This and That...

[Warph]

Ignorant America: Just How Stupid Are We?

"Millions of Americans are embarrassingly ill-informed and they do not care that they are."

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Just how stupid are we? Pretty stupid, it would seem, when we come across headlines like this: "Homer Simpson, Yes -- 1st Amendment 'Doh,' Survey Finds" (Associated Press 3/1/06).

"About 1 in 4 Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half of Americans can name at least two members of the fictional cartoon family, according to a survey.

"The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just 1 in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms."

But what does it mean exactly to say that American voters are stupid? About this there is unfortunately no consensus. Like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who confessed not knowing how to define pornography, we are apt simply to throw up our hands in frustration and say: We know it when we see it. But unless we attempt a definition of some sort, we risk incoherence, dooming our investigation of stupidity from the outset. Stupidity cannot mean, as Humpty Dumpty would have it, whatever we say it means.

Five defining characteristics of stupidity, it seems to me, are readily apparent. First, is sheer ignorance: Ignorance of critical facts about important events in the news, and ignorance of how our government functions and who's in charge. Second, is negligence: The disinclination to seek reliable sources of information about important news events. Third, is wooden-headedness, as the historian Barbara Tuchman defined it: The inclination to believe what we want to believe regardless of the facts. Fourth, is shortsightedness: The support of public policies that are mutually contradictory, or contrary to the country's long-term interests. Fifth, and finally, is a broad category I call bone-headedness, for want of a better name: The susceptibility to meaningless phrases, stereotypes, irrational biases, and simplistic diagnoses and solutions that play on our hopes and fears.

American Ignorance->->->->

Taking up the first of our definitions of stupidity, how ignorant are we? Ask the political scientists and you will be told that there is damning, hard evidence pointing incontrovertibly to the conclusion that millions are embarrassingly ill-informed and that they do not care that they are. There is enough evidence that one could almost conclude -- though admittedly this is a stretch -- that we are living in an Age of Ignorance.

Surprised? My guess is most people would be. The general impression seems to be that we are living in an age in which people are particularly knowledgeable. Many students tell me that they are the most well-informed generation in history.

Why are we so deluded? The error can be traced to our mistaking unprecedented access to information with the actual consumption of it. Our access is indeed phenomenal. George Washington had to wait two weeks to discover that he had been elected president of the United States. That's how long it took for the news to travel from New York, where the Electoral College votes were counted, to reach him at home in Mount Vernon, Virginia. Americans living in the interior regions had to wait even longer, some up to two months. Now we can watch developments as they occur halfway around the world in real time. It is little wonder then that students boast of their knowledge. Unlike their parents, who were forced to rely mainly on newspapers and the network news shows to find out what was happening in the world, they can flip on CNN and Fox or consult the Internet.

But in fact only a small percentage of people take advantage of the great new resources at hand. In 2005, the Pew Research Center surveyed the news habits of some 3,000 Americans age 18 and older. The researchers found that 59% on a regular basis get at least some news from local TV, 47% from national TV news shows, and just 23% from the Internet.

Anecdotal evidence suggested for years that Americans were not particularly well-informed. As foreign visitors long ago observed, Americans are vastly inferior in their knowledge of world geography compared with Europeans. (The old joke is that "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.") But it was never clear until the postwar period how ignorant Americans are. For it was only then that social scientists began measuring in a systematic manner what Americans actually know. The results were devastating.

The most comprehensive surveys, the National Election Studies (NES), were carried out by the University of Michigan beginning in the late 1940s. What these studies showed was that Americans fall into three categories with regard to their political knowledge. A tiny percentage know a lot about politics, up to 50%-60% know enough to answer very simple questions, and the rest know next to nothing.

Contrary to expectations, by many measures the surveys showed the level of ignorance remaining constant over time. In the 1990s, political scientists Michael X. Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter concluded that there was statistically little difference between the knowledge of the parents of the Silent Generation of the 1950s, the parents of the Baby Boomers of the 1960s, and American parents today. (By some measures, Americans are dumber today than their parents of a generation ago.)

