prominence is only caused by the establishment picking him as a spokesman for their beliefs, which they must pretend they are not prosyletising, given the trust the public has in their positions.

Still a problem. The subsidiary clauses do not follow, and the resulting compound sentence is grotesquely poorly constructed. The obvious solution is to separate and simplify the clauses:

Zac Kopplin's prominence is only caused by the establishment picking him as a spokesman. They must pretend that they are not prosyletising, because the public trusts their positions.

At last, we arrive at coherence and meaning. The rest of the post can be put through the same process. I won't go through the steps this time:

Zac Kopplin's prominence is only caused by the establishment picking him as a spokesman. They must pretend that they are not prosyletising, because the public trusts their positions. But why does one person matter more than all the people? Why deny the people of Louisiana the right to decide what is taught in their schools on this subject? The people and their elected officials have spoken. Why should they be dismissed? The only reason is that it is the establishment that has been defeated.

Now the meaning is plain enough. The trouble is, of course, that it's nonsensical. Byers' original post illustrates the benefits of incoherence. One is often reduced to guessing at what he means, so obscure is what passes for his prose, and that makes it difficult to rebut him. But once the required effort is made, one invariably finds an even deeper incoherence than what results from his abuse of English. Here he states that the public trusts the establishment, and simultaneously that the establishment has been "defeated" in the court of public opinion. That is, he is capable of thinking both at the same time. His mental processes are so shambolic that he can't see the logical contradiction, and in this failure his inability to construct a coherent English sentence has only assisted him. Now you can say, and you'd be right, that this is using an artillery piece to shoot ducks, and sitting ones at that. True enough. Call it a personal quirk. Something about feckless, heedless, ignorant incompetence coupled with bumptious self-confidence irks me unbearably, and I react. I apologise if you've read this far, and your reaction is the same as mine to Byers.

Mike Elzinga · 27 June 2015

Dave Luckett said: Something about feckless, heedless, ignorant incompetence coupled with bumptious self-confidence irks me unbearably, and I react.

Very interesting analysis, Dave. :-) The irksomeness of ID/creationist camp followers does indeed appear to come from their inability to think properly; and that may come from living under the influences of authoritarian sectarian beliefs that don't permit questioning and analysis. Your analysis may also apply to the very "thought processes" of ID/creationism. ID/creationism has been the result of something like 50 years of mangling science concepts in order to bring them into line with authoritarian, sectarian dogma. However, that process makes ID/creationism irrelevant to the natural world; and it most certainly turns it into a pseudoscience that is ineligible for being taught in public education. Piled on top of those deliberately concocted misconceptions has been a seemingly "logical" set of arguments about "information," "complexity," and "impossibility" - all based on those misconceptions while comporting with sectarian dogma - that cements the ID/creationists' beliefs that they are right and that all scientists are unable to see the consequences of their own science. All one has to do to seal that echo chamber is to demonize scientists by calling them "materialists" so that they are now automatically "bad" as well as "blind" and not to be taken seriously. ID/creationists think - and expect others to argue with them - on the basis of those misconceptions and misrepresentations of science; and by now, it is all logically air-tight for them. But everything ID/creationists have concocted over the years has nothing to do with reality; they just think is does. Nothing will shake their beliefs because ID/creationists will never test their concepts against the real world the way working scientists do. They have "science proofed" this neglect of research by resorting to "metaphysical arguments" that are nothing more than bastardized pseudo philosophy that, by implication, supersedes the need for scientific investigation.

