Update no.577

Update from the Heartland

No.577

31.12.12 – 6.1.13

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

I received the following simple alert and video link from a friend.  I pass the link with my blessing.

“Cap, good day. This will be of interest to you.”

http://stg.do/video/?v=XhBc

The follow-up news items:

-- The Department of Justice and offshore drilling corporation Transocean agreed to a settlement that closes all of the company’s civil and criminal cases relating to their involvement in the 2010 Macondo Well / Deepwater Horizon accident [436, 442, 456, 471].  They will pay US$1.4B in fines and penalties. Transocean was the owner of the drilling rig that exploded on 20.April.2010, killing 11 workers and leading to the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

-- On 22.October.2012, former CIA officer John Kiriakou [528] pled guilty to violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 [PL 97-200; 96 Stat.122; 23.June.1982] [348] as part of a plea deal, having disclosed classified information about a fellow covert CIA officer to a reporter.  Kiriakou is the first CIA officer to be convicted of disclosing classified information to a reporter in more than six decades.  His sentencing is scheduled for 25.January, and he is expected to be sentenced to 30 months in prison for his crime.

Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) [PL 112-025; 125 Stat. 239] [503, 504], and President Obama signed the BCA into law on 2.August.2011 – 16 months ago!  Among the many elements of the new law, Title IV created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction [125 Stat. 259], and charged the august committee, under the law, with making recommendations for US$1.5T in deficit reductions, i.e., both revenue and expenses were within the scope.  Title IV also imposed a deadline of 2.December.2011, for the committee to report its findings and recommendations to the House of Representatives for consideration.  On Monday, 21.November.2011, the committee issued a statement that it had failed to reach agreement and would be unable to do so, with each side publicly blaming the other for intransigence – not an auspicious beginning.  As is so often the case, with the BCA, Congress increased the debt limit (the crisis of the moment), i.e., allowing the government to borrow more money; yet, they refused to implement the requisite spending cuts.  Regardless, Congress had a year to perform their constitutional duty; yet again, they failed miserably.  To make matters worse, We, the People, re-elected most of the bastards last November; so, I am afraid we must share culpability whether we acknowledge it or not.  Nonetheless . . .

            At 02:07 [R] EST, Tuesday, 1.January.2013, the lame-duck Senate, in extraordinary session, passed HR 8 by a vote of 89-8-0-3(0).  The bill went to the House, which convened at 12:00 [R] EST that day to consider the Senate bill.  The bill partially deals with the revenue side of the equation and does virtually nothing on the expense side.  Congress adopted the usual mañana approach.  Initial signs suggested the House would reject HR 8.  Somehow, the House leadership found the support necessary.  At 22:57 [R] EST, Tuesday, 1.January.2013, the House passed the bill by a vote of 257-167-0-8(3).  Using an electro-mechanical auto-pen the following day, President Obama signed the bill into law, while on holiday in Hawaii – American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA) [PL 112-xxx; HR 8; House: 257-167-0-8(3); Senate: 89-8-0-3(0); 126 Stat. xxxx].  Regrettably, I am nauseated to note, Congress simply cannot resist giving their buddies some of the bennies.  Amid all the convulsions associated with this partial action, Congress managed to insert roughly 50 tax breaks and other expenditures for their favorite corporations or business segments.  Among those are two that directly benefit the industry in which I work; however, I must protest congressional action.  Tax credit extensions, as with most of the exceptions, are simply spending by other means.  Oh well, I guess corruption is just a force of nature, like the Sun and Moon, or I could look at the positive, the tax credit extensions are simply a continuation of previously approved “spending” and now is not the time to absorb those changes.

            All the public euphoria over crisis averted is seriously misplaced.  It is like the public proclamations have declared the President and the Democrats as the victorious lot in this struggle.  I hate to be the wet blanket on all this excitement; however, someone must voice reality in this party. We still have the debt limit issue and of course, the other side of the equation – spending reductions.  We have at least two (more likely three) major obstacles that must be overcome.

