Sunday, November 27, 2022

Meet the Man on a Mission to Expose Sneaky Price Increases: Clare Toeniskoetter Sun, November 27, 2022

SOMERVILLE, Mass. — A few weeks ago, Edgar Dworsky got a promising tip by email. “Diluted cough syrup,” read the message, accompanied by a photo of two packages of syrup with a curious difference: The new one appeared to be half the strength of the old one.

 Dworsky gets emails like this frequently, alerting him to things like a bag of dog food that discreetly shrank from 50 pounds to 44 pounds. A cereal box that switched from “giant” to “family” size and grew about an inch taller — but a few ounces lighter. Bottles of detergent that look the same, but the newer ones come with less detergent.

The cough syrup message looked intriguing. Dworsky made plans to investigate.

He has dedicated much of his life to exposing what is one of the sneakier tricks in the modern consumer economy: “shrinkflation,” when products or packaging are subtly manipulated so that a person pays the same price, or even slightly more, for something but gets less of it.

Consumer product companies have been using this strategy for decades. And their nemesis, Dworsky, has been following it for decades. He writes up his discoveries on his website, mouseprint.org, a reference to the fine print often found on product packaging. Print so tiny “only a mouse could read,” he says.

 He writes about shrinkflation in everything — tuna, mayonnaise, ice cream, deodorant, dish soap — alongside other consumer advocacy work on topics like misleading advertising, class-action lawsuits and exaggerated sale claims.

One recent Mouse Print report explored toilet paper shrinkflation. “Virtually every brand of toilet paper has been downsized over the years,” Dworsky wrote, documenting more than a decade of toilet paper shrinkage.

 Dworsky, 71, is a semiretired lawyer whose career began as a market researcher before he briefly became an on-air consumer reporter for local television alongside a young Bill O’Reilly, the former Fox News personality. Dworsky was “one of the most sincere broadcasters I’ve ever seen,” O’Reilly said recently, adding that Dworsky “wasn’t one of those slick broadcasters trying to sell something.”

At the height of his career, he worked with the Massachusetts attorney general’s office, on his way to becoming a self-employed consumer advocate and possibly the world’s foremost expert on shrinkflation.

 Lately, Dworsky has had his work cut out for him. With inflation at a 40-year high, business owners have been increasingly shrinkflating their products in an attempt to hide price increases.

Companies are doing it out of necessity, said Krishnakumar Davey, president of consumer product goods at IRI, a market research company. “Manufacturers are facing huge costs,” he said, referring to the price of raw ingredients, labor and shipping. “They’re trying to figure out how to balance that.”

 Dworsky works seven days a week from his modest, three-bedroom condo in Somerville, where he lives alone. But for him, thrift is more than a job, it’s a lifestyle. He made less than $7,000 last year, mostly from donations and ad revenue. He gets by on Social Security, his state pension and savings.

He’s quick with one-line zingers about his own frugality: I preach what I practice. Splurge isn’t a word in my vocabulary. People go duck hunting or deer hunting. I’m bargain hunting!

One recent Thursday, Dworsky started his day at 4:45 a.m. with breakfast of a store-bought coffee cake muffin and a glass of apple juice before checking his email and scanning the web for consumer news to include in his newsletter and his other website, Consumer World.

 Then he turned his attention to shrinkflation. Already that day, he had two television interviews lined up to discuss the downsizing of Halloween candy.

In interviews, he’s the same person he is off-camera: simultaneously goofy and serious, affable yet awkward. Dworsky ran through the details of his candy investigations, pointing out that some manufacturers have defended smaller products by saying they have fewer calories. But on Halloween, kids don’t care, he said. “They just want some good candy.

 With inflation rattling the nation, shrinkflation recently drew the attention of television host John Oliver, who noted Dworsky’s quirky TV presence. “News outlets love to cover this, usually with the help of what seems to be the one go-to expert on the topic,” Oliver said, rolling clips of Dworsky emphatically listing examples of downsized products like toothpaste and sports drinks.

“Yeah! You tell ’em, Ed!” Oliver says. “I love everything about that man.”

 

Dworsky’s work has received notice in academic circles as well. Joseph Balagtas, a professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University who has studied shrinkflation, said Dworsky was the only person he was aware of who is documenting the phenomenon. Hitendra Chaturvedi, a supply chain management professor at Arizona State University, said he had turned to Dworsky’s examples to build the data sets for his own research.

Before setting out to investigate the cough syrup tip, Dworsky made himself lunch, a seafood wrap from his bargain-hunted pantry. He can rattle off the prices of virtually everything in it. The imitation crab meat had gone up recently to $5.99 for a 2.5-pound package but was still “a great deal.” The celery set him back $1.50, the most he ever spent on celery, he said.

Then he hit the road. First stop, a Walgreens.

It’s difficult to catch shrinkflation, Dworsky said. But if he’s lucky, he can find examples in stores when new inventory arrives, putting newer and older packages on the same shelf side-by-side.

Dworsky also looks out for clues like “New and improved” on packaging. But most importantly, he examines the weight.

“Look at the products you buy all the time, note what the net weight is,” he said. “When you go back to the store, double check that it’s still the same as your last bag, box or bottle.”

But the case of the cough syrup would be even trickier to investigate, he said, because it’s a possible case of what he calls skimpflation. He would need to examine whether the contents were, in effect, watered down — changing the formulation so that people were paying the same for fewer doses of cough syrup. The tipster had sent in images from a supermarket-brand, similar to Robitussin DM, showing that the adult dose had doubled to 20 milliliters for the new bottle, from 10 milliliters for the old.

Dworsky wondered if other stores’ versions had done the same. He spent nearly two hours visiting five different drugstore chains. He was hoping to find both new and old products at the same pharmacies, to catch them red-handed.

Dworsky is accustomed to being a bit of an outsider. He said he had inherited what he called the “cheap gene” from his father and recalled a childhood spending weekends at his dad’s, playing with his favorite toy, a cardboard supermarket. He’d sit inside and bag up mini boxes of cereal and oatmeal.

 He spent much of his career in consumer education for the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation and as an assistant attorney general in consumer protection.

His boss at the time, Robert Sherman, remembered Dworsky walking into his office in the early 1990s with two packages of deodorant. “What do you see?” he recalled Dworsky asking.

