Part 1—The alleged contradiction which isn't: In this morning’s New York Times, Stacy Schiff is interviewed about her new book, The Witches: Salem, 1692.
(Partial disclosure: Needless to say, Cousin Elizabeth was on the scene. Fuller disclosure below.)
“More than 320 years after the panic subsided, scholars and historians have continued to dig into the archives in hopes of discovering what caused the mass paranoia,” Alexandra Alter writes in her Times report.
(Partial disclosure: Alter’s father, Jonathan Alter, has played a largely passive role in our own era’s witchcraft trials.)
Whatever! According to Alter, “the actual details” of the Salem events “were raw and unnerving” for Schiff. “She was stunned to learn how many men were charged with witchcraft, and how many of the accusations were leveled by one relative against another.”
In the following passage, Alter describes the way evidence worked at that time. That said, she's also describing the way evidence tends to work in our own world, today:
ALTER (10/26/15): Confronted with charges of supernatural activity, the accused struggled to refute spectral evidence against them. Villagers reported seeing witches taking shape as cats, wolves, boars and, frequently, yellow birds. Any alibi could be easily dismissed, as it was known that witches could be in two places at once.Or an email to the daughter of the accused! That could count as evidence too!
Women might be suspected if they moved noiselessly over creaky floorboards, had an uncommonly good sense of smell or survived a fall down stairs. Any blemish on the skin, something as small as a flea bite, could count as “the Devil’s mark.”
Sorry—we skipped three centuries there! That said, human nature and human capability don’t necessarily change a whole lot over such short chunks of time.
The nation saw that fact played out on yesterday’s Meet the Press. Hours later, they saw it played out, even more vividly, on 60 Minutes.
This morning, let’s start with Meet the Press. We were struck, but not surprised, by the question shown below, a question posed by Chuck Todd.
The question concerned Candidate Clinton’s recent appearance before a Salem-flavored tribunal. In the spirit of “no easy dismissal,” Todd asked a rather fuzzy question—a fuzzy question which kept a three-year-old framework alive:
TODD (10/25/15): Well, there was one new fact, I think, that a lot of people came away with and that was the characterization of the attack itself. And there’s always been this controversy that the White House was conflating the video issues that took place versus what happened in Benghazi that night.Todd seemed to believe he had spotted “two stories.” He also seemed to believe that this alleged fact should be troubling.
One of the emails that was turned up was an email Secretary Clinton sent—I’m going to put it up here—to her daughter Chelsea Clinton...On September 11, that night, Secretary Clinton classified it as a terrorist attack by an al Qaeda-like group.
Three days later, Secretary Clinton said this:
CLINTON (videotape): We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do with.
TODD: Did that trouble you, that there were two stories here? And does that deserve an extra line of inquiry?
In this way, he kept script alive, along with accusation. In fairness, to Todd, similar recitation of script occurred on other Sunday programs. This is what we warned you about in Friday's afternoon's post.
Which “two stories” had Todd supposedly spotted? In fact, his presentation makes little sense, unless you already understand the nature of the three-year old accusation against the vile Candidate Clinton and her hideous tool, Susan Rice.
What follows is the shifting of shapes Todd seemed to think he had spotted:
First, let’s get clear on the email the accused had sent to her daughter. In his presentation, Todd had lightly embellished its text. As shown on the screen, here’s what the email specifically said:
“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group.”
Somehow, that is supposed to contradict what Clinton said three days later, on September 14. As presented by Todd, here’s the text of that statement:
“We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do with.”
In Salem Village, villagers swore that they saw neighbors turn into cats. Three hundred years later, Todd thought he'd spotted another shape-shifting in that pair of statements.
Please note what Clinton actually said in those two statements. On September 11, she said one thing. She said Benghazi had been attacked “by an al Qaeda-like group.”
On September 14, she said two things. She said that people died in Benghazi as the result of “a heavy assault.” She also said that rage and violence had been directed at American embassies “over an awful Internet video.”