1.     Debt ceiling – According to the Secretary of the Treasury, we have already exceeded the current US$16.4T debt ceiling established by the BCA, Title III [125 Stat. 251], and only have another month or two of jimmied overruns.  The bizarre facet in this congressional mumbo-jumbo is Congress spends the treasury and at the same time dictates to the Treasury they can only borrow so much to pay for all their largesse, and then they blame the President and the Executive for not managing the Treasury better.  Congress spends!  They do NOT earn!

2.     Spending reductions – The Democrats can keep pretending the financial forecast for Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid, and all the other entitlement programs are just mystical, unseen, rocks & shoals of outrageous fortune; such delusions will NOT alter reality, and the bills will come do; they always do; there is no Powerball lottery for the federal government.  The longer they wait to make the necessary corrections, the more painful the adjustments will be.  Speaker Boehner was spot on correct months ago; we must have significant reforms to the tax code to stop the massive backhanded spending.  We must get a federal budget that keeps essential services running, continues health & infrastructure investments that benefit all citizens (not some local constituency or wealthy donors), and generates sufficient excess to pay down the massive debt We, the People, have accumulated in the last two administrations.  The ATRA Title IX; Subtitle A; § 901, pushed out two key deadlines:

A.   (b) After Session Sequester– 27. March.2013 for implementation of spending reductions required by § 251(a)(1) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (AKA Gramm-Rudman) [PL 99-177; 99 Stat. 1037; 12.December.1985].

B.    (e) 2013 Sequester – 1.March.2013, the President shall order a sequestration for fiscal year 2013 – two months to do what they should have done over the last 16 months.  Yeah right!

3.     FY2013 federal budget – Congress should get credit for passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 [PL 112-xxx; H. R. 4310; Senate: 81-14-0-4(1); House: 315-107-0-9(4); 126 Stat. xxxx; 2.January.2013]; however the remainder of the federal budget and appropriations has not been passed.  With pressure of the two elements above demanding congressional attention for the next two months at least and the inability of congress to pass proper allocations before the fiscal year begins, I suspect we shall consider ourselves fortunate if we get lame continuing resolutions.  I cannot recall the last time Congress performed its constitutional duty completely as required.  We are not likely to get it this year either.  Congress should be working on the FY2014 appropriations.  And so it goes.

Please do not be fooled by the politicians and Press.  We have not avoided the fiscal challenges before us.  Congress pushed the worst of it two months away.  Speaker Boehner indicated his intention to fight the fight on spending reductions during the debt limit deliberations.  One way or another, the fight must be fought.  The consequences with or without substantive spending reductions are likely to be painful, so let’s get on with it.  The status quo ante is simply no longer tenable.

            In the wake of this political joke, I thought this commentary was particularly appropriate and apropos.

“The World from Berlin – Today's American Politics a ‘Tiresome Farce’”

by Kristen Allen

Der Spiegel

Published: 01/02/2013

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-press-slams-fiscal-cliff-negotiations-in-washington-a-875405.html

Farce indeed!

Then, we have an NYT editorial that just plain rankles me.

“Dereliction of Duty – More Battles Ahead”

Editorial

New York Times

Published: January 2, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/opinion/dereliction-of-duty-more-fiscal-battles-ahead.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130103&_r=0

I am all in favor of smackin’ Republican politicians up’side the head for their nearly mindless political stance.  However, to even imply that this political debacle should be laid at the feet of Republicans verges on outrage, ignorance, and quite frankly comparable political intransigence, i.e., we are always right, they are always wrong.  We have but to look at history to document the penchant of Congress for their insane spending and corrupting largesse – Democrats & Republicans.  I want to spew a long string of incisive expletives at the Times editorial staff for writing such drivel, but I would simply waste your tolerance of my inarticulate demonstration.  While I have been hard on Republicans, we had damn well better see Democrats getting serious about cutbacks, spending reductions and deficit reductions, or they will have their turn in the vice.  And, while I am at it, we had better not see any gloating on either side.

