 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Question about Shostakovich and Stalin. posted by TAFKA Steve on February 21, 2000 at 17:01:09:
***I don't know much about Russian history and 20th century composers, but was reminded of these two when I saw "Wonderful, Horrible..." on PBS. Was Shostakovich playing along as a pawn, or was he a true believer and friend of ol' Uncle Joe?As far as I know (I would need to consult those with better knowledge) he was neither. He had a luxury of having being involved in the art that is not as literate as literature, painings or poetry. He has done tremendous things like composing and conducting the 7th symphony in the unheated Philarmony during the Leningrad siege - something that boosted the morale almost as much as Stalin's speeches. He was, however, still accused of writing decadent Western music and was vey much forbidden until his rehabilitation in the 50ies. So his involvement with Commies was far less tight than Leni's with Nazi, in my view.
So while many, many writers and poets were simply killed (hard to believe this today - being shot in the Lubyanka's basement in the back of your head for writing a silly short poem... ) but I don't recall any musicians being treated quite that harshly. Usually such execution was done in one of the corridors, while the prisoner would be excorted from his cell. The corridors had drainage systems so blood would be washed away quickly.
Interesting, that some people don't see any difference between this and few Hollywood and government liberals losing their jobs (justifyably or not) in the fifties...
I will double check on this with one of my resident experts and let you know my findings.
Now if we can only get Alanis Morissette's albums to be
declared "degenerate art". Jewel's poetry fits that description pretty well, too.
the bizarre part of the 50's red Hollywood scare was that the Communist propaganda campaign was supposedly exposed within Soviet post cold war relics.
***the bizarre part of the 50's red Hollywood scare was that the Communist propaganda campaign was supposedly exposed within Soviet post cold war relics
One can read thousand books and still not comprehand the true evil nature of that beast. For the most part, a typical Westerner is too "normal" in his natural instincts to even allow such thing to exist, leave alone all the horrible deads. That makes him very volnurable to that highly skilled and vicious snake that will penetrate every possible void, however small. The serpent will also not ignore even such seemingly insignificant subject as the Hollywood movie maker - for he knows all too well the importance and power of the word - either spoken or written.The list of organizations penetrated by the Moscow tapeworm is incredible and hard to believe even for a hardened soul. I would not be surprized to see MADD on it. Geez, perhaps even the AA....
Let's not forget the obvious DNC which extols the classic dictatorial prerequisites ... religious intolerance, bigoted persecuting of those that are denounced as less developed, media infiltration & manipulation, & disable the populus from securing their own rights. The song hasn't changed in aeons. Lately, the beat has picked up though. The lie is immortal & the spin eternal & vigilance is forever required at the watchtowers for today the enemy is within. What patriots shed their blood to protect the country from viral infections of government dictates/regulations on corporate bodies, that is people being herded into government approved thoughts, feeling & actions.Whatever, happened to the American ideal that I may not agree with a single word you said but will defend to the death your right to say it. Care to look around? Where’d this beautiful credo go? I despise David Duke but his presence marks a problem with a huge X in flashing neon! How’d any group follow a mere man in this day & age? Remember that controversial baseball player? He expressed his opinions & was treated like he raped an entire pre-school. Yes, they were wrong but equally mind warped dope addicts which have been proven to be much more dangerous to the popular culture are treated gingerly, whereas he was ostracized for speaking his mind in the USA. What was he thinking? We all know that only certain intolerance is acceptable & even encouraged. Shame! Shame! For being so observant!
I do not think the US can be held up as a good example of democracy.
Just a place where you have the right to be sold everything you could ever imagine.
The recent example of the Cuban boy whose mother drowned attempting to become an illegal immigrant is just one example.
The more interesting issue here is surely the support (and not) given by the (for example) Soviet government at different times to various artists.
To describe anything post-Lenin as socialist is ridiculous. Like calling Reagan a bad actor when he convinced so many people to vote for him.
