Since October 2001, when the Afghanistan war began, 1,798 children and 1,107 widows had their loved ones pass away in the conflict, according to CNSNews.com’s database of U.S. casualties.
In the more than 12 years that have passed since U.S. troops first entered Afghanistan, 2,195 service personnel have given their lives in and around Afghanistan in support of U.S. military activities in that country. Those 2,195 men and women left behind a combined 2,905 widows and children -- 2,083 of those widows and children, or 71.7%, came after President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
As has happened so often in CNS' Afghanistan body count obsession, two words are missing from Meyer's article: "Bush" and "Iraq." Meyer does not identify the president who presided over more than 4,000 U.S. troop deaths in Iraq -- or 28.3 percent of the deaths in Afghanistan -- nor has CNS made an effort to count up the widows and orphans of troops killed in Iraq.
WND's Klayman Already Pushing Revisionist History of Bundy Ranch Topic: WorldNetDaily
The Bundy Ranch saga isn't even two months old, and already WorldNetDaily's Larry Klayman is trying to peddle a revisionist history of it:
A New York Times poll taken in 2011 – before a slate of Obama’s “phony scandals” hit in a major way, from Obamacare, to Fast and Furious, to IRS-gate, to Benghazi-gate, to Extortion 17-gate, to the mother of all scandals, NSA-gate – showed that over 90 percent of the American people have a deep distrust of government. And, this was heightened among many of us during the recent events at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada, where armed Obama Bureau of Land Management thugs, disguised as government officers, used heavy weaponry, including machine guns, clubs, armored vehicles and drones to try to force the Bundys off their land in a power play likely designed to turn the land over to “friends” of Majority Senate Leader Harry Reid and his Las Vegas attorney son. Fortunately, for the time being, American patriots came to the defense of the Bundys and exercised their Second Amendment rights to have the government stand down. Unfortunately, Cliven Bundy, the ranch’s owner, made some rather ill-thought comments about African-Americans, giving the government apparent license to now threaten prosecution of those citizens who stood their ground in defense of property rights and the use of excessive force.
First: The BLM did not try to force Bundy off his own land -- it confiscated some of Bundy's cattle for illegally grazing on federal land.
Second: Even the right-wing Breitbart conceded, the federal land in question was nowhere near the Bundy Ranch, and there was no "land grab."
MRC Whiffs On Purported 'Radical Environmentalism' In 'Godzilla' Film Topic: Media Research Center
Sean Long writes in a May 16 Media Research Center Business & Media Institute item:
It is a sad day when the iconic Godzilla becomes a vessel for extreme environmentalism.
Gareth Edwards’ remake of the classic “Godzilla” pushed a strong environmental message where three massive monsters serve as nature’s brutal revenge against mankind’s abuse of the earth. The film which opened on May 16, sent multiple messages including anti-nuclear power and the message that “humanity has abused” the world and “deserved” Godzilla’s attack, according to the director.
Edwards also tried to exploit fear of global warming. While refraining from making this message explicit, The Daily Beast also reported Edwards saying that “stories have been used for a long time to smuggle the morals of the day inside them, and today, people are worried about global warming.”
A few media outlets have noticed the radical environmental messages in the new “Godzilla,” movie including the Latin Times’s Phillip Martinez who called “Godzilla” a “life lesson on how man has ‘tarnished’ nature.”
Long quotes only interviews about the film, and he gives no indication he has actually seen the film he's critiquing.
By contrast, another ConWeb writer did see the film before writing about it, and he couldn't find that supposedly radical message. Drew Zahn writes in his WorldNetDaily review:
What didn’t finally arrive in the movie, however, was the purported environmentalist message I was expecting, based on other commentaries. The whole, “shove global warming down your throat” message never materialized.
True, there is a line in the film, “The arrogance of man is thinking nature is in our control and not the other way around,” but, of course, that could be interpreted any number of ways. And there is a general sense of dread about nuclear weaponry (which was a significant theme in the original series of films, begun in 1954).
But a careful examination of Director Edwards’ words reveals his ideas don’t fit quite so neatly into hyperpartisan boxes.
