Peak Blame, scapegoats, minority voter suppression and faith based voting machines
related pages: Trump vs. the Deep State interview Jan. 20 2017 - 2004 Stolen Election - faith based voting machines
- Peak Blame
- Red shift - exit polls for Clinton, voting machines for Trump
- Obama's gift to Trump: supersized NSA
- Nuclear Codes
- Trump & Clintons
- the "F" word: FASCISM
- neo-cons against Trump
- dirty money
Trump's alleged win is a manifestation of Peak Blame as energy depletion and the limits to growth continue to wreck the economy outside of hot spots such as Washington, D.C., New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Trump's success in the Rust Belt of Ohio and Michigan is a consequence of the Clintons promotion of the disastrous NAFTA treaty, something the Democratic Party needs to consider in their electoral post-mortem if they hope to ever hold national office again.
The Democratic Party's post election autopsy report needs to think about how corporate and intel forces took over their party. A better candidate would have trounced Trump. And we're entering the new era of Peak Blame, although we're probably nowhere near that Peak. Trump is a sign of the scapegoating likely to happen as energy depletion shatters the growth dependent economy. I hope to be wrong.
The late Leonard Cohen said there's a war between those who say there's a war and those who say there's not.
The deep state is split.
Some wanted Trump. Some did not.
My guess is the elites letting Team Trump rig the election with faith based voting machines and blocking minorities from voting means the fracking crash is going to happen faster than our rulers expected, he will be able to implement nastiness in response and take the blame for the economic impact. Never Trumpers may be hoping to say they were against what the new President did, while continuing to keep the new policies after he leaves the White House to go back to Trump Tower, just as the two parties kept the surveillance state Bush the Lesser presided over after he left office less popular than Richard Nixon after Watergate.
Texas oil spiked back up to the 1972 peak levels due to fracking but that is now going back down due to debt and depletion. North Dakota became the second largest producing state, that increase has also reversed, dropping a quarter since peak a little over a year ago. The Alaska Pipeline is dwindling toward low flow shutdown, having dropped more than three fourths since the 1988 peak.
My fear is the "stop drilling" environmentalists will get the blame for the oil shortage. Fracking delayed rationing and gave Obama two terms. Energy literacy about depletion and widespread permaculture relocation / transition town logistics could be the antidote to scapegoating, but that would require recognizing limits to growth on a finite planet, which conflicts with a monetary system based on the cancer-like paradigm of endless growth. Economic contraction causing social suffering usually leads to demagogues more than community cooperation.
Weimar America just ended.
President Donald J. Trump
we lose either way
"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people"
-- H L Mencken
economic collapse: why Trump is popular
David Brower, one of the greatest environmental advocates of the twentieth century, said in 1996 that the Clinton Gore administration had undermined more environmental laws than Raygun and Bush, because the environmental groups didn't dare oppose Democrats. I don't think things need to get worse to get better, but I hope the foundation funded NGOs will summon some courage to talk about Trump's election theft.
Few voices are calling attention to the strategic difference between the exit polls for Clinton versus the voting machines for Trump. The fact that elections can be altered through unaccountable ballot counters is a taboo topic for the liberal establishment, a reason they and we lose.
update: late November, early December: The Green Party filed for hand counting of ballots in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. One of the best places to stay current on election fraud is the Bradcast daily broadcast at www.bradblog.com
In a 2012 Twitter post, Trump called the Electoral College “a disaster for a democracy.”
Greg Palast and Mark Crispin Miller -- the Republicans stole the Presidential election, just like in 2004
Palast and Miller in the media - in Canada
If Pollsters Were So Off-the-Mark, Then Why Do the Final Poll Forecasts Better Match the Exit Polls than the Vote Results?