...and was never meant to be. It is representative republic.The true democracy is one of the most opressive forms of government, something where most of us would not want to live, and luckily don't have to.
I don't think anyone will argue that the US is not perfect, dah as some would say.
Are you talking about the Soviet artists specifically? I am not sure what you mean.
What post-Lenin things are you talking about?
Let go the Reagan joke.
The way you wrote it makes it hard to see your personal position, could you please clarify it?
... the worst form of government except for all the alternatives.He's talking about the modifications to the ideal communist government (not socialism) that were required in order to make them work. The soviets recreated the notorious Jamestown failure on a grand scale. They started with the myopic montra "from everyone according to his/her abilities & to everyone according to his/her need". And, they were wondering why everyone was starving....
Don't mind the poor attempt at humor. It was reminiscent of a time that a reporter questioned her own ability to detect Senator Fred Thompson's honesty. He retorted that he formerly thought himself a professional actor until he went to Washington & discovered that he was a mere ameteur.
yeow,
ok guy, here goes. i like history, so let's talk about the
McCarthy Hearings,or the Star Chamber,or the use of the military against Unions
and protesters (as in the classic attack on WW1 Vets led by Ike, i am sad to say), and, of course, Nixon's Creep (Committee to re-elect the Pres; ever hear of Watergate?)
all this adds up to a tradition of right wing persecution, and violence. What has happened is quite simple. This tradition, in a very dilute form, has been picked up by the Left.
this is what i think:
1) you have a point
2) it is quite difficult to decode
3) this is a nice place, and not well served by politics
4) if you wish to discuss these matters with authority, you need a better understanding of our history and traditions.
5) and then if you could please write those thoughts in a clear, straightforward manner, i would be grateful
ps,
Clinton is cut from the same cloth as Nixon. He is a much better president. If you disagree with that, i strongly suggest you read a couple
of books about his presidency, especially his torture of the United States economy (which almost everyone misses). American politics is such that we will elect someone like that,
when times are good, so expect to see another like him.
Honestly, the things that bother you concerning rights and freedom;
are less of a problem today than they have been for most of our history.
I agree they are still a problem. Hopefully, we can someday come to an agreement, as a country, to scale back govermental involvement in essentially personal matters. I look forward to continuing our correspondance.
1) We started with the odd fact that the McCarthy's theory about Comminunist infiltration of Hollywood as propaganda medium turned out to be valid.2) Nixon was far far too liberal for me. Nixon's major PR mistake was that he wasn't a democrat. He learned from his victo, JFK, on how to "properly" run an election. Unfortunately, he took too many notes. I still can't believe his staff were imprisonned for having a single FBI file, when Clinton's entire hate list's files filled a room. Remember Watergate? Hell, yes. Read about it too. And also, remember his socialist "Price & Wage Freeze" & his communistist firing on the protestors. I'll admit the left turn into the military has happened from time to time. As such, we have our own Tiananmen Squares.
3) WWI or WWWII .... hmmm .... do wish to discuss FDR's intentionally sacrificing American lives for PR? He started by putting military supplies aboard luxury liners. Then, making sure the enemy knew. Oh, you want II, care to talk about the suppression of Pearl harbors attack warning? Not like he suspected either.. you wonder why a majority of the obsolete ships were there & no carriers?
4) Clinton did bring economic devastation to our economy, despite the few bills he begrungingly signed (even after he closed the government down) that's responsible for keeping out of another depresion. I'm still waiting for this recovery to materialize. Our city looks like a bomb hit it. How people can listen to him berate the congress for the very bills he takes credit for is a mystery to me. Remember the Contract with America? He claims responsibilty for the 70% he signed which spurred the economy while condemning its simple content that is response for the advancement. Why? It seemed the thing to do. What a hate-speaker. I have never heard such divisive rhetoric. Although, he showed that aspect in the 1992 primaries when he stole 2 ideas from contrary competing POV. And, offered both mutually exclusive proposals as hisown unique one. Unique? Try impossible! He made Jerry Brown sound level headed.