Some of the numbers are hard to fathom in a country in which for at least a century all children have been required by law to attend grade school or be home-schooled. Even if people do not closely follow the news, one would expect them to be able to answer basic civics questions, but only a small minority can.

In 1986, only 30% knew that Roe v. Wade was the Supreme Court decision that ruled abortion legal more than a decade earlier. In 1991, Americans were asked how long the term of a United States senator is. Just 25% correctly answered six years. How many senators are there? A poll a few years ago found that only 20% know that there are 100 senators, though the number has remained constant for the last half century (and is easy to remember). Encouragingly, today the number of Americans who can correctly identify and name the three branches of government is up to 40%.

Polls over the past three decades measuring Americans' knowledge of history show similarly dismal results. What happened in 1066? Just 10% know it is the date of the Norman Conquest. Who said the "world must be made safe for democracy"? Just 14% know it was Woodrow Wilson. Which country dropped the nuclear bomb? Only 49% know it was their own country. Who was America's greatest president? According to a Gallup poll in 2005, a majority answer that it was a president from the last half century: 20% said Reagan, 15% Bill Clinton, 12% John Kennedy, 5% George W. Bush. Only 14% picked Lincoln and only 5%, Washington.

And the worst president? For years Americans would include in the list Herbert Hoover. But no more. Most today do not know who Herbert Hoover was, according to the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey in 2004. Just 43% could correctly identify him.

The only history questions a majority of Americans can answer correctly are the most basic ones. What happened at Pearl Harbor? A great majority know: 84%. What was the Holocaust? Nearly 70% know. (Thirty percent don't?) But it comes as something of a shock that, in 1983, just 81% knew who Lee Harvey Oswald was and that, in 1985, only 81% could identify Martin Luther King, Jr.

What Voters Don't Know
Who these poor souls were who didn't know who Martin Luther King was we cannot be sure. Research suggests that they were probably impoverished (the poor tend to know less on the whole about politics and history than others) or simply unschooled, categories which usually overlap. But even Americans in the middle class who attend college exhibit profound ignorance. A report in 2007 published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute found that on average 14,000 randomly selected college students at 50 schools around the country scored under 55 (out of 100) on a test that measured their knowledge of basic American civics. Less than half knew that Yorktown was the last battle of the American Revolution. Surprisingly, seniors often tested lower than freshmen. (The explanation was apparently that many students by their senior year had forgotten what they learned in high school.)

The optimists point to surveys indicating that about half the country can describe some differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties. But if they do not know the difference between liberals and conservatives, as surveys indicate, how can they possibly say in any meaningful way how the parties differ? And if they do not know this, what else do they not know?

Plenty, it turns out. Even though they are awash in news, Americans generally do not seem to absorb what it is that they are reading and hearing and watching. Americans cannot even name the leaders of their own government. Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Fewer than half of Americans could tell you her name during the length of her entire tenure. William Rehnquist was chief justice of the Supreme Court. Just 40% of Americans ever knew his name (and only 30% could tell you that he was a conservative). Going into the First Gulf War, just 15% could identify Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or Dick Cheney, then secretary of defense. In 2007, in the fifth year of the Iraq War, only 21% could name the secretary of defense, Robert Gates. Most Americans cannot name their own member of Congress or their senators.

If the problem were simply that Americans are bad at names, one would not have to worry too much. But they do not understand the mechanics of government either. Only 34% know that it is the Congress that declares war (which may explain why they are not alarmed when presidents take us into wars without explicit declarations of war from the legislature). Only 35% know that Congress can override a presidential veto. Some 49% think the president can suspend the Constitution. Some 60% believe that he can appoint judges to the federal courts without the approval of the Senate. Some 45% believe that revolutionary speech is punishable under the Constitution.

