The Commentariat -- June 14, 2012
My column in today's New York Times eXaminer is titled "'Candor' Is Not a Synonym for "Self-Serving." The NYTX front page is here.
Peter Baker of the New York Times: "The back-and-forth this week over Russian support for Syria's government as it tries to crush an uprising underscored the limits of Mr. Obama's ability to 'reset' ties with Moscow."
Kevin Drum has more on Daniel Klaidman's book, To Kill or Capture, on the evolution of President Obama's policy in regard to terrorist suspects.
Bishops Form Pro-Child Abuse Lobby, Get Results. Laurie Goodstein & Erik Eckholm of the New York Times: "Victims [of child sex abuse] and their advocates in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York are pushing legislators to lengthen the [statutes of limitations] or abolish them altogether, and to open temporary 'windows' during which victims can file lawsuits no matter how long after the alleged abuse occurred. The Catholic Church has successfully beaten back such proposals in many states, arguing that it is difficult to get reliable evidence when decades have passed and that the changes seem more aimed at bankrupting the church than easing the pain of victims." CW: I hope the last three people who thought the RC Church had any moral authority whatsoever are now ready to change their minds.
"The Wall Street Senate." Dana Milbank has a lively take on JPMorgan Chase CEO & Know-It-All Jamie Dimon's testimony before the Senate Banking Committee. The only person in the room you might come away liking is Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), but he barely gets a walk-on. Happily, Dimon did do a number on Republicans. ...
... David Dayen of Firedoglake gets more into the nitty-gritty, and he does highlight an exchange between Dimon & Merkley. Dayen's analysis is easy to understand. ...
... Dorsey Shaw of BuzzFeed on "Jamie Dimon's 5 Least Apologetic Moves At The Senate Banking Hearing." The first four are accompanied by illustrative videos, the last in the countdown to No. 1 is this: "Makes JPMorgan shareholders $2 billion richer while testifying":
Sam Baker of The Hill: "The Supreme Court's landmark healthcare ruling will pose a big test for Republicans, even if the court strikes down all or part of President Obama's healthcare law.So far, the party has not come together around a set of policies to replace the healthcare law.... Republicans also haven't said how they would handle policies that are already in place, including discounts on prescription drugs for many seniors." ...
... Jake Sherman & Jonathan Allen of Politico: well, House leadership is working on healthcare strategy. But in the meantime, "... many rank-and-file Republicans are grumbling that they don't have much to show for the last year and a half in Washington." ...
... If you're into tea-leaf reading on the Affordable Care Act, Linda Greenhouse has a fun post, stuffed with speculation, that, if nothing else, shows what a close reader of the Supremes she is.
Alex Leary of the Tampa Bay Times: "It's one of the most hyped bills on Capitol Hill, and it doesn't even exist. Three months after U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio [R-Fla.] revealed he's working on an alternative to the Dream Act, triggering a gusher of positive news coverage, he's yet to produce a written proposal." CW: I'm shocked, shocked, to find out my senator is a do-nothing phony.
"Obama Snubbed Me." Alexander Bolton of The Hill: "Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said this week that President Obama never made a sincere effort to reach out to him after the 2008 election." CW: it appears Obama made quite a few efforts, what with a candlelight dinner in honor of McCain & all, but apparently they weren't "sincere" enough. Thanks to Jeanne B. for the link.
Presidential Race
Steve Kornacki of Salon: In his economic speech today, President Obama "needs to find a way to frame the modest recovery as a delicate work in progress, something that has been painfully slow because of the epic nature of the catastrophe he inherited and the obstructionism and ideological rigidity with which congressional Republicans greeted his presidency. And he needs to make the case that a Romney presidency would upend the progress that's been made and return the country to the exact same policies that preceded the collapse of the economy." It can be done, if not easily. CW: I have no idea why, at least so far, the White House live site is indicating it will not carry the speech. If they change their minds, I'll run it here. ...
... Erin McPike of Real Clear Politics: Both Obama & Romney will speak in Ohio today, where "the economic conditions ... have been steadily improving, with the unemployment rate almost a point lower than the national average at 7.4 percent. What's more, two major actions taken by the Obama administration are viewed as a boon to Ohioans. For starters, both sides agree that the auto bailout has helped Obama's prospects in the northern part of the state. And on Wednesday morning -- after nearly four years of wrangling -- the Energy Department agreed to a $350 million investment in the United States Enrichment Corporation's 'shovel-ready' nuclear facility in Piketon, a small rural town in southern Ohio." Via Greg Sargent.