As for the huge, environmentalist message? If Edwards was trying a preach a message about how evil humanity is and how we’re in danger of disaster from our carbon footprint … he failed.
On the other hand, if he was trying to make an entertaining monster movie that honors the legend of Godzilla … he succeeded wonderfully.
Perhaps that should be a lesson to Long: See the movie before you bash it.
Logrolling In Our Time, Jim Fletcher Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jim Fletcher's moderatelyunethicalhabit of giving ridiculously positive reviews of books published by WorldNetDaily -- the company that just so happens to publish his column -- continues apace with a couple of recent columns.
James Rogan is nothing if not a skilled storyteller, and in the telling of his own story – a memorable memoir titled “Rough Edges” – the judge and former attorney and U.S. congressman hearkens back to a type of American that built this country and made it great. “Rough Edges” is a powerful tale of hardscrabble beginnings, a wobbly early adulthood and finally, a successful life making a difference in the lives of others.
Fletcher follows with a May 13 column to sing the praises of WND's favorite race-baiter, Colin Flaherty:
Flaherty’s book is the kind all Americans need to read. For one thing, it might save your life. We must face facts, and the fact is, racial violence against whites is reaching lethal levels. If the mainstream media masks that fact, the rest of us through word of mouth can alert our friends and family to be on guard.
In “White Girl Bleed A Lot,” Flaherty pulls the ski mask off the face of racial violence, noting that “games” like “Beat Whitey Night,” or the better-known “Knockout Game,” are a scourge in more than 50 American cities. This violence has escalated sharply since 2010.
Flaherty, a very clever writer, also humorously coaches readers to counter the icy reception from liberal relatives: He encourages the book giver to shout out, “Read 17! 22!”
It’s an effective strategy. Overall, readers should simply shout the title of this important book to as many in their circles as they can.
Needless to say, WND published Flaherty's book too. That important fact is missing from both of Fletcher's columns.
As far as we know, Fletcher has never panned a WND-published book. Nor should anyone expect him to -- that's not what he's being paid to do.
Meanwhile ... Topic: Accuracy in Media Right Wing Watch does an able job of shooting down James Simpson's Accuracy in Media column alleging that voter fraud is a massive, “existential threat to our American Republic,” despite the fact that he provides no examples of large-scale voter fraud.
WND's Farber Rants About Non-Existent 'Voter Fraud' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Barry Farber rants in a May 13 WorldNetDaily column:
As a commentator, I often revisit that little American girl who asked her father during the Vietnam War, “What if they gave a war and nobody showed up?”
You’re grown up now, Baby. And it’s already happened! At least the attackers have shown up big-time, but we defenders have yet to take the field.
One single fraudulent vote is an “attack” on our democratic system. Massive voter fraud is a massive attack. The website Watchdog.com tells us that a group known as the Virginia Voters Alliance counted 44,000 voters registered in Maryland as well as Virginia. An additional 40 to 60 thousand dead voters were found to be on the active voters list in that one state of Virginia, according to the Social Security Administration. It’s not just Chicago any more.
Actually, none of that is evidence of "voter fraud." Dead people on voter rolls is fairly common, as is people who might be registered in two places -- in the case of Maryland and Virginia, both states surround Washington, D.C., and it's not uncommon for people to move between the two states.
Not only is it not "voter fraud," it's not even voter registration fraud in the vast majority of the cases -- there's simply a need to clean up voter rolls to removed duplicates and the dead.
While Farber insists that arguments against voter ID laws are "comically weak," the type of voter fraud this would counter is virtually nonexistent.
MRC Touts Birther's Endorsement of MRC Topic: Media Research Center
Ken Oliver-Mendez devotes a May 16 NewsBusters post to an interview with Sen. Ted Cruz's father, Rafael Cruz:
As a travelling pastor, Rev. Rafael Cruz, father of Sen. Ted Cruz, is in a unique position to sense where the political winds are blowing in this mid-term election year. During a visit to the Media Research Center, the elder Cruz said that with just over five months to go between now and Election Day, he sees major conservative gains ahead, including the retirement of Sen. Harry Reid as Majority Leader that would come with Republicans winning control of the United States Senate.
