Europe: "Soft Power" or Powers Gone Soft?

Victor Davis Hanson writes brilliantly, once again, (or should I say, as usual), about the current state of affairs regarding the War on Terror.

His article deals specifically with the confrontation (if such a one-sided situation can be called a confrontation) between Great Britain and Iran over the seizure by the latter of 15 British service members. He goes on, however, to elaborate on the failure of Europe's "soft power" efforts to influence rogue nations and the decline of Europe's ability, and even its will, to defend itself against the evil forces that still abound in the world.

Read the entire article, however, these paragraphs sum up his sentiments:

"In the future, smaller nations in dangerous neighborhoods must accept that in their crises ahead, their only salvation, even after the acrimonious Democratic furor over Iraq, is help from the United States.
America alone can guarantee the safety of the noble Kurds, should Turkey or Iran choose one day to invade. America alone will be willing or able to supply Israel with necessary help and weapons to ensure its survival.
Other small nations — a Greece, for example — with long records of vehement anti-Americanism should take note that the choice facing them in their rough neighborhoods is essentially solidarity with the United States or the embrace of Jimmy Carter diplomacy or Stanley Baldwin appeasement.
Quite simply, there is now no NATO, no EU, no U.N. that can or will do anything in anyone’s hour of need."

Democrats' Unwavering Support of Our Troops

Cartoonist Sam Ryskind illustrates the Democrats' high level of support of and commitment to our troops in Iraq.

(Click on cartoon for larger image)

It took billions in pork (including something like 73 million for peanut storage facilities) to get Pelosi and Reid the political victory they sought.

This cartoon is great, but Ryskind should have shown Chuck Hagel with his arm around the jackass. Or should I say the other jackass?

McCain vs. the "Defeat-o-Crats"

John Hinderaker at PowerLine has written a post about John McCain's opposition to the Democrat's disgraceful "Surrender" legislation. The post contains a link to McCain's campaign website where he has an on-line petition expressing opposition to this shameless partisan action.

As you know, I'm no fan of McCain generally, however, he is, as Hinderaker suggests, completely on the money regarding the Iraq War.

Read the post and consider signing the petition.

Main Stream Media Running on Empty

John Hinderaker, writes in PowerLine, of the continuing losses in readership and revenue among the "giants" of the msm.

The piece points out that the potential demise of these outlets is not good news. His conclusion:

"There is a reason why mainstream news media, pretty much across the board, are struggling, and it isn't just the internet as a new medium. More fundamentally, consumers no longer trust the accuracy and integrity of mainstream news sources. This is not a new observation, but it's hard to see any serious effort to correct the problem. On the contrary, it seems that most media concerns are looking to even more subjectivity and show business for salvation."

Meanwhile, Tom Tobin, writing in the Rochester (NY) Democrat & Chronicle's editorial Blog, commented (without any irony intended) that Fox News was a biased news organization! This from an editor of a newspaper whose agenda-driven reporting and one-sided editorializing have to be read to be believed. Read his post (and the comments) here. I guess he thinks the D&C is really the "fair and balanced" news organization.

But for the sports and the weather report, I'm not sure anyone would bother with the D&C.

Still, as I wrote back in January, the trend in the media to splinter into "interest group" reporting entities is not a positive development for our democracy. I continue to be concerned that we may lose our ability to have a national "conversation" due to the demise of widely trusted, widely read/viewed media sources.

NASCAR's Car of Tomorrow Debuts in Bristol

The much ballyhooed Car of Tomorrow will make its debut this weekend at the half-mile oval in Bristol, Tennessee. The drivers really don't know what to expect as Bobby Labonte points out in his pre-race analysis.

Teammate Kyle Petty and Bobby qualified 27th and 28th, respectively for the race (the Food City 500). Jeff Gordon got the pole, the first ever with the new styled cars. Bobby is hoping to repeat his strong fifth place finish from last year's race. He's in 17th place in the standings and only a few points out of the top 12 teams which will qualify for the "Chase for the Nextel Cup".

Here's Bobby discussing strategy with "the King", Richard Petty.

Best of luck in Bristol.