... Frank Newport of Gallup: "Americans continue to place more blame for the nation's economic problems on George W. Bush than on Barack Obama, even though Bush left office more than three years ago. The relative economic blame given to Bush versus Obama today is virtually the same as it was last September."
I guess we should all watch this, though if you live in a swing state, it will be coming to a teevee near you anyway in this and -- as the campaign season wears on -- many other forms, I'm sure:
Charles Babington of the AP does an excellent job of debunking Willard's claims that cutting public-sector jobs will help the economy & that the federal government doesn't pay for them. This is important because these AP stories often make it into papers throughout the nation. (The one I picked up appeared in the Boston Globe.)
Andrew Rosenthal: "Republicans love to kvetch about 'uncertainty' -- employers' uncertainty about the economy, for instance.... About the only 'uncertainty' they don't talk about is the status of health care reform. That's because this particular uncertainty was entirely manufactured by Republicans -- who began plotting to undo the Affordable Care Act by re-legislating it in the courts before the ink was dry on Mr. Obama's signature." CW: Plus, Rosenthal debunks another Romney lie. Willard just won't stop. ...
... Greg Sargent has the backstory, which is worth reading. ...
... Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post has more. He gives President Obama kudos for his response to a local TV news questioner whose premise was counterfactual, & dings everybody else, including Romney, for their piling on misstatements.
What Could Possibly Be Wrong with This? Nicholas Confessore of the New York Times: "In recent days, [Sheldon] Adelson, a billionaire casino owner, and his wife, Dr. Miriam Adelson, gave $10 million to Restore Our Future, a 'super PAC' backing the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney..., leaving the Adelsons by far the most prolific campaign donors in the country. All told, the Adelsons have now given at least $35 million to super PACs during the 2012 campaign, not including several hundred thousand dollars worth of $2,500 contributions directly to federal candidates." ...
... E. J. Dionne: in this election cycle, "Americans won't even fully know what's happening to them because so much can be donated in secrecy to opaque organizations. It's always helpful for voters to know who is trying to buy an election, and for whom. This time, much of the auction will be held in private. You can be sure that the candidates will find out who helped elect them, but the voters will remain in the dark."
Devin Dwyer of ABC News highlights Romney's opposition to requring insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Democrats are hitting him on this, but let's hope they hit harder later in the campaign.
Stupid Romney Tricks. Pat Garofalo of Think Progress: "Over the weekend, an op-ed authored by one of 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s economic advisers appeared in a German newspaper. In the piece, Glenn Hubbard criticized the Obama administration's approach to Europe's ongoing economic woes, instead calling for the adoption of more austerity.... Aside from the fact that Hubbard ... explicitly [took] politics beyond 'the water's edge,' he is advocating for a doubling down on austerity that has simply made Europe’s economic situation worse." Thanks to Jeanne B. for the link.
Politics Is for Twits. Alex Altman of Time on the Twitter war between backers of Obama & Romney. CW: Just trying to keep you informed.
Right Wing World
Ali Gharib of Think Progress: "In a rare 'scoop' for an editorial cartoonist today, Matt Bors skewered a little-known National Rifle Association (NRA) program that offers insurance to cover policy holders' costs should they become embroiled in a legal battle after shooting someone in self-defense. The insurance -- technically endorsed by the NRA and administered by Lockton Affinity exclusively for NRA members -- is available as a rider to the 'excess personal liability' plan":
CW: Congratulations to San Diego County! Looks as if they have elected themselves a birther as superior court judge. It was a tight race. I just checked, & with 100 percent of the votes counted, Kreep (yes, that's his name, which is way better than that of his opponents, which is Peed -- not making this up) won by 122 votes. I suspect there will be recount.
Local News
This is really stunning. Laura Conaway of the Rachel Maddow Show reports on the GOP state house in Michigan both faking a voting total & violating the state constitution, all in an effort to make it harder for people to register to vote. With video of the farce. Back in the day, the parties didn't admit to stealing votes. Now Republicans do it right out in the open. They have no shame.