Keelyn · 27 June 2015

Dave Luckett said: Matt, I hope you will indulge me. I did this once before with Byers, and I find it fascinating to try to tease elements of meaning out of his prose. What on earth is one to make of his last? It can only be done one small step at a time. Take his first, er, sentence:
its all about the establishment picking a spokesman for their beliefs which they must pretent they are not agitating on with the trust in their positions before the public.
We start by correcting the obvious orthographic errors:
It's all about the establishment picking a spokesman for their beliefs, which they must pretend they are not agitating on, with the trust in their positions before the public.
This has not increased coherency by much, but the first pointers emerge. Now, we use a process rather like restoring the missing or broken elements of a shattered pot found in an archeological dig:
It's all about the establishment picking a spokesman for their beliefs, which they must pretend they are not prosyletising, given the trust the public has in their positions.
Better? A little. But the subject of the sentence is merely "it". Byers has compounded his incoherence by eliding his actual meaning. What does this "it" refer to? We can only guess, but the most likely subject is Zac Kopplin's prominence. So:
Zac Kopplin's prominence is all about the establishment picking a spokesman for their beliefs, which they must pretend they are not prosyletising, given the trust the public has in their positions.
But Byers thinks in cliches, and they only approximate his likely meaning. Let's try removing one:
Zac Kopplin's prominence is only caused by the establishment picking him as a spokesman for their beliefs, which they must pretend they are not prosyletising, given the trust the public has in their positions.
Still a problem. The subsidiary clauses do not follow, and the resulting compound sentence is grotesquely poorly constructed. The obvious solution is to separate and simplify the clauses:
Zac Kopplin's prominence is only caused by the establishment picking him as a spokesman. They must pretend that they are not prosyletising, because the public trusts their positions.
At last, we arrive at coherence and meaning. The rest of the post can be put through the same process. I won't go through the steps this time:
Zac Kopplin's prominence is only caused by the establishment picking him as a spokesman. They must pretend that they are not prosyletising, because the public trusts their positions. But why does one person matter more than all the people? Why deny the people of Louisiana the right to decide what is taught in their schools on this subject? The people and their elected officials have spoken. Why should they be dismissed? The only reason is that it is the establishment that has been defeated.
Now the meaning is plain enough. The trouble is, of course, that it's nonsensical. Byers' original post illustrates the benefits of incoherence. One is often reduced to guessing at what he means, so obscure is what passes for his prose, and that makes it difficult to rebut him. But once the required effort is made, one invariably finds an even deeper incoherence than what results from his abuse of English. Here he states that the public trusts the establishment, and simultaneously that the establishment has been "defeated" in the court of public opinion. That is, he is capable of thinking both at the same time. His mental processes are so shambolic that he can't see the logical contradiction, and in this failure his inability to construct a coherent English sentence has only assisted him. Now you can say, and you'd be right, that this is using an artillery piece to shoot ducks, and sitting ones at that. True enough. Call it a personal quirk. Something about feckless, heedless, ignorant incompetence coupled with bumptious self-confidence irks me unbearably, and I react. I apologise if you've read this far, and your reaction is the same as mine to Byers.

Wow, Dave, thatâs an amazing feat you have accomplished! Iâve also equated the attempt to parse anything that âBoggles the Mindâ Byers writes on par with using General Relativity to solve a quantum mechanical process; one is almost invariably broadsided with meaningless infinities. Perhaps you should turn your attention to theoretical physics â you may have a talent you are currently unaware of. If you can figure out and make sense of anything Byers is babbling about, developing a theory of quantum gravity should be a snap! (I now promise not to make any more comments that references Byers on this thread.)

Just Bob · 27 June 2015

This could be interesting: Robert, is this

Zac Kopplinâs prominence is only caused by the establishment picking him as a spokesman. They must pretend that they are not prosyletising, because the public trusts their positions. But why does one person matter more than all the people? Why deny the people of Louisiana the right to decide what is taught in their schools on this subject? The people and their elected officials have spoken. Why should they be dismissed? The only reason is that it is the establishment that has been defeated.

exactly what you meant? It's the best we (meaning Dave) could make of it. If it misses your meaning somewhere, correct it. And what about the obvious contradiction?

Here he states that the public trusts the establishment, and simultaneously that the establishment has been âdefeatedâ in the court of public opinion.

shebardigan · 27 June 2015

I believe the word you seek is, properly, "shill".

Frank J · 27 June 2015

For some reason I can't open the MJ article, so for now I'll just comment on this:

âI mean, who knows? I could be totally wrong, and maybe Jindal believes this [creationism] with his whole heart. Which is more why I go back to what his kids are learning. I had their seventh-grade biology teacher at [University Laboratory School] where I went for middle school, and I know she doesnât just teach evolutionâsheâs absolutely obsessive about it. If Jindal actually was a creationist, I think heâd have a much bigger problem with his kids being taught what evolution is.â