Oliver-Mendez also promotes the elder Cruz's endorsement of the MRC: “You are doing something that is absolutely necessary in this country when we have so much of the liberal media that they have ceased to be broadcasters, they have ceased to be really journalists and they have become mouthpieces for the administration. They have apparently no concern for truth – all they want to do is promote the talking points of the administration – so you are standing in the gap.”
What Oliver-Mendez didn't do, however, is mention the elder Cruz's history of inflammatory statements, which include saying that President Obama is a Marxist who should go "back to Kenya," falsely claiming that “the first bill President Obama signed into law was to legalize third trimester abortions" (in fact, it was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and he has never signed any law approving third-trimester abortions), and asserting that gay marriage is some kind of government conspiracy.
Oliver-Mendez runs MRC Latino, the MRC's Hispanic media-monitoring operation. Between this and the MRC's longtime hostility to Hispanics and their issues, the success of this venture seems rather dubious.
WND's Unruh Takes Up Colin Flaherty's Race-Baiting Baton Topic: WorldNetDaily
It seems that WorldNetDaily has dismissed race-baiterextraordinaire Colin Flaherty as a correspondent -- as we've noted, he has apparently taken his talents to Breitbart. WND appears to have decided it can handle its race-baiting needs in-house.
Taking up Flaherty's race-baiting baton at WND is Bob Unruh, who wrote a May 15 article about how "a black teenager is facing charges as an adult for what authorities are describing as the revenge arson of the home of a white woman and her two children." As Flaherty so often did, Unruh asserted there is a "racial factor" to the crime but does not prove it.
But Flaherty remains at WND in spirit -- WND did publish Flaherty's race-baiting book, "White Girl Bleed A Lot," after all, and thus Unruh must promote it: "A surging number of black mob attacks, mostly on white victims, has been in the news for several years, and specific incidents have been documented in author Colin Flaherty’s book, 'White Girl Bleed A Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It.'"
The race-baiter is dead at WND. Long live the race-baiter.
Suddenly MRC Is A 'Religious' Organization, Sues To Exempt Itself From Obamacare Mandate Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has decided it's a religious organization. According to who? The Media Research Center.
The MRC announced May 15 that it has "self-certified as a religious organization" and its's suing the federal government to get exempted from Obamacare's contraception mandate:
Today the Media Research Center (MRC) announced that it has filed a motion in US District Court for a preliminary injunction seeking to block enforcement of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate, which forces people of faith to subsidize health insurance plans that include abortion inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization. A hearing has been set for June 6.
“This lawsuit is about religious freedom and the conscience rights of individuals to operate their enterprises free from government coercion, reprisal, or punishment,” MRC Founder and President Brent Bozell said. “The Obamacare mandate destroys the ability of free people to practice their faith in their everyday lives and forces them to either reject their faith or face crippling government imposed fines and punishment; in our case over $4.5 million dollars per year. We do not stop being religious, moral people the moment we walk out of our houses of worship.”
The MRC contends that under ACA rules it has self-certified as a religious organization and is therefore exempt from the mandate. The MRC is the first organization that has asked the court to affirm its "self-certification.”
For nearly three decades, the MRC has been the nation’s premier defender of pro-life views and Judeo-Christian values from attacks by the liberal media. Bozell and other employees of the MRC practice and live by Judeo-Christian values, and believe abortion, whether through the actions of an abortionist or a drug, is the taking of innocent human life. Under the First Amendment, the MRC and its employees have the right to practice and abide by their faith in their everyday lives including in the operations of their mission-oriented non-profit organization.
The MRC starts things off with a lie -- morning-after pills are not "abortion inducing drugs."
Since 1987, the Media Research Center has been the nation’s premier media watchdog. We don’t endorse politicians and we don’t lobby for legislation. MRC’s sole mission is to expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media. This makes the MRC’s work unique within the conservative movement.
The Media Research Center’s unwavering commitment to neutralizing left-wing bias in the news media and popular culture has influenced how millions of Americans perceive so-called objective reporting.
Integrating cutting-edge news monitoring capabilities with a sophisticated marketing operation, MRC reaches nearly 170 million Americans each week to educate them about left-wing bias in the media.