Sherman thought the two packages were exactly the same. But no. “This one has more than the other one, the difference is the size of the cap,” Dworsky said.

 Of course, manufacturers are free to change their product sizes at will. But Dworsky put together an office news release, wanting to spread the word to shoppers that they should look out for sneaky price increases.

It was the birth of his professional focus on shrinkflation.

In interviews with nearly a dozen people who have worked with Dworsky over the years, it’s clear that consumer advocacy is his life’s work. He has never been married, has no children, and at one point, in jest, referred to his shrinkflation discoveries as his family. “All my children are my favorites,” he said. “It’s hard to single out one as the best.”

 Recently, Dworsky has been thinking about his legacy. He believes his biggest impact was writing the Massachusetts food store item pricing law in 1987, which set up rules around price transparency. Currently, he’s fighting against “digital discount” coupons, which he thinks are harder for seniors to access because they require technical skill to use.

His interest in cough syrup continued into November with more research. He plans to reveal his findings on Mouse Print, but in an interview he said he believed it was a case where Robitussin had changed its formula several years ago and its store-brand competitors had just recently followed.

 A spokeswoman for Haleon, the manufacturer of Robitussin, said “While we continually innovate our formulations to meet the evolving needs of consumers, the quality and integrity of our products is always paramount.”

Dworsky worries that consumer advocacy is a dying profession, and gets frustrated at how hard it is to uncover these examples. “There’s kind of almost a resignation that these are so difficult to find,” he said. “It takes someone with an eagle eye.”

But he’s celebrating his cough-syrup findings. “It’s an absolute high,” he said. “I hit gold!”

© 2022 The New York Times Company

Saturday, November 26, 2022

Cigars, Booze, Money

Cigars, Booze, Money: How a Lobbying Blitz Made Sports Betting Ubiquitous by

 

TOPEKA, Kan. — State Rep. John Barker, a cattle breeder, retired judge and chair of one of the most powerful committees in the Kansas Legislature, had a glass of 30-year Redbreast Irish whiskey in his hand and a Don Tomas cigar from Honduras in his mouth.

Both had been passed to him as he entered a party a few blocks from the state Capitol. It was co-sponsored by lobbyists who had recently turned to Barker for help legalizing sports betting in Kansas.

“They keep a special bottle for me up there — they know I like it,” he said of the lobbyists as he surveyed the crowded room. “I’m in my element when I have a whiskey and a cigar.”

 It was the eve of the vote on Barker’s long-debated gambling bill, a muggy spring night in April. This was the latest stop in a relentless nationwide campaign to bring sports betting to tens of millions of mobile phones, in what has been the fastest expansion of legalized gambling in American history.

Less than five years ago, betting on sports in the United States was prohibited under federal law except in Nevada casinos and a smattering of venues in other states. Sports leagues argued that the ban safeguarded the integrity of American sports, while consumer watchdogs warned that legal gambling could turn fans into addicts.

 But in 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal prohibition was unconstitutional.

DraftKings and FanDuel, giants in the fast-growing field of fantasy sports, had already mobilized an army of former regulators and politicians to press for sports betting in state capitals. Soon, in a crucial reversal, sports leagues overcame their antipathy toward gambling, which they came to see as a way to keep increasingly distracted audiences tuned in. Casino companies also hopped on board.

It was a market, the industry hoped, that could be worth billions a year.

 Gambling companies and their allies deployed a bare-knuckled lobbying campaign, showering state lawmakers with money, gifts and visits from sports luminaries and at times using deceptive arguments to extract generous tax breaks and other concessions, according to a New York Times investigation.

 Industry lobbyists dazzled lawmakers with projections about the billions of dollars that states could expect to collect in taxes from sports betting — projections that have often turned out to be wildly inflated, according to a Times analysis.

The results of the lobbying campaign have been stunning: 31 states and Washington, D.C., permit sports gambling either online or in person, and five more have passed laws that will allow such betting in the future.

 

Many of those states did so on terms that were remarkably favorable to the gambling industry.

Few imposed restrictions on companies using promotional offers — such as “risk-free” wagers — to lure neophyte gamblers. Those tactics have been banned in some countries because of their potential to hook people predisposed to compulsive gambling.

The vast and largely unopposed influence of the gambling lobby has been on especially stark display in Topeka this year.

 Lawmakers in Kansas rewarded major political donors, some of whom used networks of shell companies and political action committees to skirt campaign finance laws, with legislative handouts and lucrative licenses.

The same month that Barker was enjoying lobbyists’ cigars and whiskey, he was also inserting provisions into the gambling legislation that would transform an already generous bill into what some supporters acknowledged was an outrageous giveaway.

 And at the industry’s behest, Kansas lawmakers halved the tax rate on gambling companies’ revenue. Even as Kansans placed $350 million of bets this fall, the state collected less than $271,000 in taxes.

“These states have leverage — they are just getting outmaneuvered,” said Joe Weinert, executive vice president at Spectrum Gaming Group, which analyzes the gambling industry. “The legislators have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers to get the maximum amount possible. But these companies are just laughing all the way to the bank.”

 The rapid rise of online sports betting has radically changed how millions of people consume sports and enabled them to legally engage in potentially addictive behavior from the comfort of their living rooms.

In the first half of this year, Americans placed an average of nearly $8 billion per month in legal sports bets, compared with less than $1 billion a month three years earlier, according to SportsHandle, a trade publication.

 The gambling industry views sports betting as a steppingstone to an even loftier ambition: the legalization of online casino gambling, in which Americans would be able to wager on poker and other games anywhere with an internet connection. Six states already permit some so-called iGaming, and lobbyists are pressing more states to follow suit.

“It is time for your state to add iGaming,” Jason Robins, CEO of DraftKings, told lawmakers at a recent conference that his company sponsored. “Not in the future, but now.”

 If you had to pick a moment when the campaign to persuade states to legalize sports betting started taking shape, you might choose the day in 2014 when a lobbyist named Jeremy Kudon heard a radio ad about how people could win a “boatload of money” through fantasy sports.

A sports fanatic, Kudon worked at the international law firm Orrick. His specialty was helping young industries navigate regulatory and legislative challenges in state capitals. Now he was looking for his next fight.