All due respect to Kopplin, I can't stand the phrase "is (or is not) a creationist." Jindal is certainly an anti-evolution activist. Since he says he "could be totally wrong," apparently elsewhere in the article Kopplin dares to suggest the possibility (as I often do for most of those paranoid activists) that Jindal privately rejects the claims of creationism/ID (but otherwise finds them essential to winning the culture war). Technically, every evolution-denier disbelieves some part of creationism, but I guess Kopplin means that Jindal might privately accept all of evolution. That's quite reasonable especially given how Jindal was a biology major, at Brown, no less, where he undoubtedly heard of Ken Miller, despite not taking any of his classes. But this news about his children learning evolution from one who is "obsessive about it" (I assume Kopplin means in a positive way) makes the story ever more fascinating. Certainly Kopplin "could be totally wrong" about Jindal's private beliefs. He (& I) could be totally wrong about evolution too. But I give it about 0% chance or either. It makes perfect sense for a committed anti-evolution activist to have his children taught evolution from one who is "obsessive about it." He wants them to learn as much about it so they can effectively misrepresent it to as many people as possible. They won't get that from a teacher who replaces most of the legitimate science with bogus "weaknesses." Those they can always learn after class. Where they can also learn the refutations of those "weaknesses," and how to always conveniently "omit" them.

Mike Elzinga · 27 June 2015

Frank J said: He wants them to learn as much about it so they can effectively misrepresent it to as many people as possible. They won't get that from a teacher who replaces most of the legitimate science with bogus "weaknesses." Those they can always learn after class. Where they can also learn the refutations of those "weaknesses," and how to always conveniently "omit" them.

Having had some considerable experience with this, I have found that deliberately introducing a misconception about a concept in order to make a point about the correct understanding of a concept very often backfires. Beginning students who are hearing and reading about subtle concepts in science are very often grasping for memorable sound bytes and not necessarily appreciating the often subtle and deeper meanings of a scientific concept. Presenting pseudoscientific misconceptions and misrepresentations is poor pedagogy on its face; and it almost always saddles someone in the class with permanent misconceptions that get in the way of further learning. The time do deal with misconceptions is when they come up in the context of applying a concept to a problem; i.e., when they become an overt part of a student's response to specific "concept tests" which should be a part of every stage of instructor/student interactions. Over the last 40 years or so, members of the physics, chemistry, and biology education communities have formalized and developed a whole series of "concept inventories" that are directed at an entire catalog of misconceptions that occur in student learning. That catalog has gone far beyond "anecdotal reports" by experienced instructors; and they have been repeatedly verified and tested in both written and oral interactions with students. These instructor/student interactions have been recorded on tape and video and then analyzed and dissected for clues about what pedagogical techniques might best address those misconceptions. One of the worst approaches is to introduce misconceptions along with the intended correct conceptions. Student attention early on will not sort out the subtle ideas from that approach; students must be engaged in some application that requires a correct understanding of a concept. What ID/creationists are proposing is not only junk science, it is bad pedagogy; and it is guaranteed to leave a substantial proportion of any class of beginning science students doomed to a lifetime of misconceptions and confusion. But I am quite sure, after watching their shenanigans for something like 50 years, that this is precisely the ID/creationist's goal. I am also quite sure that the "PhDs" in the ID/creationist movement know they are doing this. They have had their misconceptions and misrepresentations corrected repeatedly; yet they still persist in pushing their pseudoscience and demonizing the science community.

Joe Felsenstein · 27 June 2015

shebardigan said: I believe the word you seek is, properly, "shill".

For the Russian posters of misinformation, that would be a good description. In Adrian Chen's New Yorker article he makes clear that some of them were uncomfortable with their work, as they did not believe what they were writing. For Koplin, no. He is posting stuff he believes in, is uncovering useful informaton, and he is not put up to it by any employer. So he is not a shill. Of course, your position may differ.

Paul Burnett · 27 June 2015

shebardigan said: I believe the word you seek is, properly, "shill".

I believe a more proper word would be "pimp".

Paul Burnett · 27 June 2015

Paul Burnett said:
shebardigan said: I believe the word you seek is, properly, "shill".
I believe a more proper word would be "pimp".

Flangdang it, I hit enter by mistake. I was going to cleverly slander the pushers of scientific illiteracy, not Zack.

Matt Young · 27 June 2015

I believe the word you seek is, properly, âshillâ.

I am afraid that I cannot find the antecedent for this comment. Who is supposedly shilling for whom?

shebardigan · 28 June 2015

I regret that I left the context unclear. I had no intention of denoting Zack as a shill.

Those who, effectively in disguise, make noise to draw people to an attraction or whacky doctrine or other trap are shills.