I Laugh So That I Do Not Cry

As bad as the Democrat's actions in defunding our troops in Iraq have been (see previous post), its nice to see that some members of the military have maintained their sense of humor. These pictures from Hot Air depict our armed forces preparing for operating through the Dem's budget cuts.

Shame on Congress; Democrats Vote For Defeat

Given the low level of respect most Americans have for Congress, I would not really have believed it was possible that Congress could take action that would lower its repute even more. Yet the passage of the "so-called" supplemental military spending bill does just that.

Faced with the fact that the American people would actually like to win in Iraq, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat leadership in the House decided that they could not get the votes for a straight-forward and open vote on defunding the war. So what did the Democrat leadership decide to do?

They resorted to a tried and true tactic; they greased the skids for the anti-war vote by combining it with a vote for $20 billion in pork barrel spending. Gosh, their statesmanship and courage are just breathtaking! Funny, though, I could have sworn that the Dems campaigned on the theory that pork spending was out and legislative shenanigans were a thing of the GOP past. Oh well, campaign promises are just "aspirations"; sometimes the harsh reality of scoring political points requires adjustment of campaign commitments.

Negative comment on this disgrace is coming in from many sources. Austin Bay slams the vote and calls for a Bush veto. Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette, has been all over this story, here and here. John Hinderaker at PowerLine was unequivocal in his condemnation of this move. He quotes President Bush's veto threat and his appropriately harsh criticism of the Democrats action. The money quote from Hinderaker is this one:

"I think it has become clear to pretty much everyone that the Democrats want defeat in Iraq in order to advance their political agenda. That is not a view that is shared by the American people. If President Bush stays firm, the Dems could be in trouble. Of course, everything depends, as always, on events on the ground."

The amazing thing about this move is the brazen and unabashed politics of the bill. I hope you saw the videotape of Congressman Obey telling some liberal critics to calm down and wait for this supplemental. He pointed out the strategy to wed the anti-war vote with the one thing no congressman can turn down: pork!

[Update: Here's the Obey video.]

Finally, this puts to rest any cover the Democrats try to claim by saying they "support the troops, not the mission". This action will out and out hurt the troops and it has the added "benefit" of piling another $20 billion in spending into our federal deficit. The explanation of the harm this will do to the troops is outlined in the second link to Greyhawk, above. I'll repeat part of it here:

"So what if congress refuses to pass or even debate such a bill in a timely manner? Here's Defense Secretary Robert Gates' answer:

This morning I had -- I met with members of the House Army Caucus, a bipartisan group of representatives who have a special interest in the strength and well-being of the Army. We discussed several key issues relating to the Army's readiness. I received questions from both sides of the aisle as to the measures the military will need to take if the Congress does not pass the FY '07 supplemental by April 15th.

For example, according to the Army, which went through this experience last year, if the supplemental is not passed by April 15th, the service will be forced to consider the following kinds of actions: one, curtailing and suspending home station training for Reserve and Guard units; two, slowing the training of units slated to deploy next to Iraq and Afghanistan; three, cutting the funding for the upgrade or renovation of barracks and other facilities that support quality of life for troops and their families; and fourth, stopping the repair of equipment necessary to support pre-deployment training.

If the supplemental is not passed by May 15th, the Army will be forced to consider the following: one, reducing the repair work being done at Army depots; two, delaying or curtailing the deployment of brigade combat teams to their training rotations; three, this, in turn, will cause additional units in theater to have their tours extended because other units are not ready to take their place; four, delaying the formation of new brigade combat teams; five, implementation of a civilian hiring freeze; sixth, prohibiting the execution of new contracts and service orders, including service contracts for training events and facilities; and seventh, holding or cancelling the order of repair parts to non-deployed units in the Army.

This kind of disruption to key programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families. I urge the Congress to pass the supplemental as quickly as possible."

So that's what those "supportive" Democrats have voted for. I know that I am a partisan, but I cannot think of a more shameful and craven political act. If the Democrats think they have a mandate to end the war, so be it. Take an open vote on it and accept the consequences. Instead of doing that, the Dems have opted for positioning themselves for political gain if the Iraq War situation does not improve. One thing is certain, if Gen. Petraeus turns out to be a modern-day Sherman and the "surge" turns Iraq around, the "Defeato-crats" will have sealed their doom with this vote.