NOVEMBER 18, 2016 / QUESTION2016BLOG
Here’s a basic question: If pollsters were so wrong, as we’ve learned on that fateful election night, then why do the final pre-election forecasts more closely match the post-election exit polls? The reported vote results in this election often diverge significantly from the exit polls, and this is especially the case concerning states that surprisingly flipped expectations, such as Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
Talk Nation Radio: Greg Palast on Stripping 7 Million Voters from Rolls, Swinging Election
Greg Palast is an investigative reporter, whose news-breaking stories appear on BBC Television and in The Guardian and Rolling Stone Magazine. Palast has released a new movie: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: A Tale of Billionaires and Ballot Bandits, based on his books. Palast says that the recent U.S. election was in fact rigged. We discuss how.
Total run time: 29:00
Host: David Swanson.
Producer: David Swanson.
Music by Duke Ellington.
A Fair Election? Serious, Hard-to-Explain Questions Arise About Trump Vote Totals in 3 Key States
Voting rights advocates are scrambling to see if recounts are feasible in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
By Steven Rosenfeld / AlterNet November 18, 2016
A series of explanation-defying questions surrounding Donald Trump’s victories in key 2016 swing states has prompted a cadre of voting rights attorneys and electronic voting machine experts to consider formally filing for presidential recounts in coming days.
These recount-justifying anomalies go beyond the discrepancies in media exit polls predicting a Hillary Clinton victory on November 8 and subsequent vote counts where Trump won states that have not backed Republican presidents for decades. Recounts could clarify or verify whether several different forms of electronic hacking could have padded state voter rolls and altered resulting counts. ....
Did the GOP Strip & Flip the 2016 Selection?
by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman
NOVEMBER 18, 2016
Hillary Clinton's margin of victory in the 2016 vote count continues to climb, at this point well over a million.
But her impending defeat in the Electoral College comes with familiar signs that the election was stripped and flipped.
These indicators include the realities of pre- and post-election polling; the massive stripping of primarily black, Hispanic and Asian-American voters from computer generated registration rolls mostly maintained by private partisan companies; unverifiable "black box" electronic voting machines and central tabulators, also mostly manufactured and maintained by private corporations, and much more.
Were this election held in any other country, the US State Department and independent monitors from around the world would denounce it as a fraud, and contemplate international intervention. ....
Something Stinks When Exit Polls and Official Counts Don't Match
A discussion with an exit poll expert reveals an electoral house of cards.
By Steven Rosenfeld / AlterNet November 14, 2016
Media exit polls in last Tuesday's election suggested Democrats were going to win the White House and the Senate, yet the reported vote counts brought a GOP landslide. While theories abound about what happened, election integrity activists say the exit poll descrepancy underscores the need for a far more transparent and accountable process. AlterNet's Steven Rosenfeld interviewed Jonathan Simon, a longtime exit poll sleuth and author of Code Red: Computerized Election Theft and the New American Century. Simon explains why exit polls are a critical clue in the breakdown of the voting process. ....
BREAKING: New Proof The Election Was Rigged Against Democrats!
Nov 9, 2016
I just talked with two election experts –Greg Palast and Mark Crispin Miller – both incredibly accomplished in their fields. They agreed that this election was indeed rigged, and even though it has been Donald Trump spouting off about election rigging, perhaps he didn’t realize that the machinery was in place to rig it in HIS FAVOR. Greg Palast estimates that 1.1 MILLION people, mainly minorities, were knocked off the voting rolls in swing states using a system called “Cross Check.” That system accuses people of being “double voters” even though there is absolutely no proof. Cross Check is used in 30 Republican-led states. On top of that, Palast discovered that ballot protection software on the new Ohio voting machines was TURNED OFF. Election law expert Bob Fitrakis actually took Ohio to court last week to make sure the ballot protection software be turned ON. However, the judge sided with the state and said to leave it OFF on election day!
Professor Mark Crispin Miller agrees with Palast, saying that this election was stolen from the Democrats in a similar fashion to 2000 and 2004. And this is not coming from a fan of Hillary Clinton. Miller pointed out that Hillary Clinton is a neo-liberal who was intent on continuing to gut the social safety net and allowing the big banks to run wild. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a fair election. Furthermore, this is not just about the Presidency. This election theft impacts congressional and gubernatorial races as well.