 Fantasy sports had been around for years. But companies such as FanDuel and DraftKings were turning it into a big business by allowing people to stake money on their fantasy teams.

The trouble was that by introducing money into the equation, fantasy sports appeared to be crossing the line into sports gambling, which was illegal in most states.

Kudon pitched FanDuel, whose radio ad he had recently heard, on a strategy to preemptively affirm the legality of its service. FanDuel, founded in 2009, hired him. Next, Kudon signed up DraftKings, which started in 2012.

 We needed a national strategy,” Kudon said in an interview, recalling his thought process at the time. “We need to go out there and pass 10, 15 bills and get ahead of this.”

An early step was to recruit — and pay — experts to argue to state officials that fantasy sports was not gambling.

One expert paid by DraftKings, Abraham Wyner, a University of Pennsylvania statistics professor, testified that in fantasy sports, “players with the most skill will usually and consistently defeat players with less skill.” By that logic, fantasy sports didn’t constitute gambling, which many states defined as a “game of chance.”

 As Kudon pushed to permit fantasy sports, a legal battle was underway in New Jersey that would determine whether his clients and others would be able to offer full-fledged sports betting.

In 2012, then-Gov. Chris Christie, signed a bill to legalize sports betting. The goal was to revitalize Atlantic City, whose once-bustling boardwalk casinos were struggling.

 But the New Jersey act was in open defiance of a federal law that banned sports betting outside Nevada and a few other locations.

The major U.S. sports leagues, as well as the NCAA, sued to strike down New Jersey’s law. They argued that sports betting could cast suspicions on the integrity of athletic competitions.

The Justice Department sided with the leagues in defense of the federal ban.

In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

 

In May 2018, the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on sports gambling, ruling it infringed on states’ rights. It was the moment Kudon and his clients had been preparing for.

They had already been working with lawmakers in numerous states who were eager to hobnob with current and former sports officials who had been star players.

In Kansas, lawmakers had been debating sports gambling since 2018, but betting companies held out for sweeter deals, and the bills stalled.

 By early this year, 30 other states had approved sports betting. Lawmakers in Topeka decided to try one more time.

In the House, the 50-page bill, sponsored by Barker, had the gambling industry’s fingerprints on virtually every page.

One provision ensured that casino companies would get a cut of sports-betting business.

 Another expanded the list of venues where sports betting would be allowed. Among the new sites were a NASCAR racetrack and the stadium of the Sporting Kansas City soccer team.

The racetrack was next to the Hollywood Casino, which in recent years had donated a total of $60,000 to more than a dozen Kansas politicians and state party committees. The casino’s parent company, Penn Entertainment, had hired a fleet of lobbyists to advance the sports-betting bill. Another $150,000 came to lawmakers from other casinos, lawyers and lobbyists tied to the legalization effort, records show.

 Barker stood at the dais at the front of the House chamber. It was just before midnight April 1. He ticked off a few last-minute changes that he and other House leaders had inserted into the sports-betting package.

The changes sounded technical, but they represented lucrative concessions to the gambling industry and key campaign donors.

One new provision would set aside most of the already reduced gambling tax revenue for a special purpose: the construction or renovation of a sports facility for one or more unidentified professional teams.

 On the House floor that night, a lawmaker asked Barker to explain the rationale. “I was asked to carry it by leadership,” he replied.

It was a reference to the House speaker, Ron Ryckman Jr. At a subsequent meeting with his colleagues, Ryckman would say only that the change had come at the request of unspecified “real estate developers,” according to lawmakers who heard his remarks.

Those developers, the Times found, had much to gain.

 The most likely site for the new stadium — envisioned as a possible future home for the Kansas City Chiefs football team, currently located across the Missouri border — was an area west of Kansas City.

The location was already a sports and entertainment hub. Sporting Kansas City’s stadium was there. So were the NASCAR racetrack and the Hollywood Casino.

 Another 400 acres of land there were controlled by Homefield LLC, whose owners included executives with Sporting Kansas City. Those executives were drawing up plans to use the 400 acres for a sports and hotel complex.

Just before the 2020 election, Homefield and a network of related companies routed tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to Ryckman and other legislative leaders, according to campaign disclosures and corporate records.

One other important provision had sneaked into the House bill: a tax break, like those in 18 other states, to let gambling companies deduct at least some “free bets” and other promotions from their taxable income.

The House speaker, the majority leader and Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, had all endorsed the package.

The House passed the bill by one vote. Now it was headed to the Senate.

The Senate vote took place two days later.

The vote was shaping up to be a nail-biter. Critics took to the Senate floor to warn their colleagues about what legalized sports gambling might do to the state’s most vulnerable residents.

 Six Republicans simply voted “present.” Several lobbyists said this was part of their strategy. A number of the “present” senators had secretly agreed to vote “yes” if the bill was falling short of the 21 votes needed for passage. A text message would be sent, and in an instant, their votes would change.

That wouldn’t be necessary. The vote was 21-13.

 

 

Wednesday, November 23, 2022

Sam Bankman-Fried and the Long Road to Taking Crypto Mainstream

The disgraced founder of FTX played on the vanities of the establishment, reassuring V.C. firms and the media that smart-guy insiders like him could save the world.

 In the beginning, there was Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous programmer who created Bitcoin and promised an entire new way of thinking about money—and, by extension, power and politics. But, after it became clear that Nakamoto wasn’t going to appear on some mount and pass his tablets down to the masses, the cryptocurrency world began to yearn for a proper evangelist. The people who have tried to fill that role have mostly been self-appointed, such as Roger Ver, the loud and impassioned former C.E.O. of Bitcoin.com, and the man behind Bitcoin Cash; Vitalik Buterin, the enigmatic and perpetually bemused creator of Ethereum; and the Winklevoss twins, the Facebook-involved duo immortalized in the film “The Social Network,” who started the Gemini exchange and pushed for years for a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund, which they argued would spread the gospel to every brokerage account in America. The reason that the crypto community felt like it needed someone in this role was relatively simple: Internet money requires a leap of faith in a new society. What that particular new world might look like has always been a bit vague, with a few nods to the Austrian School of Economics, or seamless economies that are run entirely on smart contracts. But the pitch to you, the consumer, has always remained the same: In the crypto future, whatever it is, you will be incredibly rich.