Giuliani Confunds Conventional Wisdom

An interesting story about Rudy Giuliani appeared in Time.com. Its a long article, but it discusses a number of points which I include in my reasons to believe Rudy is the real deal.

Pundits who doubt Rudy's chances, usually point to his alleged incompatibility with conservative "values voters" due his personal life and "liberal" positions on abortion, gay marriage and gun control. I have often expressed my view that voters are discounting politicians "positions" on various issues and, instead, are focusing on leadership. To me, that explains Rudy's "surprising" (to some) popularity in GOP presidential polls.

The following excerpt from the Time.com story reflects this idea that leadership, particularly regarding the war on terror, is trumping other considerations:

"The First Baptist North Spartanburg church in South Carolina is a theologically conservative success story, a suburban megachurch where 3,000 people have been known to show up for Sunday school. If social issues drive votes anywhere in America, it's around here. Yet Giuliani recently filled the fire station across the highway from First Baptist for a rally at which he was endorsed by the chairman of the county council and the executive director of the state firefighters association, who said, "Rudy Giuliani is the face of the response to 9/11."
One of the first people I met at the rally turned out to be a member of First Baptist church. His name was Paul Walters; he is a dentist, a Republican committeeman and a Giuliani fan. When I asked what his pastor might think of that, he just shook his head as if I was missing the point.
"Rudy can handle the social issues," Walters said confidently, because of his record in New York and because "people are going to look at the bigger issues, especially terrorism. Until we get a handle on that, the social issues will be down here," he said, gesturing at knee level.
A few minutes later, John McCarley, a weather-beaten cattleman with a deep drawl and a faded Yankees cap, echoed that analysis. "We're in an era where we need leadership," he said. "There will be social issues where we disagree, but ... we won't have a litmus test. He transcends that." ......".

Many political commentators have discounted Rudy's "early" lead because the race has, in their view, so long to go. I think those pundits are in for a surprise. The story goes on to point out that this year's election may defy conventional wisdom, particularly due to many big state primaries being moved up in time:

"After five years of maneuvering into position, everything is suddenly moving much faster than Giuliani expected: the race for endorsements, the fund-raising schedule, the competition for staff members. The rush of major states to jump their primaries to Feb. 5 could compress months of campaigning into a handful of days. A faster schedule, with big urban states playing a major role in the primaries, should favor a well-known candidate with proven crossover appeal. "It's good for me, no question about it, from a tactical point of view," says Giuliani. Furthermore, Giuliani strategists believe his experience as a tireless campaigner for other Republicans during the past five years is good preparation for a race that will play out in a transcontinental blitz of airport rallies. He knows how to balance exhaustion and exposure without making a campaign-killing mistake. And he has friends in many places. According to Anthony Carbonetti, the candidate's longtime political adviser, Giuliani has done more than 150 political speeches across 42 states since leaving office, including an eight-day marathon in 2004 in which he spoke 22 times in 14 states".

Bottom line is that Rudy's appeal transcends the labels his opponents have tried to tag him with. He's going to continue to be a force to be reckoned with.

Blaming America First

There isn't much I can add to this superb analysis by Michael Barone of the reason that most liberals are usually so quick to claim that "we" (read: Americans and/or "the West") are to blame for most of the world's troubles. Thankfully people like Barone are around to remind us that "we" are actually the good guys.

Winning the War (vs. the GOP) at Any Cost

Politics is, by its very nature, a partisan endeavor. Elections have winners and losers and we all want our guys and gals to be the winners.

Partisanship has ebbed and flowed over time and while I can't say there haven't been other periods of extreme partisan combat, I do think our current era must be in the top 2 or 3. Now, I'm a Republican and a partisan, so I think you should consider my views in those contexts, however, I believe the current Democrat majority in Congress to be the most purely partisan group of politicians I have ever known.

I can barely think of an example of a Democrat program or statement that does not have gaining political advantage as its primary purpose. The recent rants by Howard Dean and Chuck Schumer regarding the "scandal" of the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys are perfect examples. Alberto Gonzales fires 8 of 93 U.S. Attorneys and Schumer and Dean call for resignations and investigations. Funny, I don't remember their outrage when Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys when he took office.