News Ledes
Washington Post: "President Obama will travel to Cleveland on Thursday to deliver what aides describe as a speech that will sharply cast November's election as a choice between his economic stewardship and an alternative that would return the country to the policies that caused the downturn." ...
... New York Times: "On the eve of a major economic speech by President Obama, Mitt Romney told a group of business leaders in Washington on Wednesday that the Obama administration had pursued the 'most anti-investment, anti-business, anti-jobs series of policies in modern American history' and was responsible for the tepid pace of the recovery."
Reuters: "The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week, government data on Thursday showed, suggesting persistent weakness in the labor market after stumbling badly in recent months." ...
... BUT. Bloomberg News: "Consumer confidence in the U.S. climbed for the fourth straight week as more Americans said their personal finances were improving." ...
... AND. Bloomberg: "Americans are digging themselves out of mortgage debt. Home equity in the first quarter rose to the highest level since 2008 as homeowners taking advantage of record-low borrowing costs to refinance their loans brought cash to the table to pay down principal. The gain in percentage terms was the biggest jump in more than 60 years...."
New York Times: "Rejecting suggestions that he struck deals with Rupert Murdoch's newspapers to win electoral support, Prime Minister David Cameron began a day of testimony on Thursday at Britain's inquiry into media standards about the nature of his relationship with Mr. Murdoch, his family and his aides." The Guardian is liveblogging here, & includes live video. ...
... NYT story has been updated.
New York Times: "Nokia said Thursday it would slash 10,000 jobs, or 19 percent of its work force, by the end of 2013 as part of an emergency overhaul that includes closing research centers and a factory in Germany, Canada and Finland, and the departures of three senior executives."
New York Times: "The United States Anti-Doping Agency is set to bring doping charges against Lance Armstrong that could lead to his being stripped of his seven Tour de France titles."
Share Article
Reader Comments (19)
Re: Michigan. Where's the ACLU on the Repub's legislative shenanigans? Would seem they should be raising a loud hue and cry, not to mention an immediate lawsuit seeking an injunction against all the "emergency" laws Michigan has passed in this shameful fashion.
If they were to take the action they should I might think about re-joining their ranks. They lost me with their short-sighted Citizens United position. Defending free political speech for individuals and democratically organized associations is one thing, but as the ACLU did for entities organized to limit their liability and make a profit is very much another. Ignoring the obvious conflicts of interest in that position makes as much sense as avowedly political PACs organized as charities....a "generosity" I am more than willing to reject.
Even if the ACLU can't get free speech right, they should be able to help the Michigan Republicans count votes.
Re: Rubio: In Florida, legislators do not write bills. Bills are written by lobbyists. Rubio has not found someone to write the bill for him but he will if he really wants the bill. That is doubtful.
Re: the Linda Greenhouse piece: Am I to understand that the people who paid up front the full sum of $9,278 couldn't get their money back once the city changed their sewer payments? Someone please help me understand this. Notwithstanding Greenhouse's speculation as to the reasoning behind the minority's opinion, what I found incredible is the outcome itself.
@P. D. Pepe. That's how I understood it, & I couldn't agree with your more. The argument of the majority (opinion by Breyer) was that “As long as the city’s distinction has a rational basis, that distinction does not violate the Equal Protection Clause,” The "rational basis" of the city's argument was that it was way too much trouble to calculate & print out refund checks for 31 homeowners. (You can read the decision here.) Personally, I don't think "we're too busy" is a rational excuse when tens of thousands of dollars are involved. But then my opinion doesn't matter quite as much as the Supremes'.
Here's what I'm thinking: the litigants used the wrong argument (which they made their initial argument, & won judgments on it till the city got to the state supreme court which ruled for the city). If the plaintiffs didn't have a Constitutional protection, they should have a common-sense tort case having nothing to do with the Equal Protection clause. I think every rational person would agree the homeowners got screwed, & the city should not have "punished" them for paying their bills up front. The city should have sent them roses with their refund check.
Sounds like a good reason not to move to Indianapolis, tho I can tell you that the Fort Myers city government is just as bad (they actually passed a specific law tailor-made to screw us & only us because the city engineer despises my husband), & I'm sure other readers can cite really unfair ordinances & practices by their own towns.