I strongly believe that if Hillary Clinton – and the corporate Democrats in general – had ACTUALLY stood for something, then people would’ve had a reason to stand with them. This is why Bernie Sanders would’ve won this election easily. (He would’ve beat the margin that was stolen.) People believed what Bernie Sanders said, and that’s why he attracted an enthusiastic following. Even most Hillary voters didn’t take her at her word. Her actions proved that she supports trade deals, supports war, supports weapons contractors, supports oil and gas, and supports the big banks. If the left ever wants to win again, they need to start TRULY standing for something, rather than just feeding people lies while enriching themselves.
The two interviews mentioned above will air tomorrow night on Redacted Tonight: VIP. At 6pm ET tomorrow they’ll also be posted to YouTube.com/RedactedTonight.
[my guess is Trump understood the rigging machinery was rigged in his favor. It's a common tactic to accuse one's opponents of the crime one is planning, a form of psychological projection.]
If voting machines also shifted three Senate races - ranging from the very good Russ Feingold (only Senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act) to the awful Katie McGinty in Pennsylvania (who presided over pro-pollution policies while director of the White House Council on Environmental Quality from 1993 - 2001) - then the Democrats won majority control of the Senate, even though they don't dare challenge the rigged results.
Saying to Trump that US elections are not ever rigged was an enormous mistake.
Obama's gift to Trump: supersized NSA
What horrors could be in store for us under President Trump? Plenty | Trevor Timm
Trump will have a vast national security and military apparatus at his disposal, including a nuclear arsenal, to wreak havoc in the US and abroad
Wednesday 9 November 2016 07.00 EST
In a little over two months, Donald Trump – after his shocking victory last night – will control a vast, unaccountable national security and military apparatus unparalleled in world history. The nightmare that civil libertarians have warned of for years has now tragically come true: instead of dismantling the surveillance state and war machine, the Obama administration and Democrats institutionalised it – and it will soon be in the hands of a maniac.
It will go down in history as perhaps President Obama’s most catastrophic mistake.
The Obama administration could have prosecuted torturers and war criminals in the Bush administration and sent an unmistakable message to the world: torture is illegal and unconscionable. Instead the president said they would “look forward, not backward”, basically turning a clear felony into a policy dispute. Donald Trump has bragged that he will bring back torture – waterboarding and “much worse”. He has talked about killing the innocent family members of terrorists, openly telling the world he will commit war crimes.
Now that Trump will take the reins of our various Middle East wars in January, who’s going to stop him from following through on his heinous proposals?
Obama promised to close the stain on our Bill of Rights known as Guantánamo prison in his first week in office. Yet to this day, it remains open, with dozens of prisoners still in legal limbo after being held without charge for almost 15 years. Not only has Trump pledged to keep it open, he has said he is “fine” with sending US citizens arrested on US soil to face unconstitutional military commissions.
Obama, who once campaigned against government secrecy and the NSA’s mass spying powers, instead entrenched the agency’s incredible surveillance apparatus when he came into office and then defended it in the face of the Snowden revelations. Modest changes were enacted due to public pressure, but the surveillance state as we know it remains.
The argument went: yes, we have these powers that are almost exclusively exercised in complete secrecy, but they are only used judiciously. “Trust us,” they said.
Now the president’s ability to potentially spy on countless Americans who are suspected of no crime is in the hands of a person who has already been accused of listening to the phone calls of his own employees, and who the New York Times said just this week, “privately muses about all the ways he will punish his enemies after election day”. Trump has even previously said, in response to a question about the ability to hack his political enemies: “I wish I had that power. Man, that would be power.”
The Bush administration’s secret and unaccountable CIA drone programme has only been further entrenched under the Obama administration. It has dropped bombs in more than half a dozen countries, and even asserted the legal authority to kill US citizens abroad without due process. At the same time, the White House – with the help of a spineless House of Representatives and Senate – has dramatically expanded the president’s authority to unilaterally wage war all over the world without Congress having declared war, as the constitution requires. Trump, who has promised to “bomb the shit out of” Middle East countries and can be goaded into fits of rage by any perceived slight, will soon be in control of that awesome power as well.