Clearly, though, the War in Iraq has been the primary front on which the Democrats are waging their partisan war on the President and the GOP. How many plans have they proposed? How many non-binding votes have been taken? What is the purpose of these plans and votes? Is it to end the war? No, it is to beat up Bush and the GOP without risking any real action which might backfire on them. Even the Washington Post has their number. In a recent editorial entitled "The Pelosi Plan for Iraq", the Post pointed out the primarily political purpose of the Democrats latest plan.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gave a recent speech in which he pointed out the Democrats hypocrisy on the War in Iraq. Here are some relevant excerpts:

"Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, my good friend the Majority Leader himself said this, "As for setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that’s not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don’t want us there, and it doesn’t work well to do that."
Six months after that, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, said this: "A deadline for pulling out … will only encourage our enemies to wait us out" … it would be "a Lebanon in 1985. And God knows where it goes from there." That was our friend, Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
And three months later, Senator Clinton made the same point when she said, "I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal," said Senator Clinton. "I don’t think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you." That’s the Majority Leader, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and a prominent Democrat presidential candidate.
Surely Senators Reid, Biden, and Clinton have not changed their minds about who would benefit the most if we set a date certain for withdrawal. They know just as well as I do that this is what the terrorists have been waiting for — and just what our allies in Iraq, and the entire region of the world have feared".
(Hat tip to PowerLine)

So here we see prominent Democrats advocating an idea which they previously thought wrong-headed. Why? There only seems to be one answer. They have read the polls and they have concluded that the American people want out of Iraq. They no longer care what's best for the country. They only care about what's best for their presidential aspirations and the prospects of the Democrat party.

I won't claim that Republicans are free from partisan motives, but I really can't think of any examples as cynical as these of the Democrats, particularly at a time when we have troops in harm's way.

I have previously noted my awe at visiting Washington, D.C. and viewing the buildings and monuments of our republic. I particularly marvelled at walking through the old House chamber where placards denote the places where the great statesmen of the past had their desks; Lincoln, Daniel Webster, John Q. Adams, Henry Clay, and so many others. One can only wonder, where are today's heirs to those great men? Where are the modern day equals of the founding fathers?

They certainly don't appear to be in Washington.

Update: 3/16

This Andrew McCarthy article from The National Review speaks quite cogently to the issue of politicizing the firing of the Federal prosecutors.

Update II: 3/16

Check out this excerpt of David Brooks NY Times column on the Democrat's Iraq pandering from Real Clear Politics.

NASCAR Rolls Into Atlanta!

Those of you who know me, know that I've become a NASCAR fan over the past several years.

My son, Joseph, and I particularly like Bobby Labonte and we're members of his fan club. For many years Bobby drove the "green 18", the Interstate Batteries Pontiac (and later, Chevy) for Joe Gibbs Racing. I have quite a few green hats and t-shirts.

Last year, Bobby joined his good friend, Kyle Petty, at Petty Enterprises. He now drives the fabled 43 car which was made famous by "the King", Richard Petty. It was the STP 43 when Richard drove it to his hundreds of NASCAR victories. It is now the Cheerios/Betty Crocker Dodge. I'm starting to collect some yellow and blue attire.

Bobby was the 2000 Nextel Cup Champion (it was called the Winston Cup then) while still with Joe Gibbs. Tony Stewart was Bobby's teammate at Gibbs racing, but Tony and Bobby like different car set-ups. As Tony began to become the primary Gibbs driver, Kyle and Richard convinced Bobby to come over and help them restore the Petty team to its former prominence. 2006 was a rather tough year for Bobby and the 43. They had a lot of bad luck, starting with a crash at Daytona. They finished strongly, though, with 4 top-ten finishes in the last 5 races.

They've started off pretty well this year and had a nice run last week at Vegas (13th).This week-end, the Nextel Cup Series is racing at Atlanta Motor Speedway. Atlanta is Bobby's favorite track and he is the active wins leader there with six career wins on the 1.54 mile oval. Bobby seemed pretty optimistic about his chances this week in his pre-race report . I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this may be the week that Bobby and the 43 return to victory lane after rather long droughts for both.