On the basis of their comprehensive approach, Delli Carpini and Keeter concluded that only 5% of Americans could correctly answer three-fourths of the questions asked about economics, only 11% of the questions about domestic issues, 14% of the questions about foreign affairs, and 10% of the questions about geography. The highest score? More Americans knew the correct answers to history questions than any other (which will come as a surprise to many history teachers). Still, only 25% knew the correct answers to three-quarters of the history questions, which were rudimentary.

In 2003, the Strategic Task Force on Education Abroad investigated Americans' knowledge of world affairs. The task force concluded: "America's ignorance of the outside world" is so great as to constitute a threat to national security.

Young and Ignorant -- and Voting
At least, you may think to yourself, we are not getting any dumber. But by some measures we are. Young people by many measures know less today than young people forty years ago. And their news habits are worse. Newspaper reading went out in the sixties along with the Hula Hoop. Just 20% of young Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 read a daily paper. And that isn't saying much. There's no way of knowing what part of the paper they're reading. It is likelier to encompass the comics and a quick glance at the front page than dense stories about Somalia or the budget.

They aren't watching the cable news shows either. The average age of CNN's audience is sixty. And they surely are not watching the network news shows, which attract mainly the Depends generation. Nor are they using the Internet in large numbers to surf for news. Only 11% say that they regularly click on news web pages. (Yes, many young people watch Jon Stewart's The Daily Show . A survey in 2007 by the Pew Research Center found that 54% of the viewers of The Daily Show score in the "high knowledge" news category -- about the same as the viewers of the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News.)

Compared with Americans generally -- and this isn't saying much, given their low level of interest in the news -- young people are the least informed of any age cohort save possibly for those confined to nursing homes. In fact, the young are so indifferent to newspapers that they single-handedly are responsible for the dismally low newspaper readership rates that are bandied about.

In earlier generations -- in the 1950s, for example -- young people read newspapers and digested the news at rates similar to those of the general population. Nothing indicates that the current generation of young people will suddenly begin following the news when they turn 35 or 40. Indeed, half a century of studies suggest that most people who do not pick up the news habit in their twenties probably never will.

Young people today find the news irrelevant. Bored by politics, students shun the rituals of civic life, voting in lower numbers than other Americans (though a small up-tick in civic participation showed up in recent surveys). U.S. Census data indicate that voters aged 18 to 24 turn out in low numbers. In 1972, when 18 year olds got the vote, 52% cast a ballot. In subsequent years, far fewer voted: in 1988, 40%; in 1992, 50%; in 1996, 35%; in 2000, 36%. In 2004, despite the most intense get-out-the-vote effort ever focused on young people, just 47% took the time to cast a ballot.

Since young people on the whole scarcely follow politics, one may want to consider whether we even want them to vote. Asked in 2000 to identify the presidential candidate who was the chief sponsor of Campaign Finance Reform -- Sen. John McCain -- just 4% of people between the ages of 18 and 24 could do so. As the primary season began in February, fewer than half in the same age group knew that George W. Bush was even a candidate. Only 12% knew that McCain was also a candidate even though he was said to be especially appealing to young people.

One news subject in recent history, 9/11, did attract the interest of the young. A poll by Pew at the end of 2001 found that 61% of adult Americans under age 30 said that they were following the story closely. But few found any other subjects in the news that year compelling. Anthrax attacks? Just 32% indicated it was important enough to follow. The economy? Again, just 32%. The capture of Kabul? Just 20%.

It would appear that young people today are doing very little reading of any kind. In 2004, the National Endowment for the Arts, consulting a vast array of surveys, including the United States Census, found that just 43% of young people ages 18 to 24 read literature. In 1982, the number was 60%. A majority do not read either newspapers, fiction, poetry, or drama. Save for the possibility that they are reading the Bible or works of non-fiction, for which solid statistics are unavailable, it would appear that this generation is less well read than any other since statistics began to be kept.