Perhaps worse, Trump will also be in charge of a terrifying nuclear arsenal, which he alone can activate. While the blame for continuing to sit on a large nuclear stockpile that could destroy the world traces back generations, President Obama promised to work towards a nuclear-free world, yet has shrunk the US arsenal less than any modern president. He was also rebuffed by his entire national security team when he proposed even modest changes to the system a few months ago.
What horrors are in store for us during the reign of President Trump is anyone’s guess, but he will have all the tools at his disposal to wreak havoc on our rights here at home and countless lives of those abroad. We should have seen this coming, and we should have put in place the safeguards to limit the damage.
And now it might be too late.
Commander-In-Chief Donald Trump Will Have Terrifying Powers. Thanks, Obama.
November 11 2016, 12:39 p.m.
WHEN DONALD TRUMP becomes commander in chief in January, he will take on presidential powers that have never been more expansive and unchecked.
He’ll control an unaccountable drone program, and the prison at Guantanamo Bay. His FBI, including a network of 15,000 paid informants, already has a record of spying on mosques and activists, and his NSA’s surveillance empire is ubiquitous and governed by arcane rules, most of which remain secret. He will inherit bombing campaigns in seven Muslim countries, the de facto ability to declare war unilaterally, and a massive nuclear arsenal — much of which is on hair-trigger alert.
Caught off guard by Hillary Clinton’s election defeat, Democrats who defended these powers under President Obama may suddenly be having second thoughts as the White House gets handed over to a man they described — with good reason — as “unhinged,” and “dangerously unfit.”
In the years after the 9/11 terror attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney and his legal adviser David Addington dramatically expanded the powers of the presidency, asserting the unilateral right in wartime to ignore legal limits on things like torture and government eavesdropping. Congressional Democrats generally caved, but made a few efforts to push back.
The Democrats went silent on executive overreach when Obama was elected, however.
When the New York Times revealed Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program in 2005, 60 percent of registered Democrats thought the program was “unacceptable.” But after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed a dramatically larger surveillance apparatus in 2013, a 61 percent of Democrats said the opposite — presumably because they trusted the man in charge. ....
Pentagon bracing for public dissent over climate and energy shocks
NSA Prism is motivated in part by fears that environmentally-linked disasters could spur anti-government activism
Posted by Nafeez Ahmed
Friday 14 June 2013
By using the NSA to spy on American citizens, Binney told me, the United States has created a police state with few parallels in history: "It's better than anything that the KGB, the Stasi, or the Gestapo and SS ever had." He compared the situation to the Weimar Republic, a brief period of liberal democracy that preceded the Nazi takeover of Germany. "We're just waiting to turn the key," he said.
Obama's Crackdown on Whistleblowers
The NSA Four reveal how a toxic mix of cronyism and fraud blinded the agency before 9/11.
Tim Shorrock March 26, 2013 | This article appeared in the April 15, 2013 edition of The Nation
"that [surveillance] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such [is] the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology ...
"I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency [NSA] and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
-- Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho), 1975
NSA's warning systems not used during 9/11 to warn the President
Fourth Amendment, United States Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What would it mean to have Trump’s fingers on the nuclear button? We don't really know, but we do know this: In the atomic age, when decisions must be made very quickly, the presidency has evolved into something akin to a nuclear monarchy. With a single phone call, the commander in chief has virtually unlimited power to rain down nuclear weapons on any adversarial regime and country at any time. You might imagine this awesome executive power would be hamstrung with checks and balances, but by law, custom and congressional deference there may be no responsibility where the president has more absolute control. There is no advice and consent by the Senate. There is no second-guessing by the Supreme Court. Even ordering the use of torture—which Trump infamously once said he would do, insisting the military “won’t refuse. They’re not gonna refuse me”—imposes more legal constraints on a president than ordering a nuclear attack. ....
Although no president during the atomic age appears to have ever lost his grip on reality to such an extent that an insane nuclear act might have resulted, top advisers to President Richard Nixon tried to constrain his launch authority during the Watergate scandal that ultimately forced his resignation. His secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger, quietly instructed the Pentagon war room to double check with him if Nixon contacted it to order up a nuclear strike. Nixon’s mental stability, and his heavy drinking, caused concern within his inner circle that he might behave erratically out of despair and depression.