Rudy Must Be Getting Under Their Skin

It’s clear that Rudy is doing well. He’s being attacked from all sides.

One of the newest efforts to ding him is this 1993 Rudy Giuliani campaign ad which originally ran while he was in his second campaign for mayor. Apparently, Rudy’s opponents dredged this up hoping the ad will expose some sort of hypocrisy on his part. Or perhaps they believe the "soft side" approach taken in this old ad will counter his current "tough guy" image.

All I know is that nobody attacks guys they aren’t afraid of.

Libby: Politics, Lies and Videotape

Charles Krauthammer has written an excellent column in the Washington Post (reprinted at RealClearPolitics) on the Libby prosecution. He is one of a growing number of conservatives who believe that the Fitzgerald prosecution of Libby was a travesty and that President Bush should pardon Mr. Libby. I concur with virtually everything he wrote, except the idea that the President should pardon Mr. Libby immediately.

I agree that it is much more likely that Mr. Libby forgot the timing of his discussions than that he intentionally lied about them, particularly given that he had no reason to lie. We should not, however, be so willing to dismiss a jury verdict simply because we do not like the result, or even because the prosecution was an unnecessary witch hunt (as this one was). We weren't on the jury and we did not hear the testimony. If Mr. Libby did commit perjury, he deserves his fate, notwithstanding that the Fitzgerald investigation was pointless.

We have an appeals system which we should let run its course. I had not been aware of the ruling Krauthammer mentioned regarding Tim Russert's testimony (this involved two instances where Russert's memory of events was documented as faulty; the Court refused to allow the jury to see that evidence). I hope that will form the basis for reversal. Although Mr. Libby will have to endure the stress and cost of the appeal, a reversal on appeal would be a far greater vindication than a Presidential pardon. In the pardon scenario, Libby would always carry the taint of his conviction, since a pardon will be attacked as purely political.

No doubt, our legal system has often been misused in the past few years for political purposes. The special prosecutor system should have a fork stuck in it. There have been other judicial fiascoes like the OJ trial and the recent carnival surrounding Anna Nicole. Despite that, it is basically a good system. We should not further undermine the system by ignoring the jury verdict in such a high profile trial. Such an act would only reinforce the belief, held by much of the general public, that rich, famous, or well-connected people do not have to answer to a higher authority.

Let the system work and leave politics out of it.

With friends like these......!

Oh boy, do I have a problem! My "favorite" RINO, Jim Walsh, has endorsed Rudy. I guess this is the problem with liking a "big tent" Republican like Rudy. A few more endorsements by guys like Walsh and Rudy won't have much of a chance with conservative Republicans.

Of course, on the bright side, this endorsement does show that Rudy is doing well. After all, we know that Jim Walsh knows how to read a poll!

Gates Blogger: Wrong Again!

Since I can't respond directly to the Gates Blogger a/k/a Lee Strong, I decided to shadow him on my blog.

Lee jumped right on the D&C's Property Tax Rate bandwagon with his post on Gates property taxes, "Lower Taxes? Not in Gates.". He reiterated the point that the D&C editorialists wanted the public to get; namely that higher tax rates mean higher taxes and inefficient government. One of Lee's respondents, GatesTaxpayer, "put two and two together" and got the point that Lee wanted to make, which is that Gates taxes are among the highest in the county. Of course, that's not really the case.

Tax rates only tell half of the story. A brief example. Assume that there are two towns that both have 10,000 households and both have town governments with the same services and a budget of $5,000,000. The 10,000 houses in Town A have an average value of $100,000. The 10,000 houses in Town B have an average value of $200,000. The tax rate in Town A would have to be $5.00/$1000 in assessed valuation. The tax rate in Town B would be $2.50/$1000 in assessed valuation. The average taxpayer in both towns would pay $500.00. The taxes in Towns A and B are exactly the same even though the tax rates are very different.

So Lee and his respondent, "GatesTaxpayer", got it wrong. You cannot compare the taxes paid by people with the same value home in different towns because in towns with higher property values, the homeowners with higher value houses subsidize the taxes for lower value homeowners. The only way to compare taxes in each town is to look at the tax bill paid by the average taxpayer.