“Let’s Give Up on the Constitution”

by Louis Michael Seidman – Op-Ed Contributor

New York Times

Published: December 30, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20121231&_r=0

The title caught my attention.  I read Seidman’s Op-Ed screed twice to make sure I absorbed his intentions.  First, before we get into this opinion, I must illuminate the author note that indicates Seidman is an author and professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.  His opening sentence sets the tone.  “As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken.”  Seidman goes on to say, “Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse.”

            Several impressions jump out at me.  Seidman writes like a constitutional strict constructionist who has become disillusioned with the document of his professional study.  He also appears to be unable to see the greater image, as if the world ends at the edge of the constitutional parchment. Seidman eagerly points out the flaws in the Constitution, like Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, and barely acknowledges the genius of the document.  Seidman notes the 13^th Amendment invalidating the slavery clause; yet, he claims it was ratified in violation of the Constitution, as the Confederate states were excluded – odd logic, actually, and selective representation of history.  Sure, there are flaws.  We have modified the document 27 times, by the constitutionally established process.  I appreciate his frustration with our current federal government; yet, casting aside the historic document is hardly the answer.

            Seidman eventually recognized our place in this debate.  He said,  “This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.”  While I laud his recognition, I do wonder how he expects to enforce respect without the law.  He offers no proposal other than the implied Rodney King appeal.  He went to say, “If we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments.”  What strikes me most clearly in Seidman’s words, I would bet a dollar to donuts he is an anti-2^nd Amendment advocate – blame the tools rather than the root cause.  The reason our system of governance appears broken is the politicians we elect to represent us.  Instead of electing solution oriented people, we choose individuals who are so calcified by their party ideology they are incapable of compromise.  Seidman concludes, “But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.”  “Constitutional bondage” . . . really?  I remind everyone, this man is teaching future lawyers at a prestigious university about constitutional law.  He is probably tenured, which makes him virtually immovable.  Does anyone else shudder at Seidman’s opinion?  Then again, we could chalk up the Seidman opinion to a rather blatant attempt to sell his new book – capitalism at its finest.

Congress passed and the President signed into law an as-yet unknown number of laws before the end of the 112^th Congress.  I say unknown as I cannot see the last week’s worth.  We have already discuss the most publicly visible, ATRA law [above].  Two new laws of note:

·      FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012 [PL 112-238; H.R.5949; Senate: 73-23-0-4(0); House: 301-118-0-10(6); 126 Stat. xxxx; 30.December.2012], amended the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 [344, 10.7.2008], extending the controversial surveillance provisions until 31.December.2017.

·      National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 [PL 112-xxx; H. R. 4310; Senate: 81-14-0-4(1); House: 315-107-0-9(4); 126 Stat. xxxx; 2.January.2013] – at least the Defense Department received its annual appropriation from Congress (only three months late).  The most controversial provision was Title X – General Provisions; Subtitle D – Counterterrorism; §§ 1027 & 1028 that established stiff new constraints for the release or movement of battlefield combatant detainees held at United States Naval Station, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.  President Obama tersely stated the law would not restrict the action he deemed necessary or appropriate.

There are undoubtedly other important laws in the passel of end of session legislation.  Unfortunately, the Library of Congress has not been able to keep up with the dissemination of the new laws, so if I find others of note, they will be duly reported.

The new 113th Congress passed in short order H.R.41 – to temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program.  At publication time, the President had not yet signed the law.  The bill will enable FEMA to start payouts to covered victims of Hurricane Sandy (29.10.12) [568] {Senate: voice vote; House: 354-67-0-8(6)}.  While I am glad financial assistance has been made available to Frankenstorm victims, I am disappointed once again that Congress spent monies (however worthy) without appropriate offset in revenue or comparable spending reductions.