Re: Cultural changes in my short life. I did not grow up with a teevee. My father thought they were for morons; "Read a book, go play on the railroad tracks, clean out the garage.". I would go next door and watch. Each week one of the arch-types on 'Gilligan's Island" would put a stop to the devious plans of the scamming millionaire Thurston Howell. Like all millionaires Howell wanted to live better and control more than the rest of his fellow castaways. The cast of characters included Maryann, the good girl; Ginger, the not so bad girl; the Professor, the intellect; the Skipper, blue collar yeoman; and Gilligan, the fool. Each week the show had one or more of those characters foiling the rich SOB plans to control the island. Civic lessons. Fifty years later we've got Thurson Howell the fourth running for President of our island and he continues to try to scam his way into total power without check. I wonder if some re-runs this summer would help. I wonder if the show was first out this year would Howell prevail? On Fox Howell would have a slave plantation and Gilligan and the Skipper would not be allowed to bunk together.
@ Marie: Thanks, that is the way I understood all this, but I still can't fathom it. Yes, the litigants evidently used the wrong argument, but couldn't they have changed it after they lost to the state? "for Pete's sake?" And for the sake of FAIRNESS? I mean, we are not talking small change here. This story should be exposed front and center and not buried in a column probably few read which is a shame because Greenhouse is so good.
And why does that city engineer despise your husband?
Well, at least we had a few laughs today: that gun cartoon was perfect and the Kreep/Peed race is something out of SNL whom, I imagine, does not have to rack their brain to come up with crazy scenarios since we are deluged with real ones every day now.
Yesterday Marie linked a revealing article about Willard’s days in business school.
Considering The Education of Mitt Romney, one has to take into account the methods used at places like (and especially at) Harvard Business School where case based pedagogy takes supreme precedence over all other educational practices.
Problem based learning, in which students collectively discuss the “facts” of a case, presented on a single sheet of paper (Company A has seen its profit margin plummet due to a combination of increased costs and international competition but is unable to expand its core business without an influx of additional revenue streams. What is the best course of action to restore profits?….etc) and arrive at a solution.
This is the genesis of Romney’s reputation as a problem solver. But here’s a much larger problem. Such a method would be fine if what we’re talking about is a fix for an internal combustion engine. You check to make sure you have spark, fuel, and compression then go from there. Things like history, labor, ethical and legal concerns, and social justice never enter into it. The case based method extends from the idea, written up in a 1940 Harvard Business School article, that “Wisdom Can’t be Told.” Thus the hegemony of problem based learning. PBL certainly has a place in communicating any type of advanced knowledge, but it isn’t, nor should it be, the only one. Learning to solve problems in a vacuum apart from an understanding of and appreciation for historical realities and social and ethical obligations allows students (and future CEOs) to craft solutions tweaked solely to one end: making money. This isn’t a surprise in a capitalist system, nor is making money a bad thing. It’s the point of starting a business. But too often, concerns apart from the profit margin are themselves marginalized, and transferring this type of thinking into the political realm has dire consequences as we saw with the CEO president, Bush, resulting in economic and social calamity off the scale. Bush may have been worse than a potential Romney presidency, in some ways, because he melded his problem solving “skills” (got a problem? Torture it or bomb the shit out of it) with a fierce, implacable ideology imperiously draped in the sack cloth of an unforgiving religion.
But Romney’s problem solving background, applied in a harsh, rigidly ahistorical, sniper rifle approach (selectively choosing what to pick off) without regard for any human fallout outside the borders of The Solution (increased profits) guarantees a never ending stream of policies positively inhuman in their application.
The corresponding stream of lies Romney tells are likely also the result of a PBL solution. Voters are largely ignorant and most will believe what they hear without checking, or else won’t care. Either way, the chances of your lies becoming a problem are pretty slim, so lie away. If lying gives you a bump of a few points with little chance of blowback, lie through your teeth. Every day. (Isn’t this the Fox model?)