In its infancy, in the early twenty-tens, Bitcoin, which came out of anarchic, cypherpunk message-board communities, didn’t require mass proselytizing. Everyone hearing about it was already converted, and the point was to prove that there could be a functional, deflationary currency that could disrupt everything from financial markets to geopolitics. But then some people got pretty rich off of Bitcoin, which then brought in more people who also wanted to get rich. The problem was that everyone couldn’t get rich, so long as a few hackers, some speculators, and libertarians were all just swapping the same dollars around. New money was needed—specifically deep-pocketed institutional money. This period—I’d say it was around 2014—is when the crypto world effectively split into two (although many people moved seamlessly between both sides). One side was still committed to the revolutionary potential of Bitcoin as a way to break up the power of governments that, they believed, arbitrarily controlled the supply and value of money. The other side was trying to give crypto a makeover to make it look appealing to Wall Street, private-equity funds, private-wealth managers, or anyone else who could flood money into the system and drive the price up.

 

Sam Bankman-Fried, the disgraced founder of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX—which went bankrupt this month in one of the most spectacular financial implosions since the Bernie Madoff scandal—was the latest and the most effective crypto messiah, precisely because he did not really seem to take crypto all that seriously. His creation myth has it that, after a very credentialled early life in which he, the son of two Stanford law professors, excelled in his private school, went to M.I.T., and then went off to go work on Wall Street, Bankman-Fried became enamored with effective altruism (E.A.), a somewhat scattered philanthropic philosophy that tries to optimize the good that can be done through charity, but whose members also spend an unusual amount of time worrying about the threats of sentient artificial intelligence. Bankman-Fried decided that he would try to make as much money as he could, in order to give it away in an E.A.-optimized way. He claims that he didn’t know what a blockchain was when he got started in crypto, which, he also said, was a field made up of projects that were mostly “bullshit.” But it also was a means to an end. The world would be better if he, the smartest guy in the room, had more money to distribute, and crypto was the fastest way to get rich. All it took, it turns out, was a series of massively leveraged bets, some hilariously creative bookkeeping, and an abiding belief that the trust in his credentials and in his philanthropic vision would keep people from even peeking under the hood.

What Bankman-Fried stumbled upon, perhaps unwittingly, was the secret to actual crypto evangelism that would convert everyone, from venture-capital firms to the media. To be the crypto evangelist, you couldn’t sell people on the decentralized, libertarian future, because most of the people with lots of money have incentives to maintain the status quo. Instead, you had to convince people that you hated crypto for all the same reasons they did, but that they should invest in it anyway.

I have dabbled in cryptocurrencies since 2017. My friend Aaron Lammer and I made a podcast called “Coin Talk,” where we took a sports-talk-radio approach to all the industry scams, pump and dumps, but also what we saw as the technological and economic potential of Bitcoin, Ethereum, and whatever off-brand coin we had invested in that week. Back then, the crypto space wasn’t as crowded with content as it is today, so we were able brand “Coin Talk” as the show for dumb, crypto-curious normies who wanted to learn (and hopefully get rich) alongside us. Our general ethos at the time was something like “Almost all of this is a money-laundering scam; a small percentage of it is not. But, hey, a lot of people have made fortunes off of money-laundering scams, so why not us?”

Which is to say, we would’ve been the perfect marks for Sam Bankman-Fried’s nonchalant crypto gospel, because it lined up perfectly with both our prior beliefs and our greed. We didn’t have to want the world envisioned by libertarian Bitcoin maximalists, with its deflationary currency and social Darwinian outlook. We could just dabble in it while also poking fun at the scammers, who definitely were not like us in any way.

Crypto investors back then also followed a loose set of rules, one of which was to always look at the credentials of “the team” behind a particular crypto project. Some people took this much more seriously than others, but, for many of us, what it entailed was simply going to a new token’s Web site and scanning the list of founders and engineers and looking for associations that would bring us some amount of comfort, whether it was “Google,” “Apple,” or “Stanford.”

 

I imagine that many credentialled people—tech titans, philosophers, or my colleagues in the media—felt something similar when they decided that Bankman-Fried was somehow different. The past two weeks have seen a parade of journalists and E.A. luminaries coming forward, hat in hand, to apologize and reflect. The list of publications that pushed the Bankman-Fried legend, based in large part on the credentials of his Stanford Law School parents and his M.I.T.-alumni status, included Vox, Bloomberg, the Financial Times, and many more.

 

Consider this credential-packed passage from a relatively balanced and skeptical Times story published in May of this year:

The origins of that pragmatic style can be traced back to his childhood in the Bay Area. Both Mr. Bankman-Fried’s parents are Stanford Law School professors who have studied utilitarianism, an ethical framework that calls for decisions calculated to secure the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. “It’s the kind of thing we’d discuss in the house,” said Mr. Bankman-Fried’s father, Joseph Bankman.

As might be expected for a young man raised on dinner-table discussions of moral theory, Mr. Bankman-Fried is also an admirer of Peter Singer, the Princeton University philosopher widely considered the intellectual father of “effective altruism,” an approach to philanthropy in which donors strategize to maximize the impact of their giving. When Mr. Bankman-Fried was an undergraduate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he had lunch with one of Mr. Singer’s disciples, Will MacAskill, a co-founder of the Centre for Effective Altruism. “He was like, ‘Oh yeah, I was raised as a utilitarian,’ ” Mr. MacAskill recalled. “I didn’t know that happened.”

For anyone checking out “the team,” the entire mix of Bankman-Fried’s appeal can be found here: the litany of prestigious universities, the association with serious thinkers, and the belief in a philosophy that doesn’t set off any ideological alarms. Among the people who wanted to turn Bankman-Fried into an A.T.M., the details added up to the story of a new type of smart guy who believed all the same things they did about crypto, and who was going to change the world.

If that narrative sounds familiar, it’s because it’s become the standard bildungsroman in journalism covering business, tech, and, in some ways, sports. It’s how many journalists talked about Mark Zuckerberg and Paul DePodesta, the Harvard graduate who convinced Billy Beane, the general manager of the Oakland A’s to build his team around analytics and “Moneyball.” In these stories, some young person who went to Harvard is always outsmarting the dumb establishment, the members of which all went to Harvard, too. The addendum is that the world will somehow be a better place if they win.