Switzerland's oldest bank Wegelin & Co., private bankers since 1741 as their sign says, pled guilty to conspiracy for aiding tax evasion by U.S. citizens to the tune of at least US$1.2B over nearly a decade.  Wegelin became the first foreign bank in the Great Recession to be indicted by U.S. authorities, and the bank was declared a fugitive from justice when its Swiss-based executives failed to appear in U.S. court.  Wegelin agreed to pay US$57.8M to the United States in restitution and fines, and also announced the bank would close permanently.

News from the economic front:

-- The Labor Department reported U.S. nonfarm payrolls increased by a seasonally adjusted 155,000 in December, as the economy struggled, and Congress fought their corrosive partisan political fights over tax increases and spending cuts.  The unemployment rate, obtained by a separate survey of U.S. households, remained at 7.8%, after the November rate was revised upward.  Private sector businesses led the job growth, adding 168,000 jobs to payrolls, with the biggest gains in health care, food services, construction and manufacturing.

Comments and contributions from Update no.576:

“A couple of things on my mind today, spurred from your missives.

“From Update No. 569 I believe you [or perhaps someone else] wrote the following:

‘This is getting ridiculous!  Who the f**k cares whether the President called the Benghazi attackers terrorists?  Will calling them a name alter the outcome?  Will it stop us from hunting them down?  Will it make them any more dead when we find them?  I see no purpose in this ludicrous line of questioning.  Cover-up . . . surely they jest.  What purpose would be served by attempting such a foolish endeavor?’

“Am I interpreting the above correctly: ‘. . . surely they jest.’ In there is serious doubt as to a cover-up?  Am I interpreting today's update regarding the Benghazi mess correctly?  I am thinking today's update may be at odds with that of No. 569.  From my perspective, which is obviously quite distant as you would note, I felt the whole thing stunk to high heaven from the beginning, and the stink has just gotten worse as time as gone by with no one stepping up to the plate on this.  In my perspective of a cowardly manner, only Susan Rice, who was most likely not privy from the beginning of this debacle, nor do I believe she should have been in her position, was deliberately sent in front of the media to hopefully deflect the heat or provide obfuscation for someone or others that should be held accountable.  We've got a serious accountability problem on our hands.  Just what the heck is going on with our Government?  Where is the accountability?

“And from today's update regarding the shooting at Santikos Mayan Palace 14 theaters in San Antonio, Texas.  I did not hear or read about this.  And you so aptly wrote: ‘ . . . and yet we heard nothing about the event.’  This is very often the case in these types of situations--and there are many, but we very seldom hear about them for they seem to be intentionally overlooked and/or subdued for some ulterior motive.  These are situations where lives have been saved as a result of an armed citizen being present when a nutcase has chosen to surface.  There are many such cases, but the media pretty much chooses to ignore them.  Could it possibly be because a story about 10 lives possibly saved does not have the dramatic impact as a story about 10 people gunned down, including two children, and 8 more seriously wounded?”

My reply:

            Re: Update no.569 quote.  The words are mine, written at a moment of frustration and anger.  Yes, I doubt any purpose to cover-up.  I cannot see how anyone could even imagine the potential to be successful with a cover-up.  The World knew Ambassador Stevens died in the attack – the first U.S. ambassador to be assassinated since 1979.  How could anyone think they could cover that up?  I do not think there was intent to cover-up.  Until someone, anyone, can offer up evidence or an explanation why Ambassador Rice was told to pass on such nonsense in the face of even the limited facts of those early days.  I still do not understand why they would sacrifice such a capable woman for such a silly endeavor – better to say we don’t know than say it was a protest gone wrong, as if Stevens’ death was some kind of dreadful accident.  Ambassador Rice’s post-event, public statements were not even mentioned in the ARB unclassified, summary report, nor were any other political aspects discussed.  The ARB focused solely on the elements directly surrounding the Benghazi attack.  In my opinion, the SMC Benghazi attack was just another event in the War on Islamic Fascism, and the bad guys won one.  If we want to hold someone accountable, then I say let us hold Congress accountable, since they are the ones who refuse to provide sufficient funds to accomplish their requirements – not likely to happen, unfortunately.