You ought to plot our Bush recovery against government intervention. The conclusion would be obvious to you. For example, the economy did a very nasty plummet followed by continuous down immediately after his tax hike. If it wasn't for the preexisting 4% growth when he took office. There's no telling where we'd be today.
I still don't know how that kamikaze missed. Life could return to positive culture & Gore wouldn't have been contaminated. His scheme is decaying the country while purposely avoiding the proposing anything. After his propaganda war to berate anything & everything posistive coming from the house, the congress asked him for his proposal. The result? Nothing, no progress at all. Just what Clinton wanted. So, they offered a deal to actually get somewhere. What happened? After weeks of deliberation & a load of concessions from the representatives, the Clinton compromised on a couple to a conclusion. Great, right? Not when the oral contract, was subsequently distorted into a published lie. Even, a democrat rep was impressed wih Clinton's ability to lie.
If he wasn't a walking-talking buffoon, he'd be a total zero. Making fun of him is redundant. Plus, we couldn't do his speeches justice. Just record them. It's funnier than Jim Carey until you look otside & realise it's real.
5) You mean read read even more about this? Why?
hi Mart,
1) for someone who rants about rights; this is an odd one. Tell me, free country or not? If it's free, a Commie should be free, to express his opinion, or make a movie. Sounds to me like you are trying to have it both ways- free for you, not free for the other guy
2) No, Nixon was not a liberal; he was a politician. That comment about a
"single FBI file" was amusing. The use of the military as a political weapon is simply not communist, nor is it fascist, and it certainly is not
democratic. It is a classic exercise of power that derives from Machiavelli, if it must have intellectual origin.
3) perhaps, perhaps not, the last time i looked there was not enough evidence to make it worthy of discussion. If you can refer me to a book, or
historical journal, that has unearthed something new, i would be interested. Otherwise, you are conflating speculation and fact. Or is a wanton disregard for the truth ok when you do it?
4) four brings together too many issues to deal with. But...
a) a recovery happens where it happens, there are places ( Maine being one of them ) where you really won't see a lot of improvement. For countries, states, or individuals, the best long term investment for economic growth is an investment in education. Unlike most economic ideas, this has been demonstrated time, and time again.
b) no president i know of has been more than tangentially successful in influencing the economy in a postive manner. The teamwork between Greenspan, and Clinton (initiated by Greenspan) came at an opportune moment in history. This is not denigrate it's success, but to add perspective. By most measurements,btw, the economy is pretty good.
c) hate- Clinton has been under attack from the right, especially the far right; by means both fair and foul - from Day One. You know that. Of course he retaliated, get a grip. Say two words aloud for me: 'Newt Gingrich'. Do the words have a certain resonance? I find that Gingrich, and Clinton, are morally identical; which does not say much for either. To be plain, your anger ( as was mine ) is misdirected. Much of what bothers you is not Democratic, sorry. A politican (say, oh i don't know, Nixon) is a politician (Clinton) is a politician (Ginrich), get the point?
d) "mutually exclusive" -yes, that's what Nixon did as well. Clever politics, but it usually results in bad policy
e) "Bush recovery"??? as i said, presidents do not have that kind of power. There are a number of forces behind this period of economic growth; but politics has almost nothing to do with it.
f) "positive culture" what i was trying to get at was that we have never had a 'positive culture'. Corruption, dirty politics, war, slavery,
the use of the military against civilians, these are the things our history
is made of. And those things i have mentioned do not even scratch the surface, there is much, much, more.
You know, my liberal friends say i'm conservative; and my conservative friends say i'm a liberal. Oh well. Would like to leave you with one thought, your anger will betray you. Best wishes
My anger? My anger? Care to reread your posts? It's dripping with latent heat.I didn't say McCarthy's actions were appropriate. I did say he that his suspicions were valid. Big difference. And, exposing espionage is always a good idea, or is only acertain free speech allowed?
hate- you're right 'Newt Gingrich' has been under attack from the left, especially the far left; by means both fair and foul - from Day One. You know that. But, that wasn't the point & you know that too. The point was to shed some light on this hero of yours. And, before you defensively retaliate as if Newt was my hero, I already know his failings & I'm not exactly a afan of anybody these days. I just thought some indisputable facts were in order.