The studies demonstrating that young people know less today than young people a generation ago do not get much publicity. What one hears about are the pioneer steps the young are taking politically. Headlines from the 2004 presidential election featured numerous stories about young people who were following the campaign on blogs, then a new phenomenon. Other stories focused on the help young Deaniacs gave Howard Dean by arranging to raise funds through innovative Internet appeals. Still other stories reported that the Deaniacs were networking all over the country through the Internet website meetup.com. One did not hear that we have raised another Silent Generation. But have we not? The statistics about young people today are fairly clear: As a group they do not vote in large numbers, most do not read newspapers, and most do not follow the news.

More at: http://www.alternet.org/story/90161/ignorant_america%3A_just_how_stupid_are_we

**********************************

By Rick Shenkman, Emmy Award-winning investigative reporter, New York Times bestselling author, and associate professor of history at George Mason University, is the founder and editor of History News Network , a website that features articles by historians on current events. This essay is adapted from chapter two of his new book, Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth about the American Voter (Basic Books, 2008). His observations about the 2008 election can be followed on his blog, "How Stupid?" .

[Warph]

MORE ON this idiot, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and his article of:

Obamacare Architect Says Society Would Be Better Off If People Only Lived To Age 75

By Michael Snyder, on September 22nd, 2014

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel,  brother of Rahm Emanuel, says that society would be far better off if people quit trying to live past age 75.  His new article entitled "Why I Hope To Die At 75" has the following very creepy subtitle: "An argument that society and families—and you—will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly".  In the article, Emanuel forcefully argues that the quality of life for most people is significantly diminished past the age of 75 and that once we get to that age we should refuse any more medical care that will extend our lifespans.  This is quite chilling to read, considering the fact that this is coming from one of the key architects of Obamacare.  Of course he never uses the term "death panels" in his article, but that is obviously what Emanuel would want in a perfect world.  To Emanuel, it is inefficient to waste medical resources on those that do not have a high "quality of life".  So he says that "75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop".

Emanuel believes in this philosophy so much that he says that he would like to die at age 75.  Of course he has no intention of committing suicide, but if he happened to drop dead once he hits his 75th birthday he would be very happy about that.  The following is an excerpt from his new article...

I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75. Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible. This has become so pervasive that it now defines a cultural type: what I call the American immortal.

I reject this aspiration. I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop.And so Emanuel plans to start rejecting pretty much all medical tests and treatments that will prolong his life once he reaches that age...

At 75 and beyond, I will need a good reason to even visit the doctor and take any medical test or treatment, no matter how routine and painless. And that good reason is not "It will prolong your life." I will stop getting any regular preventive tests, screenings, or interventions. I will accept only palliative—not curative—treatments if I am suffering pain or other disability.

This means colonoscopies and other cancer-screening tests are out—and before 75. If I were diagnosed with cancer now, at 57, I would probably be treated, unless the prognosis was very poor. But 65 will be my last colonoscopy. No screening for prostate cancer at any age. (When a urologist gave me a PSA test even after I said I wasn't interested and called me with the results, I hung up before he could tell me. He ordered the test for himself, I told him, not for me.) After 75, if I develop cancer, I will refuse treatment. Similarly, no cardiac stress test. No pacemaker and certainly no implantable defibrillator. No heart-valve replacement or bypass surgery. If I develop emphysema or some similar disease that involves frequent exacerbations that would, normally, land me in the hospital, I will accept treatment to ameliorate the discomfort caused by the feeling of suffocation, but will refuse to be hauled off.

A couple of decades ago, an article like this would have sparked mass public outrage.

But today, this article hardly even gets any attention.

That is because this kind of philosophy has spread everywhere.  It is being taught at colleges and universities across the United States and it is even represented throughout the ranks of the Obama administration.

For example, Barack Obama's top science adviser John P. Holdren believes that implanting sterilization capsules under the skin of women could be a way to reduce the size of the population and increase the quality of life for everyone...
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

Yes, this guy is a total nutjob.