            Re: San Antonio.  Sad but true, the dark side of the Press . . . kill a bunch of folks, sensational; save a passel of folks, yawn – a sad reality of the public appetite for the sensational. 

Another contribution:

“I haven't had time to enjoy your Updates for a while, but 576 caught me available.

“The best line in my opinion, is:

  ‘Whether the right to bear arms is ever used again for its original intended purpose is yet to be seen.’

“That salient fact, the principle behind that part of the Second Amendment, cannot be discussed with most folks because it hints at ultimate tyranny, revolution, etc., concepts that most Americans (much like, for only one of many examples, most German people 75 years ago) consider historical anomalies never to threaten our great, unique nation.  Oh, but if only history did not repeat itself, even with respect to the best governmental system ever designed by man! 

“As you point out, encroachment (infringement, a literal violation of the letter of the constitution) has already reached an alarming point, mainly because our over-fed citizenry is comfortable enough to let feelings govern their thinking.  Today's emotional media-fed gun control talk has the dangerous potential of accelerating that mistaken process. You know I don't always agree with you, but I again thank you for your eloquence, this time in your invitation for balanced discussion of the solutions to tragedies like these recent events.  Too bad the NRA does not always show such eloquence or balance (although its current president held up quite well under recent biased media interviews).”

My response:

Roger,

            Happy New Year to you and your family.

            Welcome back; always a pleasure to have your contributions.

            I think we will have ample opportunity to debate the original and adapted purpose of the 2nd Amendment.  Thank you for your kind words. 

            I certainly share your concern and apprehension regarding the State’s encroachment on our freedom and rights.  We must reverse the process at least regarding our private affairs.

Comment to the Blog:

“I never expected to support the intelligence services on this particular blog, but here goes. The report you read is unclassified and cannot reasonably be expected to divulge any details of operational security matters. Those you mention might very well be scapegoats, but I cannot see it as reasonable to expect true transparency on embassy security. The fact that we will not know the ‘whole truth’ about what happened neither surprises me nor makes full disclosure a good idea.

“Insofar as gun control, your example involves a County Sheriff’s Officer. It seems entirely reasonable to assume that he had a great deal more training that any typical ‘diligent armed citizen.’  Yet, as you lament, he still did not make a lethal shot. These situations present great difficulty even for highly trained professionals.

“Gun possession as a deterrent to government misconduct remains extremely unlikely. Rather than deal with their ostensible cause of avoiding the ‘fiscal cliff’ in the end-of-the-year session, Congress has passed a five-year extension of the FISA wiretapping law, despite the claim of ending the Afghanistan action in 2014. I hear no objection from any quarter including gun owners.

“I will point out here part of your response to last week’s comment. ‘I shall concede the point that I am all in favor of and would support taking every means possible to keep all deadly weapons out of the hands of violent felons, mentally ill citizens, or other disturbed individuals.’ That seems to me to argue against the unlimited freedom practiced at gun shows, where anyone with cash can typically purchase whatever firearms they like. Preventing such unlimited purchases would stop or make more difficult some of the mass killings and would do the same for the greater number of murders occurring one or two at a time every day in this country.”

My response to the Blog:

Calvin,

            Re: Benghazi & intelligence.  Now, you’re sounding like me.  I was simply noting that we did not have that essential information.  I agree that we have no right to intelligence means & methods . . . at least until decades later.  Eventually, we will know.

            Re: lethal shot.  You are of course quite right.  A 0.44 Magnum pistol in the hands of a little, frail, grandmother who has not trained with the pistol would probably be more dangerous than helpful.  Yet, she might be fully qualified and capable with the weapon.  I think concealed carry licensing laws are reasonable and appropriate for public safety, as long as the State operates the process in good faith; Illinois did not.  Of course those violent events are difficult, but I learned a long time ago: action is far better than inaction, and the best defense is a good offense.