Those who inject provocative and usually irrelevant bits into discussions in order to institute disorder and often to change the focus of the discussion from the original topic to themselves are trolls.

Zack is an activist, a person who attempts to inject truth into political discourse. Certainly the least immediately rewarding of the three titles.

Frank J · 28 June 2015

What ID/creationists are proposing is not only junk science, it is bad pedagogy; and it is guaranteed to leave a substantial proportion of any class of beginning science students doomed to a lifetime of misconceptions and confusion.
— Mike Elzinga

Totally agree. And totally agree that that is the very intent of the major ID peddlers (e.g. DI folk) and of their more prominent politician followers, like Jindal, Rick Santorum, Don "big tent" McLeroy, etc. As you mention, it sometimes backfires. I'm sure they know that too, and consider it a small price to pay. I'd like to see the % for which it does backfire if known, but I would guess it to be small. Though I have no doubt (but can't prove) that I would have been among such students. My story from almost 50 years ago illustrates: I never had evolution misrepresented to me in class, but in Catholic grade school I was taught Genesis as fact, with evolution (and common descent) never mentioned. In 7th grade, just before I left Catholic school (for reasons unrelated to this) the nun was teaching the geologic ages. She still didn't mention evolution, and added comments which I think were "day-age" interpretation of Genesis. Nevertheless, as a "number freak" the "100s of millions of years" fascinated me. Before that I assumed humans and dinosaurs co-existed "about a million years ago." I had already dismissed Adam and Eve as fiction, if only because it was so "Santa-like." Jesus et. al. were not far behind. I think that ~half of the class also "read between the lines" by then too. Within the next year I heard about evolution. At most it was briefly mentioned in public school (8th to 12th), but even in caricatured form it made sense enough for me to say "why didn't I think of that." Despite pursuing a career in chemistry, I gave little thought to evolution natural history for the next 20 years. Then it hit me. Why is there so little mention of the "whens" of natural history." I could understand why a Catholic school waited until 7th grade; unlike me, most younger children just don't understand big numbers. But why was it so rarely mentioned after that - in schools or daily conversation. Why do ~99% of the people not know when the Devonian and Eocene began and ended, or have even the vaguest idea what flora and fauna were around during those times (or even that one is a period and the other an epoch)? The "when" questions, and common descent "in itself" (i.e. not always mentioned in conjunction with the theory that explains it), are perhaps even more important to be taught than evolution itself. Any yet they - with all their testable and well-supported claims - are the very topics that ID peddlers avoid. Regardless of their successes and (mostly) failures with public schools, IDers have managed to keep those topics extremely rare in daily conversation. Though given public science illiteracy, indifference and distrust, I doubt that they needed much effort to accomplish that. If anything, YEC peddlers probably have more "backfires" than IDers, simply because, by calling attention to the "when" questions, even to promote doubt, they stimulate all but the already fully indoctrinated students to think, and ultimately reject the YE nonsense, if not literal Genesis altogether. As I have long contended, that, not the loss at Edwards v. Aguillard, was the main reason for the ID scam as we know it. "Don't ask, don't tell what happened when" in fact predated "cdesign proponentsists" in the "Pandas" drafts. And probably in many other writings too, as promoters of Biblical creationism faced the painful truth that their claims were both bogus, and unconvincing to the great majority, even in a largely science-illiterate country. There's another small % for which misrepresenting evolution in class "backfires," but in a very different way. Some astute students would personally realize that evolution is well-supported, and that ID/creationism is bogus, but also think it's better than the "masses" don't know that. So they join the scam. YEC peddlers may want "true believers," but what ID peddlers want most is more fellow activists. Their unspoken policy is "You can believe anything you want, as long as you promote unreasonable doubt of evolution to others."

Frank J · 28 June 2015

I hesitate to add to the already too-much press given to the word "troll," but I think the word that the author was searching for is "conscience." Kopplin is Jindal's "conscience," and sooner or later, will catch up to him.