BTW, I'm don't belong to any political party since I find them an unnecessary evil. Personnally, I love to see Alan Keyes in office, but reality makes me want a run off between Bush & Bradley. But I fear the special interests will get McCain (Gore light) to run against the left-wing annointed Gore. Thus, making Gore win without even really running in the primary (as the elections are cancelled in Bradley states).
Abuse of the subjects with military probably predates Machiavelli too. I was putting things into current context. What oligarchist countries do this? Monarchies (not on really on spectrum) & Communist & Marxist.
Communism <- Marxist <- Democratic Republic -> Libertarian -> Anarchy You don't think that pre-Clinton had a more "positive culture" than the current rampant aversion to everyone & everything, as people don't know if they's going to be a company in which to work tomorrow?
If it wasn't a Bush recovery, what do call it when Clinton's illegal retro-active tax, immediately dropped Bush's 4% growth to 2% which only started to reatain 4% in the latter half of 1995, when federal spending was no longer exponentiating.
did I forget something? Oh, watch anything good lately?
hi,
time to end this. Couple of odd notes- when i asked if a Commie was free to make a movie, you spoke of espionage. Which did not answer the question. As you know, McCarthy had nothing to do with US counterespionage efforts. If he had any effect, he prob muddied the water. So that response fails to:
a) answer
or b) counter my implied argument
i remember the 50's, as do you, this to me is not an academic argument, and i am pretty sure you are willing to limit the freedoms of people you don't agree with. The question: is a Commie free?
was, and is, easy to answer either way.
this i had to respond to- i have never liked Clinton. These days if he comes on, i change the channel.
lastly, i am not a technical kind of guy, it took me quite a few years, and books, to come up with a basic understanding of economics.
Here are a couple of my favorites: "Cities and the Wealth of Nations" by Jane Jacobs - this is so good, i can hardly believe it. It is easy for your library to borrow a copy from other libraries ( if you have a small one ).
It is easy because it is quite popular, the U of Maine, for example, has 5 copies, one for each campus. "The Wheels of Commerce" by Fernand Braudel covers the rise of markets, and basic economies, in the 1500-1800's.
"The Rise and Fall of the Great Empires" by Paul Kennedy There are several others, but those are the books i truly learned from.
feel free to take the last shot, let me know if you read the Jacobs book ( discussing that book with someone who has just discovered it is a rare pleasure ). Best wishes
we were talking about government systems ...
Communism <- Marxist <- Democratic Republic -> Libertarian -> Anarchy & now we're talking economic systems ...
socialism <- fascism <- capitalism ... please stick to a single subject if you don't want to undermine your position.
==========
I spoke of espoinage because of the substantiated Soviet infiltration of Hollywood to be abused into a propoganda tool. So, I feel they're just as free to make a movie as I'm to expose their covert activities. Hope this helps ....
While I beleive Nixon and Clinton may have some maelevolent characteristics in common, I find it hard to stomach that Clinton may be considered a better president. Sure Nixon's handling of the economy may have been less than deft but we can find an easy parallel in Clinton's handling of our foreign policy. Take a look at the legacy of each. Nixon: The beginning of the end of the cold war (recognition of both USSR and China as our equals on the world stage). Don't forget that Watergate led to lasting government reforms involving scope of presidential activities, disclosure of information and additional power for Congress. Clinton- while our economy has benefited from his benign neglect our foreign policy is in a shambles. Russia, China, Korea, European Union, most of the middle east all consider us a laughing stock. His legacy: act, then worry about the letter of the law. I think even the most jaded Democrat would agree that Clinton has cheapened and degraded the office of the President by his obtuse replies, semantic shifts and refusal to comply with Congressinal requests. Not to mention his (admited) immoral acts.Ross Lipman
rl1856@ix.netcom.com
hi,
"find it hard", yes, it would actually mean reading a book or three.