            Re: warrantless wiretapping.  The Battle of Afghanistan will not end in 2014; it will only transition.  The Battle of Iraq is not over either.  The War on Islamic Fascism continues.  I want the warrantless wiretapping to end as soon as possible, but that is not today.

            Re: gun control.  All the guns used recently were legally obtained, as I recall.  Nonetheless, I do agree we need to close the gun show loophole.  Again, to my knowledge, none of the guns recently used were purchased under the gun show loophole.  As I stated in Update no.312 & sub, if a BB gun is OK and a thermonuclear weapon is not, then we are only debating where the line is.  Further, as I stated in Update no.575, I agree in principle with Mayor Bloomberg; we must figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of bad people; our challenge is how.  Prohibiting weapons for all citizens is NOT the answer.

. . . round two:

“We are largely in agreement at this point. Most of the current discussion relates to your point, ‘if a BB gun is OK and a thermonuclear weapon is not, then we are only debating where the line is.’ Most of the current discussion places that line between guns that are useful to ordinary people, such as hunting and home defense weapons, and weapons that should be the province of military or police users, such as rapid-fire weapons and/or large clips.  I am not aware of anyone proposing a ban on all privately owned firearms, and I subscribe to the rule of logic that the ‘slippery slope’ is a fallacy.”

 . . . my response to round two:

Calvin,

            The 2nd Amendment was not created and ratified to protect hunting rifles or home defense pistols.  The documentation surrounding the 2nd Amendment as well as numerous Supreme Court rulings have clearly established the purpose or objective of the Amendment.  Before we start debating the Amendment or even moving the line farther to the left, let us work on the root cause(s).  Automatic weapons have been prohibited since the National Firearms Act of 1934 [PL 73-474; 48 Stat. 1236; 26.June.1934] and that law has not stopped bad men from obtaining and using automatic weapons to commit their crimes and injure innocent people; it has only served to keep those weapons from good citizens . . . well except for a few citizens willing to challenge the law.

            There is no doubt in my little pea-brain that good people saw the signs generated by each one of those killers, weeks, days, hours and seconds before they acted, and they chose not to do anything about it; did not mention their observations to anyone.  Until local citizens care about their communities enough to stop these killers before they act, I am not prepared to restrict the 2nd Amendment further.

            Let us treat the root cause, not the symptoms or the tools.

 . . . round three:

“The Second Amendment was created to protect ‘a well regulated militia.’

“Skipping current gun law, which I will not be researching this week, I have a question. It is not unreasonable to assume that others saw signs of trouble in most of the mass killers, and most of the other murderers as well. The question is, "How do you propose to motivate those others who see signs of trouble to do something about it?" They never have done anything in the past.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Calvin,

            Re: 2nd Amendment.  To date, 221 years worth, the Supreme Court has affirmed the subject or object of the Amendment is the right of the people “to keep and bear arms” rather than “a well regulated militia.”

            Q: “How do you propose to motivate those others who see signs of trouble to do something about it?” 

First, the issue is behavior as opposed to the presented alternative of amending the Constitution and basic rights of ALL citizens. 

Second, if citizens are not inherently motivated to protect their communities from bad men, by what right do they have to demand control over how I choose to protect my family and my community?

Third, I understand the distrust of the police.  There are bad men in law enforcement who do bad things; but, the vast majority take their oath very personally . . . to serve and protect the communities that employ them.  The police cannot be everywhere, all the time, so just a little bit of help would go a long way.  Call 911.  Shout at the top of your lungpower – “Gun!” “Take cover!”  Do something!

Fourth, there are a variety of simple, security enhancements that would help police respond quicker and more precisely.  A siren going off might help the perpetrator along his way to suicide without harming others.

Lastly, to answer your query, We, the People, must focus on root cause solutions by exercising our voice.  I am doing my part.  I put my ideas into this medium; I present them for public debate.  I write to my local newspaper, and federal & state representatives.  I talk and chat with anyone willing to debate.  Our society has and can change, if we have the will.  We change our behavior one person at a time.  Each of us needs to do our part.

   “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

Cheers,

Cap

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)