From that, we’re supposed to draw this conclusion:
We’re supposed to conclude that Clinton was saying, on September 14, that Benghazi was attacked because of that awful Internet video. She didn’t specifically say that, of course. We're supposed to connect a few dots.
We’re also supposed to think that this claim doesn’t make sense. More specifically, we’re supposed to think that no “al Qaeda-like group” would ever stage a heavy assault, or a killing attack, because of an Internet video.
No “al Qaeda-like group” would stage an attack because of an Internet video? On its face, that doesn’t seem to make sense. But so what? Over the past three years, this peculiar piece of illogic has lay at the heart of an accusation against several substitute witches.
As in Salem, so too today! “Any alibi” (or explanation or point of logic) can be “easily dismissed.” But uh-oh! In our press corps, as in Salem Village, certain types of charges can’t be dismissed, by the rules of the game.
Might an “al Qaeda-like group” stage an attack because of an insulting video? On its face, it’s hard to see why that couldn’t occur.
And not only that! As Clinton testified last Thursday, a member of that al Qaeda-like group claimed credit for the killing attack on September 11, citing the video as the motive! The very next day, on September 12, the group withdrew that claim.
According to Clinton, that original claim had formed the basis for her email to her daughter. Todd didn’t mention such facts as he strained to keep accusation alive.
Beyond that, we have no idea why we’re supposed to reject the idea that an al Qaeda-like group might stage an attack over that insulting video—although, as noted, Clinton didn’t make that specific claim in that September 14 statement.
In Salem, people were seen turning into cats, even into boars. Given the way our human mind works, “any alibi could be easily dismissed.”
The human mind works the same way today! Ranking liberals—like Alter’s father—have permitted these dunkings to proceed for the past twenty-three years.
We’ll discuss these modern emanations from Salem Village all week. The liberal world has accepted this destructive gong-show every step of the way.
Tomorrow: The question you haven’t seen asked
Fuller disclosure: The Reverend John Hale was right in the middle of the witchcraft trials, famously at that.
According to the leading authority on his life, “he was one of the most prominent and influential ministers associated with the witch trials, being noted as having initially supported the trials and then changing his mind and publishing a critique of them.”
As a child, Hale “witnessed the execution of Margaret Jones, the first of 15 people to be executed for witchcraft in New England,” the leading authority states. In this passage, we learn why he flipped, decades later, concerning the accusations:
WIKIPEDIA: On November 14, 1692, 17-year-old Mary Herrick accused his second wife, Sarah Noyes Hale, and the ghost of executed Mary Eastey of afflicting her, but his wife was never formally charged or arrested. A later commentator on the trials, Charles Upham, suggests that this accusation was one that helped turn public opinion to end the prosecutions, and spurred Hale’s willingness to reconsider his support of the trials.When the Reverend Hale’s own wife was accused, this may have led him to flip. Many years later, Hale achieved fame as a principal character in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible.
Miller was suggesting that the human mind hadn’t changed all that much despite the passage of years. Our leaders tend to ignore such warnings when new accusations get started.
According to David Estey, the Reverend Hale “was one of the earliest cogent critics of the trials...He deserves full recognition for speaking out as he did, regardless of his motivations.”
And sure enough! When Sarah Noyes Hale died in 1695, the Reverend Hale married Cusin Elizabeth! For the full story, just click here! Or here, on page 107.
Some families just seem to get on the right side of things! Others remain in The Village.
There are the hearings themselves where the Salem rules of evidence applied, but then there are the Sunday news shows. Why would the host of such a show perpetuate the obstinate confusions exemplified by conservatives in congress? Maybe to preserve the illusion of controversy? It is unclear to me why they too are behaving in such a partisan way.ReplyDelete
Their biggest fear is of appearing to go soft on Hillary Clinton. Their biggest fear is being painted as "the liberal mainstream media" which the far right has done so successfully for so many years. Thus they will always find some way to criticize Clinton or any liberal, no matter how nitpicky it is.Delete
It's better for HRC that the press are focussing on e-mails and what not related to Benghazi rather than the real story. Meaning, Obama backed strongly (pushed?) by his chief diplomat supported the overthrow of Ghadaffi, and in fact used the US military to help achieve those ends.ReplyDelete
Predictably, the ensuing power vacuum has caused Libya to become a disaster and an Al Qeada playground. Yet, Hillary still claims (as she did during the debate) that the Libya intervention was a good example of "smart power." She must have a different definition of "smart."