Lee and his Democrat cohorts hope that the average person in Gates is fooled by their simplistic explanation of tax rates. The simple truth is that you cannot take one component of total taxes, such as the tax rate, and look at it in a vacuum. Either Lee is not as smart as he thinks he is, or he is intentionally misleading his readers.

The Consent of the Governed

The Sunday edition of the Rochester (NY) Democrat & Chronicle ran a front page story and lead editorial regarding local property tax rates and their connection to the Monroe County budget deficit. This was the clearest outline yet offered by the D&C as to their 2007 campaign against GOP County Executive Maggie Brooks. This year the D&C is linking its efforts to weaken Ms. Brooks with its long-term metro government agenda.

The property tax rate chart is intended to convince us that we pay too much in property taxes. The explanation for our over-taxation: unnecessary and duplicative services provided by unneeded layers of government. The connection to Ms. Brooks and the County Budget? The sales tax sharing mechanism that "subsidizes" those pesky local governments. If we did away with that sharing, the County budget will balance and those municipalities and their residents will be left to make the "hard choices" they have been spared from making.

"Hard choices" is code for raising taxes or cutting services. In this context, it means facing the inevitable and obvious (at least to the Solon's on the D&C Editorial Board) solution of metro government.

Nowhere should this solution be more obvious than in the towns with police departments. Boy, are those town residents foolish! The Sheriff's Department is good enough for most towns, why not the five with their own police?

Is it possible that those town residents are willing to pay a premium for enhanced service? Is it hard to accept that those residents doubt they will get equivalent service if they give up their own police? Further, do the editorialists and government experts believe that the 250 or so local police will not be replaced by new hires in the Sheriff's Department (or the Monroe Metro Police Department)? Will there really be big savings? As a Gates resident, I am sure of one thing. There will not be 4 or 5 cars patrolling Gates on each shift as there are now. The new Sheriff's (or Metro) hires will largely be working in the City of Rochester, not Gates (or Chili or Henrietta or Greece, or any other suburb).
I think its quite reasonable for people to make choices about the things their tax money goes to. It has something to do with government being empowered by the consent of the governed. I know that Gates residents (and residents of other towns in Monroe County and NY State) are over-taxed. But we are not over-taxed because of our town government.

No, we are over- taxed because our State government is completely beyond our control. The State Legislature is not a representative body responsible to the people. Sheldon Silver and Joe Bruno are able to operate without any concern about what "the people" want. Even vaunted programs such as the STAR program are hoaxes. The STAR program merely shifts who pays the tax and allows our school districts to spend with impunity. Nothing could have more clearly exposed the chicanery that is our State government than last year's tax rebate, which was tantamount to bribing us with our own money.

Yet you would have us cede our local control of our lives to a new, bigger, "local" (metro) government. Sorry, Mr. Lawrence, Ms. Magnuson, Mr. Tobin, Ms. Wagner and the rest of the D&C Editorial Board. The best government is still the government closest to the people. The Supervisors and Town Board members in our local Towns are far more accountable to us than our State representatives or those prospective representatives of the metro government you long for.You are wrong to criticise town residents who want to keep their local services and police. It is, after all, our money. More importantly, this is, after all, still a democracy. We are still allowed to choose the type and amount of government we want.

You go ahead with your agenda, though. Take your best shot at Ms. Brooks (for all of the good it will do you). You should note, however, that your view has few supporters outside the City of Rochester. Oh, yes, the other part of your agenda; save the poorly run and nearly broke City at any expense (or, more accurately, at the expense of suburban towns and residents). I can't help but notice that while you pontificate about wasteful and unnecessary town governments, special districts, and the like, the City is always exempt. No criticism about blowing millions (12, wasn't it?) on opening a polluted beach that was closed more than half the season. I don't remember reading any articles railing against the uncounted dollars spent on the High Falls Entertainment District. That was money well spent! The Ferry is too easy a target to even mention, although, it is interesting that there has been so little said about the 10 months and counting since the "sale" of same.

The D&C can't change its ways any more than a leopard can change its spots. Look for more of the same in the weeks ahead. The agenda will be served. Like so many "elites", our local media members know what is best for us. They will keep trying to convince us of the error of our ways. I hope town residents decide to keep the type of government and the range of services that they want despite the D&C drumbeat.