The Media Research Center is a research and education organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions are tax-deductible to the maximum extent of the law. The MRC receives no government grants or contracts nor do we have an endowment. We raise our funds each year from individuals, foundations, and corporations.
Only the MRC's Culture & Media Institute has a declared mission that involves religion, claiming it's "dedicated to correcting misconceptions in the media about social conservatism and religious faith."
Third, if living by "Judeo-Christian values" is a requirement for employment at the MRC -- as one might expect from a "religious organization" -- the MRC should have no problem releasing its employment records to demonstrate that Christianity, if not the Catholicism followed by many top MRC leaders, is an ironclad requirement for employment there. It should also be able to demonstrate that it has relieved people of employment, or not hired them at all, for being insufficiently Christian.
Oh, wait -- doesn't discrimination on the basis of religion violate federal civil rights laws? Yes, yes it does.
It seems the MRC has put itself in a bit of a pickle with this lawsuit. If it proves it's a religious organization, it has to fundamentally alter its mission -- and, thus further marginalize itself. Why should the larger conservative movement pay attention to a media-bias group that can only examine the issue from a religious viewpoint?
If the MRC is unable to prove it's the religious organization it's "self-certified" itself to be, it has to explain why it has engaged in hiring discrimination.
WND Still Obsessed With Female Teachers Having Sex With Students Topic: WorldNetDaily
For years, WorldNetDaily has been obsessing over feamale (but not male) teachers who have sex with their students, to the point where it keeps a creepily detailed list of offenses over the past decade. Of course, as with its "black mob" race-baiting, cherry-picking incidents does not a epidemic make, and WND has never explain why it's so fixated on female teachers.
Joe Kovacs adds another one to the prurient pile in a May 14 WND article:
With the large number of teachers having sex with their students across America, it was virtually inevitable a case would arise where a student’s grades might be affected.
Now an Oklahoma English teacher is in hot water for giving a failing student an A+ after allegedly having sex with the male teenager multiple times.
Kovacs does not back up his claim of a"large number of teachers having sex with their students," and, needless to say, does not explain why female teachers are inherently more newsworthy in WND's editorial agenda than male teachers.
MRC Circles Wagons Around Its Favorite Right-Wing Radio Hosts Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has a symbiotic relationship with top right-wing radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh -- they promote the MRC's work, the MRC rewards Limbaugh's misogyny by starting a "I Stand With Rush" website.
The MRC also attacks any perceived threat to the right-wing radio empire, which explains Tim Graham and Brent Bozell's May 14 column attacking Mike Rogers, who's leaving Congress to start a radio show he says will be less vitriolic than the likes of Rush. Them's fightin' words:
Those who attack the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin — as too conservative, too vitriolic or simply unhinged — have that right, even if, as is so often the case, they rely on others rather than listen to the shows themselves. That's what liberals do.
There are pretenders to the throne of conservative talk radio who claim to be so much less "poisonous" and stupid than Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, et al. — and travel the same character-assassination route. Congressman Mike Rogers told The New York Times he's retiring in January to join Cumulus Radio for a national show, because "I think there is room for a more productive, you-might-actually-learn-something kind of talk radio in the marketplace."
Rogers, call your office.
Rogers is such a genius he thinks you launch a career in conservative talk radio by pandering to The New York Times. The article begins with Rogers denouncing all those members of Congress "who would rather raise their profiles and get into the media" than pass legislation. Rogers is so dense he can't see that he's denouncing the very road he's walking down.
What Rogers doesn't see is that he isn't just insulting talk show hosts. This "productive conservative host" is insulting his audience. They are morons, knuckle-draggers unable to think for themselves, unable to be smart. Yes, this is a man who will find a receptive audience on talk radio.
Limbaugh has been the king for decades now. He is a broadcasting legend. Hannity and Levin also have millions of loyal fans. But the liberals and the "reasonable" people just don't want to acknowledge reality. In this business, it's the market that decides. And this market has embraced Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin as emphatically as it has rejected the pretenders.
America should thank its lucky stars for these radio stars that Rogers disparages. They have done more than anyone to save this country and its tradition of liberty.