But he also has the ear of the man occupying the White House.

And we are not just talking about a few isolated crazies like Holdren.  This agenda have been fully embraced by our politicians in Washington.

For instance, did you know that the federal government actually has an "Office of Population Affairs"?
http://www.hhs.gov/opa/

On the website of the Office of Population Affairs, you can find information about abortion, female sterilization, male sterilization and a vast array of contraceptive choices.

U.S. taxpayers are paying for all of this, but most people don't even know that it exists.

Of course this agenda has been moved forward by both Democrats and Republicans for decades.

And the woman that is very likely to be our next president is also a very strong proponent of this philosophy.

When Hillary Clinton accepted Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger Award back in 2009, she spoke glowingly of Sanger...
In a speech to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Awards Gala, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that she admires "Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision." Secretary Clinton said she is "really in awe of" Sanger for Sanger's early work in Brooklyn, New York, "taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions."

But the truth is that Sanger was deeply racist and was determined to do whatever she could to help control the population growth of the poor.  The following is one of her most famous statements...

"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."Hillary Clinton is also a huge supporter of the United Nations Population Fund.  If you are not familiar with the United Nations Population Fund, it is an organization that funds abortion, forced sterilization and brutal eugenics programs throughout the developing world.

Population control advocates such as Emanuel, Holdren and Clinton are fully convinced that they are doing the right thing.

They actually believe that the world will be a better place if less people are born and if the elderly do not live as long.

[Warph]

Obuma: "I'm Just A Little Simple"

(A little?)

WASHINGTON – President Obama told supporters Tuesday that maybe he's "a little simple."

"Perhaps I'm just a little simple," Obama said at a Democratic fundraiser in New York City. "I have never been more optimistic about America's future."

"We have the best cards," he said, adding that the question is how America plays them‎.

Obama, who will address the United Nations on Wednesday about the terrorist threats posed by the Islamic State and other groups, said this meeting of world leaders is big.

[Warph]

Botox Nan Urges Latinos To Blame GOP For Delay Of Amnesty

(Nan needs to take Senators Manchin, Hagan, Shaheen, Pryor and Landrieu to task for voting with the GOP on the amendment that barred Obama from spending any money to implement his amnesty plan)

Via Latin Post
Immigration advocates have attacked President Brack Obama's decision to delay executive action on immigration until after the November elections. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, remains optimistic that this delay may prove more fruitful for those in favor of immigration reform.

On Monday, Pelosi was in Salt Lake City to receive the Excellence in Leadership award from the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (she is the first non-Hispanic to receive the award). While there, she told NBC News that she is "respectful of the disappointment" that Latinos have expressed in response to Obama's decision.

[...]

"I think that the anger is not placed in the right direction, and Republicans get off the hook," she said. "They did nothing and people are picketing the president. I mean, [Republicans] don't pay a price for that? ... Understand this, the Republicans had the power to pass a law and they didn't. You want to make a difference? Go sit in front of the Republican National Committee."

[Warph]

Pic Of The Day

(It's funny because it's true)

[Warph]

Mom Bakes Vagina-Shaped Cookies For
2nd-Graders,
Freaks Out When Told They're Not Appropriate For Children

(I feel bad for the kid, imagine having this feminist loon as your mom

)

Via Elite Daily:
http://elitedaily.com/news/world/mother-vagina-cookies-second-graders-sends-teacher-e-mail/767638/

This is a story about a woman who wanted her second grader to know that vaginas come in all shapes, colors and sizes. It's also the story of really questionable parenting.

Redditor JPstudly posted a long tale of woe to a subreddit dedicated to massive screw-ups. The story is from a female friend who teaches a class of second graders.

A mother with an interesting take on empowering female children, pseudonym Autumn, signed up to bring in baked goods to her child's class.

[...]

When the teacher told Autumn that the cookies were inappropriate, the mother began yelling about the importance of young children learning about sexuality. Autumn left the cookies and stormed out.