Nixon made a number of interesting foreign policy mistakes. My favorite
was his illegal contact, and negotiations, with Hanoi -during the election while he was a private citizen. Fortunately, his "legacy" has been laid bare; look for yourself. Btw, givng RMN credit for the work others did cleaning up the mess he left behind ("Don't forget...Watergate") is a bit silly.
So, does that mean Clinton should stop accepting credit for the spending cuts that he eventually swallowed leading to the balanced budget instead of the tax hike all of which he spent above & beyond? Don't forget his "State on the Union" address still spent more than the projected surplus. He hasn't learned a single thing.
yes,
he should stop, wish he had had the decency to resign.
I just wish he had any decency. Then, I wouldn't care as much if he stayed.
Just think of how robust our system is - it can digest a worm like that and still remain strong. He is like a stupid boy trying to stop a giant flywheel with his little dirty finger... or was that a cigar? or...Anywho... what about them movies, guys? Before we all get slapped again for being too conservative-political? The guy is completely insignificant, just let him go. He is like a dog doodoo on your shoe - a nuisance, to be sure, but hardly a dangerous thing.
I certainly enjoyed the Travolta's impersonation... don't you think it was great?
yes Victor,
guilty as charged. Which Travolta movie was that?
I don't recall the title, I only saw a part of it, is it the Primary Colors? He plays the President and does extremely good impersonation, not too flattering one to be sure...
Victor
You are correct it was Primary Colors. How about Wag the Dog?
Rich
Victor
***You are correct it was Primary Colors. How about Wag the Dog?You know, I actually missed that one. There was so much coverage before its release that I thought I already knew everything about it. So I never found time to go and see it - it was completely anticlimactic for me. The story makes some sense, though. Just imagine - to have the President to make constant apologies forced by a what? a movie?
It appears that Clinton's years gave us the unheard of before number of films showing the President in far less than flattering light. What was that one with Clint and Gene? There seemed to be one scumbag president after another.
Do you think it was good?
Victor
I enjoyed it quite abit ,however, it was a little frieghtening
because it was all so easy.
On a different note did you see Citizen X?
Rich
***On a different note did you see Citizen X?No, but based on the list of names I think I should.
... don't forget "Clear & Present Danger". But, they weren't all bad. We had "Independence Day" & "Air Force One" (both portrayed a middle aged man with a daughter) which only made us wish for harder for a loyal & trustworthy man.
.
OK We started with Leni which led to politics which led to presidents.
SO did anyone see "Dick" about the watergate incident. I thouroughly
enjoyed it the fellow playing Nixon was very good.How's that
Rich
Did you know that during dinner receptions his guests were served very good $6/bottle wine (back then not too bad). He was served from a wrapped in a towel bottle of 61 Chateau Margaux.Who played him?
did you want to rekindle the technological discusion here?
Dan Hedaya
hi Victor,
Wag the Dog was pretty good. Don't go in much for political movies (or anything else) these days; but i stumbled across it on HBO.
Think you'd like it.
realising the director was amaing lucky, or startlingly prescient about Reagan
you know, there are people who can help you
i don't think reagan even had the nomination at that point, but near the end of the movie i had this feeling. It was a cold feeling, part shocked disbelief, that Reagan would win. At that moment i knew for a cetainty he would win. Tell me, did you the book his first Budget Director ( the wonder kid, i forget his name) wrote? I did, his statements about Reagan's abilities were largely seconded in the memoirs of his other cabinet officers. That was one bizarre presidency.
I don't think even a specialist can help your delusions. Has the nurse misplaced your meds?Wake me as soon as Al Gore walks on water.
hi,
since we can't seem to stop, here goes. One fo the things that still echoes in my mind is your unhappiness over the lack of economic progress
in your area. Same situation here, we both live in economic backwaters.