The Economist: Donald Trump and the nuclear codes
Mr Trump will soon control America’s nuclear codes
Nov 12th 2016 | From the print edition
IN A ritual out of sight of the cameras on Inauguration Day in January, America’s “nuclear briefcase” will change hands and President Donald Trump will receive a card, sometimes known as the “biscuit”. The card, which identifies him as commander-in-chief, has on it the nuclear codes that are used to authenticate an order to launch a nuclear attack. At that point, should he wish, Mr Trump can launch any or all of America’s 2,000 strategic nuclear missiles.
There are no constitutional restraints on his power to do so. Even if all his advisers have counselled against it, as long it is clearly the president giving the command, the order must be carried out. There are no checks and balances in the system. Moreover, once the order is given there is likely to be only a matter of minutes in which it could be rescinded. Once the missiles are flying, they cannot be called back or disarmed. Mr Trump, from what he has said, does not take this responsibility lightly. Indeed, he has often stated that he believes nuclear weapons to represent the greatest threat to humanity and that he will not be trigger-happy, “like some people might think”. But in common with his predecessors, he does not rule out their use.
With little more than ten minutes to take a decision that could kill hundreds of millions of people, even the calmest individual would be under intolerable stress if informed that America was under imminent attack. It is not Mr Trump’s fault that the system, in which the vulnerable land-based missile force is kept on hair-trigger alert, is widely held to be inherently dangerous. Yet no former president, including Barack Obama, has done anything to change it.
Of greater concern would be how Mr Trump might behave in an escalating confrontation if Russia were to rattle its nuclear sabre even more loudly. It is possible that his apparent desire to be buddies with Vladimir Putin might help defuse a dangerous situation. He is, however, notoriously thin-skinned and unable to stop himself responding to any perceived slight with vicious (verbal) attacks of his own. He also revels in braggadocio and is known to be reluctant to take advice. Marco Rubio, a rival for the Republican nomination, questioned whether he had the temperament to be put in charge of the nuclear codes. So did Hillary Clinton. They were right to do so. But it is now Mr Trump, not them, who takes the biscuit.
[note: there was one President who tried to scale it back, Kennedy. JFK ordered locks to be placed on the nukes to prevent unauthorized launch. JFK stood up to the generals who wanted nuclear war on Russia and then negotiated the nuclear test ban treaty with Krushchev, a reason he was removed from the Presidency.]
Most of the Empire wanted Hillary instead of Trump, she's a better functionary for the National Security State.
- Clintons Bushes: covert connections
- Hillary 2016: Bush Clinton Bush Obama-Clinton
- Mena, Arkansas during Governor Clinton: Iran-Contra weapons flew south, cocaine flew north
- the WTI toxic waste incinerator, East Liverpool, Ohio (Hillary did legal work for WTI)
- Wal-Mart (Hillary was a board member)
- toxic incineration for cement & Hillary
The F word: FASCISM
interesting to see the "F" word in mainstream media
Imagine Obama's national security policies in Trump's hands
It’s bad enough that Obama entrenched the illiberal powers of George W Bush. Think what would happen if a man who has praised torture gets hold of them
Saturday 5 March 2016 13.27 EST
ST. LOUIS: A PERSONAL REFLECTION ON #DUMPTRUMP
March 13, 2016
Donald Trump and what he represents, the mainstreaming of ultra-right wing politics, absolutely is a problem. However, I would argue that the greater problem is the great many and growing mass of people who have hitched their hopes for a whiter America on Trump, people already brimming with bigoted hatred frustration for their perceived lack of validation of their genocidal fantasies, and craving the actualization of same long before Donald Trump transformed from birther peanut gallery hack to possible frontrunner for a major mainstream political party nomination as candidate for the executive of global capitalist empire. These people, for whom legitimacy and state-power matters so much, have received validation for what they already believed. It does not follow that an electoral defeat for Trump would seriously impede the growth of this burgeoning reactionary movement that built up its base primarily outside of electoral politics.