And Rogers? He'll be just another failure.
At no point do Graham and Bozell defend the content of Limbaugh, et al -- they can't, given that the have previously condoned Limbaugh's misogyny. They're simply engaging in a logical fallacy that because such hosts are popular, they must be right. And even that's a dubious prospect -- in addition to its fallacious foundation, Limbaugh's station swap at the start of the year has not brought big ratings to his new stations.
Given that, Rogers must be a real threat to Limbaugh if Graham and Bozell are devoting an entire column to attacking him.
WND Crawls Back In Bed With Discredited Filmmaker Joel Gilbert Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily was so desperate to destroy President Obama in 2012 that it embraced Joel Gilbert, a filmmaker untethered by reality who had just released a smear job baselessly speculating that Obama's real father and claiming that Obama's mother had posed nude for a photographer. Despite the fact that the latter claim was utterly discredited, WND's Jerome Corsi promoted a Gilbert assertion that Obama's wedding ring bore an Islamic inscription, a claim so fraudulent on its face that Corsi's fellow birthers were compelled to debunk it.
And in true WND style, Corsi never told WND's readers that Gilbert's Obama fantasies been been repeatedly discredited.
Gilbert has now rewarded Corsi for his omerta -- Corsi has a part in Gilbert's new film. An unbylined May 13 WND article touts Gilbert's new project:
Filmmaker Joel Gilbert, who produced the 2012 documentary “Dreams from My Real Father,” presenting the case that Communist Party activist Frank Marshall Davis was the biological father of Barack Obama, has produced a new film, “There’s No Place Like Utopia,” scheduled for theatrical release this summer.
“The film is similar in style to the highly successful Michael Moore films,” Gilbert told WND.
“The narrative follows me as I journey across America and take audiences on a humorous and horrifying exploration of progressivism, amnesty for illegals, race relations, Islam in America, political correctness and Barack Obama himself, who promises to ‘remake the world not as it is, but as it should be,’” Gilbert said.
In the film, Gilbert depicts Barack Obama as the wizard in the classic “The Wizard of Oz.”
Featured in the film are commentaries from WND staff reporter and author Jerome R. Corsi, WND columnist and author Jack Cashill, as well as conservative author David Horowitz and former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky.
Again, WND refuses to tell its readers that Gilbert is a charlatan on a scale of the Wizard of Oz, peddling lies designed to deceive gullible right-wingers.
And why would WND do such a thing? They're in business together -- the article includes links to the WND store to buy his discredited Obama smear job. WND will never tell the truth about Gilbert until his films have been cleared out of the WND store, and probably not even then.
MRC Still Touting Gosnell Crowdfunding, Still Won't Ask About Billboard Topic: Media Research Center
Matt Philbin effuses in a May 9 Media Research Center item:
Here’s a story for the nightly news: a plucky upstart overcomes establishment hostility to reach a seemingly impossible goal. The problem is that the nightly news is the establishment, and the Gosnell Movie project, which just reached its initial crowd-funding goal, deals with something they don’t want to talk about.
Headed by producer Phelim McAleer and wife Ann McElhinney, the Gosnell Movie campaign has reached its initial goal of raising $2.1 million from more than 23,000 individual donors through the crowd-funding site Indiegogo. The money raised will fund a scripted TV drama based on abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s trial and grand jury report.
There's no mention, however, of where McAleer got the money to post a billboard outside Kickstarter headquarters in an act of revenge for Kickstarter imposing standards on McAleer's crowdfunding campaign (which ultimately used another website).
Billboards are costly, after all. Did McAleer use his crowdfunding money to pay for it? If so, did he receive permission from his crowdfunders to use the money in that way?
Those are basic questions that go to the heart of whether McAleer is a good steward of the millions he's raising for his propaganda film. But Philbin apparently doesn't want to know the answer -- he's too busy making sure McAleer is pocketing even more cash.
NEW ARTICLE: Crazy Conservative Medicine Topic: WorldNetDaily
Let's look back at the writing career of factually challenged WorldNetDaily columnist (and past president of a far-right medical group) Dr. Lee Hieb. Read more >>
MRC Desperately Tries to Smear Warren Buffett By Tangentally Tying Him to Gosnell Topic: WorldNetDaily
The Media Research Center still can't get the "research" part of its name down.