But Romney is hardly the only Republican who inhabits an ahistoric world. The entire right-wing depends on ignorance of history, of precedence, or human concerns, to support their world view. The Five Little Dwarfs rely heavily on ahistoricism in their zeal to overturn legal precedents and, like Romney, prefer a highly selective approach to how philosophies are applied. This is what allows the Dark Lord Scalia to write an opinion stating that, under the commerce clause, the state has an interest in controlling small gardens of medical marijuana cultivated for personal use but can’t see how the same clause applies to the control of health care costs which are rapidly approaching 20% of GDP.
It never ceases to amaze me that Republicans, for all their protestations of Christian kindness, are so mechanistic when it comes to dealing with actual human beings. I guess in their view, as clearly it is in Romney’s, corporations are more human than humans and deserve all the consideration they can buy or steal.
And that’s a problem that the Harvard Business School has yet to address. And if he is elected, we’ll all be just ciphers on a one page problem waiting for the ol’ problem solver Willard the Rat to work his magic.
JJG,
Funny idea about a modern day Gilligan's Island ruled over by Thurston Romney IV. I think, however, that the original Thurston was far too moderate and not nearly rapacious and aggressive enough for today's GOP plutocrats. Gilligan's Island, as re-imagined on Fox, would be more like Lord of the Flies in which Thurston Romney sits on his throne counting his cocoanuts while his minions, the Roves, Norquists, Cheneys, Ryans, Limbaughs, and their teabagger army chase down the apostates, moderates, progressives, minorities, and female inhabitants of the island and torture them to death in an orgy of religious ignorance and fear.
Another problem solved.
And if the Skipper and Gilligan did bunk together, they'd be cast off the island tied to a log. You can't take chances with anyone who might be tempted into homosexual experimentation.
@JJG & Akhilleus: I never watched "Gilligan's Island," but I was intrigued by JJG's description of it, mostly because I wonder if a show with such a premise would fly today or even get a pilot produced. By your description, the central idea of the show was that the rich guy was a jerk, but one whose diabolical schemes could be foiled by "ordinary" people. This, as Romney, et al., would say, is "class warfare." Would people watch it today? Or would they think the ordinary clucks were unfair to Thurston/Willard?
After all, people who watch teevee today seem to prefer shows like "The Apprentice" and "Survivor" where real people are stabbing each other in the back to gain personal advantage for themselves. (I have no idea what the "Real Housewives" do on the various "Real" shows, but I suspect they aren't about baking cookies for the school bake sale & crocheting afghans for the church bazaar.) Maybe they would like that old show from the 50s & 60s called "The Millionaire," where John Beresford Tipton is an (unseen) multi-millionaire who in each episode gives a million dollars (about $8.5MM in today's dollars) to some needy, deserving person, whose life often, but not always, changed for the better thanks to the $$$.
Marie,
My memory of The Millionaire is a bit more didactic. I seem to recall a lot of "money isn't everything" sort of narratives. But this could just be some very un-GOP-like synapses coloring my recollections.
As for Gilligan, the show would very likely be quite different today. The Howells were usually the butt of jokes and Gilligan, the doofus everyman, typically came across as kindly and sweet. But the contemporary idolization of wealth and privilege would most certainly demand that the Romneys....er, the Howells, be treated less like rich fools and more like Ayn Randian heroes, battling against taxes, improper respect for wealth, and any and all regulations on the island that might impact their dominance.
The other denizens would claw each other to death striving for money and power similar to their rich masters.
Talking about TEEVEE shows I recall what happened with "All in the Family." The racist, know-nothing father was the butt of the jokes. Norman Lear never dreamed what would happen next: Archie Bunker was embraced as a hero by the very same people the show was meant to lampoon. I can personally attest to this having known someone who thought Archie was "right on the money," and failed to understand the show's message and the irony within.
PD,
Your memory of AITF reminds us of our ability as humans to happily cherry pick our way through life. Of course the adoption of Archie Bunker as a counter-counter-culture hero, bigotry writ large in a tattered easy chair, might have served as a testimonial to too perfect parody created by Norman Lear. Parody that veers too close to the source can often be indistinguishable from it. Don't you remember how painful it was to read Love's Labour's Lost? Our friend Will flew too close to the flame with that one. Elizabethan's who mistook hopelessly convoluted bullshit for the wisdom of the freakin' ages must have gone home well convinced of the verity of their delusions.
One apostrophe too many in that last post...