Of course the even more hawkish GOP candidates can't go after her for the Libya debacle. And the press seems to be largely going along with the story that the Libya bombing was a good idea.
Perhaps nothing testifies to Hillary's hawkishness as much as when she joked, soon after the bombs were dropped: "We came, we saw, he died." That is as disgraceful as W's "Bring it on" quote, maybe more so as HRC was our chief diplomat at the time.
Actually there are some in the media not buying the "Libya interevention was a success" meme. Examples:
From the left Bob Sheer has a piece on it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/an-idiotic-gop-is-looking_b_8383718.html
As does Daniel Larsen from the right.
We need someone from either side who will be the pro peace candidate. Just so that minor things like diplomacy and war as a very last resort will be on the table. I had hopes it would be both Paul and Sanders, but that does not seem to be the case.Delete
If Hillary or anyone of the GOP clowns win, no doubt it will lead to only more chaos in the middle east.
I mean, they all (including HRC) want a no fly zone in Syria. Madness, pure madness.
According to HRC at the hearing, the Libya intervention resulted in democratic election of a moderate government. Even democratic countries can have terrorist attacks (witness 9/11 in the USA). On what basis are you saying it has become a terrorist playground? Remember that she testified under oath. Should I believe you, an anonymous internet commenter, about the results in Libya or should I believe our top diplomat? Such a quandary. As evidence of your claim, how many subsequent attacks have their been on embassies in Libya? How many times has the regime changed there? How do we know your assertion is true?Delete
As far as hawkishness goes, there is no doubt that all of the prospective candidates will be awful. There's really very little to allow one to say which candidate would ultimately be worst, or best, with regard to foolish, destabilizing application of military force.Delete
Wishing -- or needing -- it to be different won't change that.
So you've got to choose among the candidates on another basis.
For me, that's easy. I will choose the Democratic candidate. If we have a GOP president, we are quite likely of have a unified Republican federal government. I find the prospect of such an outcome quite horrifying. Your mileage may vary.
12:35, perhaps you should read some news. Try thisDelete
You asked: "As evidence of your claim, how many subsequent attacks have their been on embassies in Libya?"
This may interest you:
Welcome to the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli , Libya
On July 26, 2014 Embassy Tripoli went on ordered departure and staff temporarily departed due to the ongoing fighting around our embassy and the serious risks faced by our diplomatic personnel.
Ambassador Deborah Jones and a core group of ten Embassy Tripoli personnel are currently working from the U.S. Embassy in Malta.
the US no longer has an embassy in Libya.
You want to blame events FOUR YEARS LATER on Clinton? I wonder what has happened in the region since 2013?Delete
12:45, pragmatic and i'll probably do the same. But can we at least admit that Libya was a god awful decision?Delete
I mean so many people think it was successful because Hillary says it was (see 12:35 as a prime example) and few are contradicting that.
In one respect, Bob is is right, the media get caught up in minor bullshit (why didn't Hillary protect Stevens et al in Benghazi!!!?? who e-mailed whom???) while ignorning the larger picture - What the fuck we were the plans for post Ghadaffi in the first place?
12:35 asks about Libya since 2011: "How many times has the regime changed there?"Delete
A better question is how many regimes are now independetly operating in that country. I can name two.
1:03, if you look at the map at the bottom of the below link, it appears there are at least 7 "regimes."Delete
I say at least as some areas are marked "other jihaddists"
"In fact, the country is in a worse situation than it was under Gadhafi, Fadel says. Militias, divided by region, by ideology, by tribe, now divide Libya, controlling what are essentially a series of city-states."Delete
If Bush had contributed to this mess we would be outraged. But since Obama did it (with Hillary's full, continuing support), we ignore it.