 

 

A neighbor’s call to police on a little Black girl while she sprayed lanternflies exposes a deeper problem

By and , CNN  

A little girl’s fascination with spotted lanternflies has forced a North New Jersey community to grapple with perceptions of racism and what happens when police are called on Black children.

Nearly a month after a neighbor called police to report 9-year-old Bobbi Wilson, her mother Monique Joseph hopes the incident can spark a deeper dialogue around discrimination and the biases Black and brown children face.

“I want to move ahead with this and turn this into a positive situation. How can a community learn and be better?” Joseph said to CNN Monday. 

 On Oct. 22, Bobbi was walking through her Caldwell, New Jersey, neighborhood, spraying a homemade mixture to kill lanternflies. The 4th-grader had first learned about the spotted lanternfly last summer. Once she found out the invasive species damages trees by feeding on the sap found in leaves and tree trunks, she wanted to stop the infestation. On this fall morning, she was excited to see if the mixture whose recipe she found on Tik Tok would work. 

 

“That’s her thing,” Joseph told CNN. “She’s going to kill the lanternflies, especially if they’re on a tree. That’s what she’s going to do.”

So, when her neighbor’s call led to police stopping and questioning the child, Joseph said she was very confused and upset. In the call, Gordon Lawshe told the dispatcher, “There’s a little Black woman walking, spraying stuff on the sidewalks and trees on Elizabeth and Florence. I don’t know what the hell she’s doing. Scares me, though.”

When asked for a description, Lawshe told the dispatcher that she was a “real tiny woman” and wearing a “hood.” 

 

According to Joseph, Lawshe initially told her that he thought Bobbi was either a “lost little girl” or a “little old lady with dementia.” He immediately apologized, but Joseph couldn’t understand why he’d call the police instead of figuring out himself who the girl was, especially since their families knew each other and have been friendly for years.

Lawshe’s attorney, Gregory Mascera, told CNN in an emailed statement that, “He (Lawshe) did not want to become involved in a confrontation, so he called the Caldwell police to look into the matter. Mr. Lawshe did not call 911 but called the police non-emergency dispatch line. Mr. Lawshe had no reason to believe that he would be putting anyone in harm’s way by calling the police.” 

 According to Mascera, Lawshe attempted to again apologize to Joseph and her daughter the following morning.

“Mr. Lawshe told Mrs. Joseph that had he known that it was her daughter that he had seen, he certainly would not have called the police. Mrs. Joseph did not accept Mr. Lawshe’s apology.” 

 

The ‘adultification’ of Black girls

Joseph points out that, in a country perpetually plagued with police killing unarmed Black and brown children, Lawshe should understand that he put her daughter in harm’s way. They’ve been next-door-neighbors for nearly eight years, so she can’t understand not only how he didn’t recognize Bobbi but also why he’d see a 9-year-old girl as an adult woman.

This incident underscores the “adultification bias” that young Black girls like Bobbi face in American society, Rebecca Epstein, the executive director of the Georgetown Law Center on Poverty and Inequality, told CNN.

In 2017, the center released “Girlhood Interrupted: The Erasure of Black Girls’ Childhood,” a quantitative analysis showing that adults perceive Black girls as less innocent and less worthy of protection than White girls and explaining how this bias subsequently makes Black girls targets of harsh treatment by police. 

 

“It’s a very pervasive form of bias that does not know boundaries, in terms of which fields it occurs in. In emergency rooms, we’re seeing it affect the treatment and diagnosis of Black girls. In schools, we’re seeing it come up in the form of harsher and more frequent discipline against Black girls,” Epstein said in an interview with CNN.

While Epstein noted the police handled the situation with Bobbi extremely well, she also pointed to times where they didn’t – like last year when a Rochester police officer handcuffed a 9-year-old Black girl, put her in the back of a police car, and remarked “you’re acting like a child” before pepper-spraying her as she cried out for her father.

 

There are “statistics that unequivocally show that Black people of whatever age and whatever gender are treated more harshly and violently than white people. And if that’s not known, it should be,” Epstein added.

Joseph said Bobbi has not been the same since that day. She’s confused and still trying to process everything, much like the rest of the family.

“I’m her mom. I’m doing my job to shield her from as much as I can.” But with the continued support comes the constant reminder of her experience being stopped by police.

After the officer realized Bobbi was a child, he waited with her until Joseph came walking down the sidewalk to see what was happening.

 “Am I in trouble?” Joseph recalls Bobbi asking once she arrived. Joseph pulled her daughter close while both she and the officer reassured her that nothing was wrong.

“When she asked that, I knew that while she was holding it in, she was scared,” Joseph said. “I immediately went into mommy mode.” 

 

A community rallies behind Bobbi

John Kelly, the mayor of Caldwell, told CNN he was “horrified” by the incident. He said he immediately apologized to Joseph once he heard about the call and assured her that she and Bobbi had his support.

Kelly said he’s not prepared to label the incident racist, but that he’d be naïve to believe racism does not exist – in Caldwell and nationwide.

“The fact that this was a Black family in a predominately White neighborhood certainly introduced race to the equation,” he said.

Calling the police on a 9-year-old girl, regardless of the race of the individuals, is very troubling, Kelly said. 

 Once the responding officer exited the vehicle, he quickly realized that Bobbi was a preadolescent girl and saw she was only catching lanternflies. This immediately de-escalated the situation, according to Kelly, who was thankful for the police’s handling of the situation.

Later, the West Caldwell Police Department invited Joseph and her daughters to tour the station and assured the family that there’s no reason to be afraid of them.

Joseph says she she’s received a lot of support, and some friends in the area have even set up a GoFundMe to “support Monique, Bobbi and Hayden.” 

 Older sister Hayden, 13, spoke at a city council meeting on Nov. 1 to discuss the racist implications and the emotional impact of Lawshe carelessly calling the police on her 9-year-old sister.

“She was not only doing something amazing for our environment, she was doing something that made her feel like a hero,” Hayden said in her speech to the city council, Bobbi standing right beside her.

“What Mr. Gordon Lawshe did to my sister was extremely offensive, traumatic, and scarring towards my family. I can confidently assure you guys that she will never forget this,” she added. 