Marie and P.D. Pepe: you know something's amiss when all three of us agree with Scalia, Roberts and Alito. The result of the Indianapolis decision is indeed appalling, unless you subscribe to the Willie Sutton theory of justice, which would approve the act of theft committed by Indianapolis . Marie might have identified the problem that it wasn't really an equal protection issue but more like fraud or breach of implied contract. Still, there should have been a better way to decide this, or even just leave it alone.
Re the Greenhouse piece. I think a couple of NYT commenters came up with additional facts that if I understand correctly, show the issue is more complicated than writing 31 checks for taxpayers on this project. If the court had found in favor of the plaintiffs, that decision would have impacted a number of other projects (number not given), with many taxpayers and the projects might have extended back over quite of number of years (the number 30 was mentioned). My math skills are weak so I can't say I have a complete understanding of problem, (and have even less understanding of the issue of who voted for what and why and how that helps us guess what their decision will be on ACA) but I thought it helped to explain the administrative nightmare with having to repay all those taxpayers who had paid various amounts, at varying interest rates, over a varying number of years for homes whose ownership had changed over the years. Is it justice? I don't know. But I think Linda did a little "tailoring" for this story.
Looks like my comments facility is still screwed up. This comment just came in from Haley Simon, but it isn't showing up anywhere except in my e-mail, so I'm reposting it from the e-mail:
Re the Greenhouse piece. I think a couple of NYT commenters came up with additional facts that if I understand correctly, show the issue is more complicated than writing 31 checks for taxpayers on this project. If the court had found in favor of the plaintiffs, that decision would have impacted a number of other projects (number not given), with many taxpayers and the projects might have extended back over quite of number of years (the number 30 was mentioned). My math skills are weak so I can't say I have a complete understanding of problem, (and have even less understanding of the issue of who voted for what and why and how that helps us guess what their decision will be on ACA) but I thought it helped to explain the administrative nightmare with having to repay all those taxpayers who had paid various amounts, at varying interest rates, over a varying number of years for homes whose ownership had changed over the years. Is it justice? I don't know. But I think Linda did a little "tailoring" for this story.
Haley Simon
@Haley Simon. I think you're right, or at least that is what the summary of the case indicated. I do think, though, that the city could have created a rule that most of us would agree was a "rational basis" for deciding who would & would not get refunds.
While the city could credibly argue that a refund that might be due but was of a small amount (say, $100 or less) &/or an isolated or very old case would be too expensive to calculate & pay, the homeowners in this case had each paid thousands of dollars more than their neighbors did. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out how to put them on parity with those homeowners who had elected to pay on the installment plan.
I think if someone has in effect overpaid a tax -- okay, technically a usage fee, I guess -- by about $8,000 or more, as apparently the litigants did, he should expect a refund. It's kinda common sense, as P. D. Pepe, Victoria D., John, Nino, Sam & I agree!
Marie, I hate being in opposition to you, PDPepe, Victoria. But Breyer is damn good company and gives me the confidence to counter that your remedy does make sense if it applies to only this one project. But Scotus decisions spread a wide net. Here is what a NYT commenter offered:
" After the City switched to the STEP system, any decision to continue Barrett Law debt collection [...] would have meant maintaining an administrative system for years to come to collect debts arising out of 20-plus different construction projects built over the course of a decade, involving monthly payments as low as $25 per household, with the possible need to maintain credibility by tracking down defaulting debtors andbringing legal action. The rationality of the City’s distinction draws further support from the nature of the line-drawing choices that confronted it. To have added refunds to forgiveness would have meant adding further administrative costs, namely the cost of processing refunds. And limiting refunds only to Brisbane/Manning homeowners would have led to complaints of unfairness, while expanding refunds to the apparently thousands of other Barrett Law project homeowners would have involved an even greater administrative burden."
And those "thousands of other Barrett Law project homeowners" make me really nervous. While it may not be an entirely convincing argument, for me it does eliminate the WTF element of the decision.
@Haley Simon. I don't see where you're disagreeing with what I wrote a bit ago; i.e., that the city has a "rational basis" for not paying out piddling amounts -- like the ones the NYT commenter notes. But to my mind there's no "rational basis" for telling somebody he can't have his $8,000 back. I think most people would agree with me -- even most of those who didn't get their $25 bucks.