The latest example of the MRC's history of shoddyresearch is a May 13 report by Mike Ciandella and Katie Yoder attacking Warren Buffett for funding "abortion groups":
They say the key to successful investing is diversification. But Berkshire Hathaway Chairman & CEO Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor known as the “Oracle of Omaha,” is a one-issue man -- and that issue is abortion.
Through the foundation he financed with more than $3 billion of his own money, Buffett donated $1,230,585,161 to abortion groups worldwide from 2001 to 2012. These groups, including Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the Population Council, either campaign for pro-abortion legislation, perform abortions themselves, or helped develop the controversial abortion drug RU-486. Buffett gave an additional $21 million to these groups between 1989 and 1996. (Tax forms between 1997 and 2000 are not available.)
So the $1.2 billion that Buffett gave to these organizations is enough to pay for the abortions of more than 2.7 million babies in the womb. Those figures come from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, which says the average amount paid for a surgical abortion in the United States is $451 for the first trimester. That accounts for the majority of abortions.
To put that in perspective, Warren Buffett donated enough money to abortion groups to perform as many abortions as there are people in the entire city of Chicago.
Note how wildly overstated Ciandella and Yoder's claims are. "Abortion groups" is a laughably overbroad assertion, demonstrating the MRC's intent for this to be a political attack instead of objective research. After all, only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood's services are abortion services.
The "perspective" that Buffett donated enough money to abort "the entire city of Chicago" also has no business in a supposed "research" document.
Further, for all their fulminating about "abortion groups," Ciandella and Yoder provide no evidence whatsoever that Buffett foundation money directly paid for any abortions.
But they're not done. Ciandella and Yoder's next step is to smear Buffett by trying to tie him to rogue abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell:
One year ago, on May 13, 2013, the infamous abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted of three counts of murder and one count of manslaughter in a case the major media tried their best to ignore. Another of the groups Buffett funded inspected Gosnell’s clinic -- subsequently described in court documents as a “house of horror” -- and didn’t report conditions at the “worst abortion clinic” the inspector had ever seen to Pennsylvania authorities.
Again, Ciandella and Yoder provide no evidence that Buffett has any personal link whatsoever to Gosnell -- it's just a disgusting smear.
Further, the grand jury report on the Gosnell case placed much more blame on state health officials for years of failing to act on complaints about Gosnell's practice -- they "were repeatedly confronted with evidence about Gosnell, and repeatedly chose to do nothing" -- than the NAF, which had inspected his clinic about a year before Gosnell was arrested in response to him applying to become an NAF member.
Nevertheless, the MRC's Dan Gainor wrote a FoxNews.com op-ed that even more explicitly tried to link Buffett to Gosnell:
May 13, 2014, marks one year since Philadelphia abortion Dr. Kermit Gosnell was convicted of first-degree murder “in the deaths of three babies who were delivered alive and then killed with scissors at his grimy, ‘house of horrors’ clinic,” according to the Associated Press. Gosnell instantly became the face of abortion in the prolife community.
But there’s another, more recognizable face pushing abortion in the U.S. – liberal billionaire Warren Buffett. The so-called “Oracle of Omaha” has donated more than $1.2 billion to abortion organizations from 2001 to 2012.
That’s equal to the cost of roughly 2.7 million first-trimester abortions – more than twice the number of abortions that occur in an entire year in the United States. Unlike Gosnell, however, everything Buffett has done has been entirely legal. But Buffett does share something else in common with the abortionist. Both their stories have been largely unreported.
Like his underlings, Gainor does not prove that Buffett is directly "pushing abortion."
The most damning evidence of the MRC's partisan intent, though, is that Ciandella and Yoder devote 11 paragraphs of it to how "pro-life organizations expressed outrage at the amount of Buffett’s support dedicated to the demise of babies in the womb." Ciandella and Yoder claim they "reached out to both The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and Berkshire Hathaway," but got no response.
That's what passes for "research" at the MRC. It has always been thus.