[Warph]

Report: Khorasan Group Planned To Attack Commercial Airplanes With Concealed Explosives

Via CNN:
Among the targets of U.S. strikes across Syria early Tuesday was the Khorasan Group — a collection of senior al Qaeda members who have moved into Syria.
President Obama called them "seasoned al Qaeda operatives."

"Once again, it must be clear to anyone who would plot against America and try to do Americans harm that we will not tolerate safe havens for terrorists who threaten our people," Obama said.

The strikes targeted "training camps, an explosives and munitions production facility, a communication building and command and control facilities," the military said in a statement.

The group was actively plotting against a U.S. homeland target and Western targets, a senior U.S. official told CNN on Tuesday. The United States hoped to surprise the group by mixing strikes against it with strikes against ISIS targets.

The plots were believed to be in an advanced stage, the second U.S. official said. There were indications that the militants had obtained materials and were working on new improvised explosive devices that would be hard to detect, including common hand-held electronic devices and airplane carry-on items such as toiletries.

The intelligence community discovered Khorasan plots against the United States within the past week, an intelligence source with knowledge of the matter told CNN.

The intelligence source did not give an intended target but said the plots involved a bomb made of a nonmetallic device, toothpaste container, and clothes dipped in explosive material.

[Warph]

Taxpayers Shell Out $700K So Obama Can Play Pool,
Drink Beer, Raise Funds For Dems

(Only $700K? That's cheap by Obama's standards)

Via Washington Examiner:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/1-obama-trip-to-play-pool-drink-beer-raise-money-cost-taxpayers-about-700000/article/2553818#!

Taxpayers had to cough up $1,159,823 in just one month to fly President Obama to New York and Denver to raise money for Democrats and attend an LGBT event, according to documents obtained by a taxpayer watchdog group.

Judicial Watch told Secrets that the Air Force just provided expense reports detailing the flight costs of Air Force One to the cities in July.

The documents show that president's July 8-9 fundraising trip to Denver cost the taxpayers $695,894.10.

His July 17-18 fundraising trip to New York City cost taxpayers $463,929.40.

[Warph]

Obuma's Top Five "War" Euphemisms To Avoid Calling Latest War A "War"

Via Salon (yes, that Salon):http://www.salon.com/2014/09/23/obamas_top_5_war_euphemisms_words_hes_used_to_avoid_calling_latest_war_a_%E2%80%9Cwar%E2%80%9D/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

1) "Effort" Perhaps Obama's favorite euphemism for what the U.S. is up to. In his September 10 address, Obama distinguished the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan from the "effort" against ISIS. "This counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground," Obama explained. In his weekly address on Saturday, the president said that "[t]his is an effort that America has the unique ability to lead."

2) "Process" Asked in August 28 press conference whether he planned to seek congressional authorization for military action against ISIS, Obama sounded like the caricature of the professorial, technocratic president his critics purport him to be. "You know, I have consulted with Congress throughout this process," Obama replied. "I am confident that as commander in chief I have the authorities to engage in the acts that we are conducting currently."

3) "Fight" As close as Obama's willing to get to saying the W-word. Speaking to reporters on Tuesday before departing for the United Nations, Obama said that U.S. air strikes in Iraq and Syria were "not America's fight alone," echoing his September 20 address in which he said that it was "a fight in which all countries have a stake."

4) "Campaign" Not unlike a swing through Iowa and New Hampshire! Explaining his expansion of the war into Syria on Tuesday, the president noted, "I made clear that as part of this campaign the United States would take action against targets in both Iraq and Syria so that these terrorists can't find safe haven anywhere."

5) "A Moment of American Leadership." Concluding his radio address on Saturday, Obama called this "a moment of American leadership ... a moment we will meet." Leadership. Exceptionalism. America.

[redcliffsw]

Lately, Obama and the Republicans appear to be getting along.  Maybe they are learning that they think about the same.