Neo-cons against Trump
a list of Republican warmongers who oppose Trump, including co-authors of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) report that predicted a "New Pearl Harbor" would be needed to facilitate their global military plans
neo-con endorses Hillary
former Secretary of "Defense" says Hillary would do a good job as President
At Secretive Meeting, Tech CEOs and Top Republicans Plot to Stop Trump
March 8th, 2016
I’m trying to understand this Trump situation and the hysterical freakout that’s ensuing in elite and media circles.
Trump could have been vote-frauded into oblivion by now.
Why hasn’t that happened?
My best guess is that the primary purpose of the Donald Trump candidacy—whether he knows it or not—is to escort Hillary to the White House by simply drawing attention away from the Clintons’ life of crime.
You know, so all of that doesn’t come up during the sElection.
We can hear about the Donald’s hair and ex-wives and how hipsters are talking about fleeing to Canada, etc. I don’t remember which site, but mixed in with this bilge was a story about a cat with a long tongue that’s famous on the Internet.
Mena. Vince Foster. Mary Mahoney. The rest of it. *pfft*
Emails. Benghazi. Double *pfft* The recent Hillary stuff is chicken scratch compared to the 1980s and 1990s. I hardly mention the recent stuff. It’s noise level, relative to what went down in past decades.
Yep, Trump is a good whipping boy and the best distraction since Bin Laden.
And the next thing you know, the Clintons are back in the White House.
Almost as if by magic.
How many Bush presidencies would that make? I lose count.
I think it was Bill’s facilitation of the Mena enterprise that made the Clintons ultimately untouchable. The willingness to play ball there meant that these two were good to go. Bill got his turn. Now Hillary’s up.
comment from an oilempire.us reader:
"best distraction since Bin Laden"
Very important observation. Not only is he escorting Hillary to the White House, he is taking eyes off the sinking world economy, significant military failures of late, a bad jobs outlook and many other woes that (if Americans had time to think about them) would sour them not only to Hillary but to the whole rotten System.
But what will distract them as things get worse, following January, 2017? I actually worry about that quite a bit.
"A specter was haunting the World Forum–the specter of Donald Trump," Kristol wrote in an emailed report
Whenever something is "leaked" from a "secretive meeting", I wonder what the group really discussed. The rush to disclaim Trump, by establishment wonks, tends to raise an alarm, as though he were likely to be elected. Since we know that is not the plan of the Establishment, we should expect that the alarm is for another purpose. My guess is that voter turnout, always poor, is in danger of dropping to less than 20% unless it can me seen by enough people to be vitally important to choose the lesser evil. (Rather than Cthulhu.)
And/or, he may have outgrown his mandate to run a strong campaign to push the conversation to the "right" and to make a strong showing to entice voters to hold their noses. It may be that he is actually trying to be president (though I doubt it). Could be a Noriega double-agent thing, where he was hired for one job and megalomania took over and he's now in business for himself. But really, I doubt that.
Donald Trump, Dirty Money, & the Filthy Rich in Palm Beach
Posted on March 17, 2016 by Daniel Hopsicker
Is he really doing it without dirty money?
When asked to describe what they like most about Donald Trump, supporters usually say “He’s been doing it all without dirty money.” They mean his campaign is self-funded, and takes no money from lobbyists, special interests, and Republican Party kingmakers.
But what if Trump’s own money is dirty? Could a sizable chunk of Trump’s net worth come from selling real estate to drug lords, mobsters, and international financial criminals?
The answer is: There’s no way to tell. Secrecy hides the identity of the crooked, violent and corrupt who invest cash in U.S. real estate through shell companies registered in Delaware, managed by a bank in the Grand Caymans for a trust in Guernsey. And its all perfectly legal.
Even Swiss banks these days have to know who their customers are. Not American real estate developers. There’s no legal requirement whatsoever that U.S. real-estate developer Donald Trump know who his clients are. Probably, he couldn’t care less. Or even worse, he’d rather not know. ...