Robert Byers · 28 June 2015

Dave Luckett said: Matt, I hope you will indulge me. I did this once before with Byers, and I find it fascinating to try to tease elements of meaning out of his prose. What on earth is one to make of his last? It can only be done one small step at a time. Take his first, er, sentence:
its all about the establishment picking a spokesman for their beliefs which they must pretent they are not agitating on with the trust in their positions before the public.
We start by correcting the obvious orthographic errors:
It's all about the establishment picking a spokesman for their beliefs, which they must pretend they are not agitating on, with the trust in their positions before the public.
This has not increased coherency by much, but the first pointers emerge. Now, we use a process rather like restoring the missing or broken elements of a shattered pot found in an archeological dig:
It's all about the establishment picking a spokesman for their beliefs, which they must pretend they are not prosyletising, given the trust the public has in their positions.
Better? A little. But the subject of the sentence is merely "it". Byers has compounded his incoherence by eliding his actual meaning. What does this "it" refer to? We can only guess, but the most likely subject is Zac Kopplin's prominence. So:
Zac Kopplin's prominence is all about the establishment picking a spokesman for their beliefs, which they must pretend they are not prosyletising, given the trust the public has in their positions.
But Byers thinks in cliches, and they only approximate his likely meaning. Let's try removing one:
Zac Kopplin's prominence is only caused by the establishment picking him as a spokesman for their beliefs, which they must pretend they are not prosyletising, given the trust the public has in their positions.
Still a problem. The subsidiary clauses do not follow, and the resulting compound sentence is grotesquely poorly constructed. The obvious solution is to separate and simplify the clauses:
Zac Kopplin's prominence is only caused by the establishment picking him as a spokesman. They must pretend that they are not prosyletising, because the public trusts their positions.
At last, we arrive at coherence and meaning. The rest of the post can be put through the same process. I won't go through the steps this time:
Zac Kopplin's prominence is only caused by the establishment picking him as a spokesman. They must pretend that they are not prosyletising, because the public trusts their positions. But why does one person matter more than all the people? Why deny the people of Louisiana the right to decide what is taught in their schools on this subject? The people and their elected officials have spoken. Why should they be dismissed? The only reason is that it is the establishment that has been defeated.
Yes that is what I meant. you probably did it quick enough ans anyone else. It is the clear truth to me. They do this all the time. Journalism doesn't matter unless iot matters and si they seek to influence. The establishment is represented, these days , by the big media. The MEDIA muist maintain public confidence that its neutral in coverage and so can be trusted. not arguing for one side with expected prejudices. YET they are on on side. So they select spokesman and give them a coverage otherwise unearned or there would be equal spokesmen opportunity. I made a good point and a better point about the people being the boss and not a few people. Or rather why pick obscure spokesmen and ignore the people.? I know why! Now the meaning is plain enough. The trouble is, of course, that it's nonsensical. Byers' original post illustrates the benefits of incoherence. One is often reduced to guessing at what he means, so obscure is what passes for his prose, and that makes it difficult to rebut him. But once the required effort is made, one invariably finds an even deeper incoherence than what results from his abuse of English. Here he states that the public trusts the establishment, and simultaneously that the establishment has been "defeated" in the court of public opinion. That is, he is capable of thinking both at the same time. His mental processes are so shambolic that he can't see the logical contradiction, and in this failure his inability to construct a coherent English sentence has only assisted him. Now you can say, and you'd be right, that this is using an artillery piece to shoot ducks, and sitting ones at that. True enough. Call it a personal quirk. Something about feckless, heedless, ignorant incompetence coupled with bumptious self-confidence irks me unbearably, and I react. I apologise if you've read this far, and your reaction is the same as mine to Byers.

Matt Young · 29 June 2015

Just for the record, I have excised Mr. Byers's reply from the preceding comment. I will allow the reply out of respect for Mr. Luckett's yeomanlike work in translating the original comment into English.

Yes that is what I meant. you probably did it quick enough ans anyone else. It is the clear truth to me. They do this all the time. Journalism doesnât matter unless iot matters and si they seek to influence. The establishment is represented, these days , by the big media. The MEDIA muist maintain public confidence that its neutral in coverage and so can be trusted. not arguing for one side with expected prejudices. YET they are on on side. So they select spokesman and give them a coverage otherwise unearned or there would be equal spokesmen opportunity. I made a good point and a better point about the people being the boss and not a few people. Or rather why pick obscure spokesmen and ignore the people.? I know why!

robert van bakel · 3 July 2015

I've followed Zac's career from teenage years to today and the lad is deeply admirable. To add to his decency is the fear and loathing he inspires in Barry Arrington.

I didn't check further but, 'on the verge of graduating from Rice University'? With what parchment exactly?