There's your tribal....
Hillary didn't remove Gadhafi and she wasn't responsible for the government or governments or terrorist groups operating there since 2011 or certainly 2013. The USA doesn't run Libya or any of the other troubled areas of the Middle East, Africa or the world. Never mind that Clinton was not executing her own policies but rather acting as Obama's Secretary of State. For myself, I believe whatever she did, things would be worse without her in office. Imagine one of the worse choices Obama might have picked, someone truly involved in the Bush family Intelligence-DoD cabal Obama saw no need to replace.Delete
These are troubled areas. Bombing them to hell and droning them daily, as conservatives think should be done, is not the solution. Neither is leaving them in the hands of brutal dictators or failing to aid those opposition factions that might provide a better future direction (despite their subsequent failure). There are no easy answers. That too is not Clinton's fault -- it is the environment she worked in.
Sorry, but yes, "failing to aid those opposition factions" is very much a better plan than what we have done.Delete
Amazing that even we liberals can usually spot the truth of such arguments -- when the intervention is being done by a country we don't approve of, that is.
The US doesn't have the right to -- and isn't right to -- intervene militarily, either by direct attack or by the ridiculous "just give weapons to the right people" strategy, in Syria, Libya or wherever else, any more than Russia (say) has that right.
Even in hindsight, isolationism hasn't been successful as a foreign policy.Delete
MR. CARNEY: Jake, let’s be clear, these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region --ReplyDelete
Q At Benghazi? What happened at Benghazi --
MR. CARNEY: We certainly don't know. We don't know otherwise. We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy.
Q But the group around the Benghazi post was well armed. It was a well-coordinated attack. Do you think it was a spontaneous protest against a movie?
MR. CARNEY: Look, this is obviously under investigation, and I don’t have –
Q But your operating assumption is that that was in response to the video, in Benghazi? I just want to clear that up. That’s the framework? That’s the operating assumption?
MR. CARNEY: Look, it’s not an assumption --
Q Because there are administration officials who don’t -- who dispute that, who say that it looks like this was something other than a protest.
MR. CARNEY: I think there has been news reports on this, Jake, even in the press, which some of it has been speculative. What I’m telling you is this is under investigation. The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. We do not, at this moment, have information to suggest or to tell you that would indicate that any of this unrest was preplanned.
As to the leader of the terrorist attack on the Benghazi compound Ahmed Abu Khattala claiming the attack was motivated by the YouTube Video, the federal government says no.
The indictment itself claims the defendant "did knowingly and intentionally conspire and agree with other conspirators ... to provide material support and resources to terrorists," knowing they'd be used "in preparation for and in carrying out" the attack."
MR. CARNEY: Look, this is obviously under investigation, and I don’t have –Delete
MR. CARNEY: Look, this is obviously under investigation, and I don’t have –
MR. CARNEY: Look, this is obviously under investigation, and I don’t have –
What I’m telling you is this is under investigation. The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. We do not, at this moment, have information to suggest or to tell you that would indicate that any of this unrest was preplanned.
Cicero -- what is so hard to understand about this response? Trying to pin down officials about an event that is in the process of being investigated will lead to statements that may be contradicted later.
Pretending this is a deliberate lie or fabricated story on the part of anyone is ridiculous. The state of knowledge changes with further investigation. No lying was involved because lying implies deliberate intent to deceive coupled with knowledge of the facts. You make yourself look foolish when you persist with this. Just as the Republicans in congress have made themselves look like complete idiots.
The same day (September 14) Carney was denying the Benghazi attack was pre planned even after Secretary Panetta declared it was a pre planned attack. So much for the "under investigation" caveat. Obama/Carney/Rice were still selling the spontaneous attack caused by a video September 20, long after American sources on the ground in Benghazi had proved to the Administration there was no protest.