 

The Caldwell Environmental Commission voted unanimously to award Bobbi one of their annual Sustainability Awards – given to those who have helped to better the town’s environment – once they heard about Bobbi’s mission to save the neighborhood trees from lanternflies. They plan to formally grant her the award during the Dec. 6 city council meeting.

“Bobbi Wilson is a recipient of this award this year as she has tried very hard to eradicate lantern flies from the trees on her street. We are very proud of her efforts and are happy to give her this certificate to recognize her efforts,” they said in an emailed statement to CNN.

After clips of the council meeting went viral on social media, the family began receiving national support from people like science writer Jason Bittel and Ijeoma Opara, an assistant professor at Yale. 

 

Bittel is a freelance writer whose articles on scientific studies and human-animal conflicts have been published in The New York Times and The Washington Post. Last month National Geographic published a story he wrote on spotted lanternflies. He told

CNN he was outraged about Bobbi’s story and wanted to send her free copies of the science-related children’s books that he’s written.

“This, to me, was the worst possible affront to that little bit of wonder that she was experiencing,” Bittel said.

Bittel also organized a Twitter campaign seeking donations to Bobbi of science books, animal stickers, and other biology-related swag.

“People just want to make sure that this little budding naturalist, scientist, chemist … that she doesn’t lose her spark,” Bittel said

 Joseph told CNN that Bobbi reads every single night, so she’s “really excited” about receiving the books from Bittel and his associates. Opara is an assistant professor at the Yale School of Public Health, and she runs the “Black Girls Go to Yale” program. She invited Bobbi and her family to Yale University and gave them a tour of the institution on Nov. 15.

During the tour, to the surprise of even Opara, Yale Entomology announced they’ll ensure Bobbi’s name is always attributed to the lantern flies or any other specimens she contributes, according to the Entomology Collections Manager of the Yale Peabody Museum. 

“It’s beautiful to be able to replace that memory of somebody calling the cops on her for doing something that she was excited about to now people clapping, awarding her,” Opara said.

“They don’t want her to lose her fire and her passion for doing this work.”

 

Friday, November 18, 2022

Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files By Philip Shenon 11/15/2022

 In 2013, the CIA’s in-house historian concluded that the spy agency had conducted a “benign cover-up” during the Warren Commission’s investigation in 1963 and 1964 in hopes of keeping the commission focused on “what the Agency believed was the ‘best truth’ — that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy.”

Other government agencies have offered different justifications for withholding information in the still-classified assassination files, the newly disclosed Archives correspondence shows.

 The Defense Department told the Archives in 2018 that it would continue to black out portions of 256 classified Pentagon documents since they identify “active U.S. war plans, foreign government information, sensitive nuclear weapons information and U.S. prisoner of war personal and debriefing information.” Even so, the Pentagon assured the Archives, “the records identified are not directly related to the assassination.”

 

In its 2018 correspondence with the Archives, the State Department requested that portions of 31 documents be kept secret because of “national security and foreign affairs concerns,” although it noted that “none of the department’s redactions relate directly to the JFK assassination.”

The correspondence shows that the Archives, which has housed the assassination records for decades, has long warned the CIA, FBI and other agencies that they are failing to abide by requirements of the 1992 law, which allowed JFK-assassination information to remain classified only if there was “clear and convincing evidence” of a “substantial risk of harm” to national security or foreign policy.

 In a memo in August 2017, William J. Bosanko, chief operating officer of the National Archives, protested the FBI’s decision to continue to withhold the names of confidential sources from the 1960’s, especially those that came directly out of the case files on Oswald and Ruby. “These files clearly relate directly to the assassination,” he said. Besides, he noted, “it is difficult to imagine circumstances under which an individual could be harmed by the release of their name in a file in the JFK collection.

 But the protests by the Archives were overruled at the last minute by Trump. His decision in October 2017 to waive the deadline surprised many in the government since the former president has been an enthusiastic conspiracy theorist for decades, including about the Kennedy assassination, and had once promised “great transparency” in releasing the documents.

 During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly promoted a conspiracy theory that the father of one of his Republican opponents, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, was somehow tied to the assassination — a claim, denied by the Cruz family, based on a grainy 1963 photograph that showed Oswald standing next to a man who resembled Cruz’s father as both handed out fliers supporting Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

 In deciding to withhold thousands of documents, Trump said he was convinced they contained information about national security and foreign policy “of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure.” But he offered no specifics about his reasoning; nor did the CIA, the FBI and other agencies that urged him to block the release.

 Under the 1992 law, only the sitting president of the United States has the power to withhold documents beyond the 2017 deadline, which means the power now rests entirely with President Biden. Last October, Biden ordered the archives to begin a comprehensive review of the still-classified records, with a goal of releasing as many as possible by a new deadline of this Dec. 15.

 But his written order disappointed many historians and assassination researchers since Biden, like Trump, left open the possibility that some documents will remain classified forever. Biden’s order, drawing on the wording of the 1992 law, said he would allow documents to be withheld if their release might do “identifiable harm” to “military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the condition of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”

 The National Archives said in a statement to POLITICO Magazine that it had recently completed its review of the still-classified material and provided its recommendations to President Biden about which documents should be released on Dec. 15.

 Bosanko, the Archives official overseeing the project, said in an interview that the recent interagency review of the JFK documents had been the most intensive in decades, involving a page-to-page inspection, with the CIA, FBI and other agencies pressed to justify why any information — including individual names and addresses — should continue to be withheld from the public: “We looked at every single redaction in these documents.” He said his team is continuing to negotiate with the CIA and other agencies this month in hopes of convincing them — before the Dec. 15 deadline set by the White House — to lift their opposition to releasing some of the still-classified material.

 A spokeswoman for the CIA said the agency was working closely with the Archives with the goal of “releasing as much information in the public interest as possible, consistent with the need to prevent harm to intelligence operations.” At the time of the 2017 deadline, the CIA had withheld 250 records in full and redacted information from about 15,000 other documents – in some cases, just a few names or other words on a single page, in other cases, whole blocks of text. The CIA spokeswoman said that, as a result of declassification efforts since 2017, the agency is no longer withholding any documents in full.

 

The FBI did not respond to requests for comment about the status of its still-classified assassination records.

Archives officials and others in the government have cautioned for years that the public should not expect to find bombshells in the still-secret documents – at least no bombshells that can be easily detected. Many of the previously declassified CIA and FBI files were full of bureaucratic jargon, codenames and obscure foreign names and addresses that made them incomprehensible at first, even for experienced researchers.