Question: Jay, one last question — while we were sitting here — [Defense] Secretary [Leon] Panetta and the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee. And the senators came out and said their indication was that this, or the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack organized and carried out by terrorists, that it was premeditated, a calculated act of terror. Levin said — Senator Levin — I think it was a planned, premeditated attack. The kind of equipment that they had used was evidence it was a planned, premeditated attack. Is there anything more you can — now that the administration is briefing senators on this, is there anything more you can tell us?
CARNEY: Well, I think we wait to hear from administration officials. Again, it’s actively under investigation, both the Benghazi attack and incidents elsewhere. And my point was that we don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film. But we’re obviously investigating the matter, and I’ll certainly — I’m sure both the Department of Defense and the White House and other places will have more to say about that as more information becomes available.
He's not denying anything. He is saying "wait for more information." He says that over and over.Delete
repub controlled US House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on IntelligenceDelete
The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22,2012.
Go to page 25 for more details like this:
To this day, significant intelligence gaps regarding the identities, affiliations and motivations of the attackers remain.
Odd. HRC emails on September 11, 2012 indicate there was zero doubt that it was indeed a pre planned terrorist attack on the Benghazi compound.
Whistler Blower and highest ranking official in Libya at the time Gregory Hicks was in phone contact with the Ambassador just before he was killed and no word of demonstration or protest was ever uttered by Ambassador Stevens. President of Libya never reported a spontaneous protest over a video on September 11, 2012.
To save Susan Rice's bacon the CIA threw her a bone with their ambiguous could be this or that "report." To believe the Obama White House didn't know on September 11, 2012 there was never a protest outside the Benghazi compound (HRC knew it) is to still believe there were WOMD's in Iraq in 2003.
If you believe Carney required more information before he could fix his mouth to say it might be a pre-planned terrorist attack on Benghazi compound, how is it he had no trouble promoting the single story that it was a spontaneous protest in response to a video. What happened to wait for more information before throwing out any scenario?
CARNEY: "And my point was that we don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film."
And any skeptical person would say to Carney, you have your talking point backasswards. The White House is going with the protest/video story when they have zero concrete evidence to support that the attack on the Benghazi compound was due to a YouTube video or that there were any protests in Benghazi. All the information that came in to The White House that day in fact make zero mention of a protest.
Something cannot be preplanned and also in reaction to the film?Delete
To save Susan Rice's bacon the CIA threw her a boneDelete
Not from the cia. That is from the repub controlled US House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
From the repub controlled US House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence page 25:
After reviewing hundreds of pages of raw intelligence, as well as open source information, it was
clear that between the time when the attacks occurred and when the Administration, through
Ambassador Susan Rice, appeared on the Sunday talk shows, intelligence analysts and policymakers
received a stream of piecemeal intelligence regarding the identities/affiliations and motivations of the
attackers, as well as the level of planning and/or coordination. Much of the early intelligence was
conflicting, and two years later, intelligence gaps remain.
You think the repub controlled US House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was 'throwing rice a bone'?
"Something cannot be preplanned and also in reaction to the film?"
It could be except that it wasn't. The DOJ indictment against Ahmed Abu Khatallah clearly sates he was motivated by his goal to establish Sharia Law in Libya.
"According to the superseding indictment, Khatallah was the commander of Ubaydah Bin Jarrah (UBJ), an Islamist extremist militia in Benghazi, which had the goal of establishing Sharia law in Libya. In approximately 2011, UBJ merged with Ansar al-Sharia (AAS), another Islamist extremist group in Libya with the same goal of establishing Sharia law in the country. Khatallah was a Benghazi-based leader of AAS."
From your link, or rather the actual report, not the spin from the website you relied on http://askedandanswered-democrats.benghazi.house.gov/question.
"IV. After the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. HPSCI asked for the talking points, which Ambassador Rice ended up using for her talk show
appearances on September 16, solely to aid the Members' ability to communicate publicly using the best available intelligence at the time. The process and edits made to these talking points was flawed."