 And no matter what Biden decides, about 500 documents and other items in the collection will remain secret, since the 1992 law exempts them from public release. Among them are documents produced by federal grand juries and by the Internal Revenue Service, including the tax and employment records of Oswald, Ruby and many of their associates.

 It also includes tape recordings of six interviews conducted in 1964 with Jacqueline Kennedy and former Attorney General Robert Kennedy by the journalist William Manchester, who was authorized by the Kennedy family to write a history of the assassination. Those tapes were turned over to the Archives by the Kennedy family in exchange for an agreement they would not be made public until 2067 — the 100th anniversary of the publication of Manchester’s bestselling book The Death of a President. The law also exempted the public release of what the Archives index describes as five “very personal letters” that Mrs. Kennedy wrote to President Johnson, including at least three she sent to him in the week after the assassination.

 What might be on Manchester’s tapes has long tantalized historians and assassination researchers. He later wrote in his memoirs that he recorded 10 hours of wrenching conversations with Mrs. Kennedy, in which she offered a detailed account of events in the days surrounding the assassination, including a description of the horrifying scene inside the president’s limousine as the shots rang out in Dealey Plaza. “She withheld nothing,” he wrote. The interviews in Mrs. Kennedy’s home in Georgetown were bearable only because of the cocktails they drank throughout, he suggested. “Future historians may be puzzled by the odd clunking noises on the tapes,” Manchester wrote. “They were ice cubes. The only way we could get through those long evenings was with the aid of great containers of daiquiris.”

 

 

Thursday, November 10, 2022

How local leaders can prepare a workforce of the future :Lavea Brachman and Malia Xie Thursday, November 10, 2022

Despite the massive volume of funding currently flowing from multiple federal bills passed to invest in place and the national economy, officials in Washington, D.C. acknowledge a relatively small portion is directly earmarked for workforce training systems. This is despite the fact that high-functioning workforce training systems are core to enhanced economic mobility and community wealth-building.

In this period of a tight labor markets and changing in-demand skills, there s a strong imperative to generate as large and nimble workforce as possible. Doing so not only would address unfilled pre-pandemic jobs, but also fill the many jobs being created with new infrastructure investments and place-based expansions in advanced manufacturing and tech-based growth sectors (e.g., semiconductor and electric vehicle industries), among others. An unusual window of opportunity now exists for local, regional, and state workforce development leaders to upgrade and transform their training programs and talent pipelines—or risk falling behind. Systems that remain stuck in the status quo will fall short of meeting new employment needs and lose out in this competitive environment.

 With this in mind, Brookings Metro recently assembled four top federal officials for a cross-agency discussion focused on the recent federal bills (the American Rescue Plan Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, CHIPS and Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act) and their impacts on workforce development systems across the country. Convened as part of Metro’s Transforming Cities Lab, federal officials from the U.S. Departments of Labor, Commerce, Energy, and Transportation discussed their inter-agency efforts to streamline workforce funding and enable regional workforce leaders to better prepare workers for new jobs created by historic levels of federal investment.

 Three takeaways on the transformation of workforce systems and talent pipelines

Despite better alignment at the federal level on outcomes and priorities, a lack of coordination on funding delivery poses a host of practical challenges on local and state workforce entities, on top of the many normal bureaucratic burdens often synonymous with federal funds. Moreover, the new federal resources explicitly dedicated to workforce entities and workforce development are woefully insufficient. For instance, in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), only a few relatively small grants are dedicated to workforce funding. This means that, generally, investing in workforce is permissible but not explicit—so it will be up to eligible local transportation agencies and infrastructure entities (e.g., utilities) to allocate resources in the workforce area.

 During the Transforming Cities Lab panel, Kevin Gallagher, senior advisor to the secretary of the Department of Commerce, acknowledged the difficulty of navigating multiple federal funding

streams, but also their powerful potential for spurring innovation and change: “Each of these programs has its own statutory authorization, own requirements, own timelines. Much of this funding has come in waves…and I don’t think that in and of itself is new. What I would say is new…is the level of consistency and prioritization” around quality job creation, enhanced workforce partnerships and plans, and diversity and equity.

As workforce system leaders seize this chance to reimagine and strengthen their systems, three takeaways from the Transforming Cities Lab panel can guide them: 1) collaborate through silo-busting; 2) plan for the long term; and 3) innovate and build on existing assets and relationships. Cutting across these takeaways is centering diversity and equity, as well as increasing access to training programs that set workers up for both employment now and further career opportunities in the long term.

Collaborate through silo-busting

To take full advantage of the new funding as well as the opportunities for innovation, workforce agencies will need to collaborate both vertically and horizontally in new ways. This requires the breaking down of traditional government and policy silos that interfere with pursuing larger, common goals.

 Competitive grant funds are the main avenue for federal officials to fund workforce efforts, and the Department of Transportation will disperse about $125 billion in competitive grants (of their total $650 billion in the IIJA). The department aims to use these grants to enhance regional collaboration and undertake the “silo-busting” needed to achieve the increased collaboration and planning that these new circumstances and funding call for.

Much of this funding will pass through states. However, labor markets are regional in nature, which means that states are not the ideal geography in which to undertake workforce planning. Stronger vertical relationships—between state and local governments and nonprofits—will therefore be crucial, as local governments and nonprofits are ultimately better positioned to generate effective programs that can lead to long-term impacts.

 Furthermore, typical regional workforce planning efforts do not have the resources for full wraparound services, which are critical for low-income residents to access quality jobs. States can use their own resources to support wraparound programs that may not be eligible for federal funding, but can also enhance the outcomes of these efforts by making them more appealing for competitive federal dollars overall. These wraparound programs (e.g., child care, career counseling) removing barriers for certain populations, setting them up to participate in skill-building and the talent pipeline.

 Silo-busting also needs to occur horizontally, among unions, nonprofits, transportation agencies, other infrastructure employers, and the public sector. For instance, the IIJA is funding billions of dollars of infrastructure projects, primarily overseen by local and state transportation

agencies that have rarely, if ever, needed to coordinate directly with state and local workforce agencies or departments. And states can deploy some tools to encourage more horizontal integration, such as including local workforce considerations in infrastructure initiatives or funding workforce planning initiatives.

 Such multi-stakeholder processes are challenging, but not impossible. In Ramsey County, Minn., for instance, the local workforce board is leveraging its Construction-Green Jobs Committee, chaired by the Saint Paul Building and Construction Trades Council and comprised of both union and non-union representatives. The committee is assessing the ecosystem from a broader perspective to reimagine a better and more sustainable economy and agree on fundamental principles to support strong and equitable programs, such as the Inclusive Construction Training Program, which utilizes new federal funding opportunities.

 During the panel, Betony Jones, director of the Office of Energy Jobs at the Department of Energy, endorsed this type of coordination among stakeholders spanning workforce and infrastructure: “Twenty percent of the [competitive grant] points are set aside for plans that address quality job creation, workforce partnership, diversity, equity, inclusion, and access…Applicants are much less likely to receive DOE funding if they aren’t addressing those things.”

 Plan for the long term

The COVID-19 pandemic forced local leaders to craft emergency responses on very short timelines to utilize resources from the CARES Act and their first tranche of American Rescue Plan Act funding. Now, with large infrastructure grants, the multiyear timelines between when funding is awarded and project groundbreaking allow for longer planning times.

 During the Transforming Cities Lab panel, federal officials advised local leaders to take the time to understand funding opportunities and how they can be paired with local labor force demands. They encouraged analysts to use data to plan backward—accounting for the attrition in workers predating the pandemic—while also looking forward to prepare their workforce for future opportunities created by new infrastructure projects. Lenita Jacobs-Simmons, deputy assistant secretary for the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration, observed that the department is working with the Commerce and Transportation departments and “want to see state and local workforce plans incorporate these funding opportunities, infrastructure initiatives, commerce initiatives, and sector strategies.”

 Longer time horizons create more possibilities for upskilling and reskilling existing workers for new jobs and repositioning workforce training talent pipelines to serve workers and employers in an evolving job market. For example, programs could provide broad occupational training, so that electricians, pipefitters, or plumbers can convert their skills to solar installers in the energy sector and gain experience to boost their broader career pathway opportunities, including taking on management roles.

 Innovate and build on existing assets and relationships

While there is time to plan, regional leaders do not have the time or resources to create everything from scratch. Leveraging existing programs and leaders in this space will be critical. Workforce boards are designed to house and lead multisector collaboratives that address workforce needs holistically, such as what the Workforce Innovation Board of Ramsey County, Minn. (in partnership with the city of Saint Paul) or EmployIndy (serving Marion County, Ind.) have been doing. Transportation authorities as well as utilities and other infrastructure employers also hold significant power through their funding flows and roles as employers, and thus can exert meaningful influence on the workforce system. For instance, if more transportation entities were to adopt policies that required a minimum percentage of their workforce to come through registered apprenticeship programs or implemented local hiring preferences, it could reap positive rewards for the system overall.

 While funded projects will have lasting impacts on communities, equally important are the partnerships that will outlast the funding and changes in administrations. The Transforming Cities Lab panelists talked of how they are working to institutionalize the more collaborative way they are working across agencies. Similar to this federal-level collaboration, states and local governments can also build relationships that outlast any one project and become the basis for redesigning their approach to future complex, large-scale projects that require buy-in from a range of stakeholders.

 Scaling a workforce system takes immense capacity that many smaller localities simply do not have. To reach all communities in equitable ways, states, counties, and metropolitan planning organizations need to step in to provide added capacity in the places that currently have the fewest resources to apply for funding and meet compliance expectations. Each state has infrastructure coordinators. What would it look like for counties or regions to create similar local coordinator roles?

 Workforce is a shared responsibility and can be a powerful connector. A spectrum of workforce system players should be brought to the table—not just because of the resources they bring, but more importantly, because of the connections they facilitate. Coming together now ensures that the nation is prepared for this rare opportunity to improve its infrastructure, advance clean energy, and enhance the lives of the millions of workers who will do this work.

Ohio man kills neighbor because ‘he thought he was a Democrat’

 

A southwest Ohio man was killed by a neighbor who “thought he was a Democrat,” according to the victim’s shocked widow.

Austin Gene Combs confessed to shooting Anthony Lee King “several times with a revolver” while the 43-year-old victim and his wife were doing yardwork shortly before noon on Saturday, The Journal News reports.

 The victim’s son called police to report the 26-year-old alleged shooter had come over “multiple times making statements” before killing his father in their Okeana, Ohio backyard.

“He’s insane,” the boy told a dispatcher, according to the Journal.

The victim’s wife reportedly told the dispatcher, “He has come over like four times confronting my husband because he thought he was a Democrat.”

She added that Combs had approached the victim four times before opening fire as she struggled to understand what had just happened.

 

A southwest Ohio man was killed by a neighbor who “thought he was a Democrat,” according to the victim’s shocked widow.

Austin Gene Combs confessed to shooting Anthony Lee King “several times with a revolver” while the 43-year-old victim and his wife were doing yardwork shortly before noon on Saturday, The Journal News reports.

The victim’s son called police to report the 26-year-old alleged shooter had come over “multiple times making statements” before killing his father in their Okeana, Ohio backyard.

“He’s insane,” the boy told a dispatcher, according to the Journal.

The victim’s wife reportedly told the dispatcher, “He has come over like four times confronting my husband because he thought he was a Democrat.”

She added that Combs had approached the victim four times before opening fire as she struggled to understand what had just happened.

“Why?” the woman asked. “Please, I don’t understand.”

The killing reportedly occurred when King’s wife came indoors to let the dog come inside. She heard gunshots, then saw Combs walking away as her husband laid dead.

The Journal News said Combs was booked on a murder charge and is being held on $950,000 bond in the Butler County Jail. He will appear in court Thursday.

 Political violence leading up to Tuesday’s midterm elections has crossed party lines.

The husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was attacked in his home by an alleged hammer-wielding conspiracy theorist who falsely believed the 2020 presidential election was rigged. Prominent Republicans including Donald Trump Jr., whose father lost that election, joked about the assault on social media.

In late September, A North Dakota man was charged with using his automobile to kill an 18-year-old he believed to be part of a “Republican extremist group,” according to Law & Crime, which reports that killing followed a debate over politics.