"Various witnesses and senior military officials serving in the Obama Administration testified to this Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, and the Senate Armed Services Committee that they knew from the moment the attacks began that the attacks were deliberate terrorist acts against U.S. interests. No witness has reported believing at any point that the attacks were anything but terrorist
Obviously Rice was instructed to ignore the on the ground reports and continue to sell the YouTube "spontaneous protest" bunk on the Sunday talks shows. US House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence did cover her bacon by essentially excusing her reliance on the combined White House/CIA talking points.
Todd was awful. But it was basically the false equivalency stuff Bob often denies.ReplyDelete
Todd was awful but it is Somerby's fault for previously denying false equivalency (although I don't remember him doing so in any general sense -- maybe with respect to some specific situation).Delete
Greg has a big but.Delete
The Salem witch craze was a tiny coda on something larger. "Witches" had been identified and killed for several hundred years in Europe at the time of the Salem witch trials. A wondrful book describing the witchcraft craze and other important historical manias is Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Everyone should read this book.ReplyDelete
The European witch trials (peaking in 1580) were largely over by the time the Salem trials occurred in the US (1692). The Enlightenment (1650) had begun in Europe. The people of New England may have been peculiarly vulnerable because they were an isolated colony of extremist religious fundamentalists and thus a throwback. Delusions can be contagious, as your source describes, but histories of the times also describe political and financial motivations that involved families in the region. So the trials were not purely religious, not purely superstitious (or delusion-based) but also fed on community divisions and rivalries, arguments between neighbors, desires to acquire property and punish the disliked.Delete
Chuck Todd - what a disgrace. Unfortunately, Cummings was not up to the task of slam dunking that back into Todd's well manicured goateed face.ReplyDelete
Unfortunately Somerby was not up to mentioning Todd asked the question of Cummings instead of, say, Trey Gowdy, in his witch hunting effort. Nor was Somerby up to the task of reporting Cummings answer...or Clinton's during the hearing.Delete
New readers wishing more information can, however, find several posts which give the same details of the size and demographic makeup of some smaller Alabama counties.
mm - what an kiester kisser.
We do, however, appreciate the review of Mr. Todd's facial hair.
Todd's face is not well-manicured. Every time I see him I think maybe he should be pumping gas in some small town in the Ozarks. That is some low rent facial hair.Delete
Not sure what your point is. Do you even bother to read the post by TDH?
TODD: Did that trouble you, that there were two stories here? And does that deserve an extra line of inquiry?
Todd seemed to believe he had spotted “two stories.” He also seemed to believe that this alleged fact should be troubling.
Is there any question in your mind that that was a thoroughly unprofessional disingenuous performance by the Toddster?
Todd reaches his verdict. Clinton is guilty of putting out two stories. The only question Todd has is whether that troubles Cummings. What a jackass.
Cummings did make a good point in his response though, even though Chucky was getting impatient.
The very fact that they are reading an email from Secretary Clinton to her daughter, which she had every right to withhold because it was personal, not FEDERAL RECORDS, proves how open and forthcoming Clinton has been.
As everyone knows, witches can be in two places at once. While they're setting up the Democratic debates so as to give the advantage to Hillary, they're also hexing the Benghazi hearings to the same end.ReplyDelete
In what way has Hillary's coven cursed the Republican prosecutors: with the inability to hang Hillary on a cross of trumped-up charges, or with the inability to get the truth behind the very real witchcraft and deviltry of Hillary Clinton?
The devil let some Puritans hang some witches 323 years ago, and ever since it's been taken for granted there are no witches -- to the point that today the Puritans can't hang a single witch, and the big one is about to be elected President.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Hand me another eye of Newt.
Republican prosecutors? There are none in the federal government right now. That's why the Justice Dept. closed their investigation of Lois Lerner with no charges being filed.Delete
Well, and the inability to find evidence, or even one person in the IRS who knew of evidence of political targeting of applicants.Delete
There's no charges, after two years, because there's no case.
There's no case, after two years, because there's no evidence.