I mentioned those books in the hope you would get an understanding of
the web ( the plain old spider kind ) that an economy forms of producers, and suppliers, and why they cluster where they do, at polls of labor and capitol.
Then there is the thorny matter of the realtionship between an economy and the political structure that accompanies it. The two form a kind of marriage.
It's funny the things that stick. Nixon was a terrible president, but the thing that i will never let go is this. He cut the budget on Hubble so that it could not be tested, then cut it again, which wound up consigning it to a garage for about 20 years. My mother, an avid amateur astronomer, died just before Hubble was repaired in space. That, along with the poor
treatment NASA always seems to get at the hands of Republicans, alienates
me from that lot. My best judgement is that NASA is vital to the future of the human race, and to treat it cavalierly is criminal.
There are other issues, but the only one i will mention today is the peculiar way they handled the banking crisis. When Reagan took office, he inherited some serious bank problems. The commercial problem was entirely
ignored ( Carter's group never got that far either ); but Don Regan's
choice to drive the Savings and Loans under, draining their assets into the stock market, was venal. It also will cost over $600 billion when the payments get finished. The Commmercial problem also got worse during this period, and the neglect of that pushed the total bill over a trillion.
The fact that this was illegally concealed is not particularly savory either.
There is a reason i mention it. When Nixon flooded the economy with money to win his second term, the economy was not able to absorb it; and it kicked off a nasty inflationary spiral. This time, the flood of money
from the bank diaster that Don Regan created was absorbed. And it provided
part of the economic background that created our current boom.
One of the more impportant elements of the boom is also the most obvious, the 'baby boomers' are in their peak earning years; and they
are investing heavily in the market for their retirement. What has not apparently occured to them is that they will also want to withdraw funds to
cover retirement expenses, again all at about the same time. If there is not a counterbalancing inflow of funds from outside the country; this could easily result in the reversal of the market gains of the last decade.
1st & foremost, I can't do anything for your mom's misfortune & even the most valid explaination won't do squat to heal your very real wounds. To that extend, I won't rub any more salt into them by trying.2nd, I don't know about your situation but we've got enormous economic infrastructure. Easy access to super-highways, tons of colleges (Union, RPI, SUNY-A, Sienna, St.Rose, HVCC, SCCC, a about 5 more I can't recall right now).
3rd, Nixon's money flood was SOP at taht time. It worked for the entire decade before & he saw no reason to not adopt his predecessors conventions, which is why I already stated was one of the reasons I didn't care for him either.
4th, Bush Sr's proper handling of the S&L situation started the 90's economic recovery & when the market went Bull, it was only enhanced by the said 401Ks which seemed to arrest the typical business cycling via Ponzi scheming.
3) LBJ was a piece of work; no argument there. His mishandling of the economy, and his financial irregularities contributed greatly to the problems we faced in the 70's.
It would not be fair to say it was SOP for IKE, or those who went before.
4) This is something of a footnote. Did you know George W Bush chaired the committee that deregulated the banks? He was part of that crisis, and the coverup that followed.
None of this is intended to mean that the Dems are better. We have a corrupt goverment that is poorly suited to dealing with rapid change.
If someone said to me, pick the candidates for this race; i would choose
a Colin Powell vs George Mitchell contest. To tell you the truth i hold both in the highest respect, and am not at all sure which way i'd vote.
As to the theme of reform, implicit in many of your comments; i have been working towards saying this: this goverment is what it is. The problems it has now will continue to worsen (example: The Agricultural Dept. now writes govt payroll checks- just try messing with Ag the way Carter did, and see how far you get). Piecemeal solutions try to move the sand off a beach with a teaspoon. There is only one possible solution, and that would be a Constitutional Convention. We, however, lack something our forefathers had, it will never happen.
So, there is a rule of thumb from Chaos theory, make small moves, avoid the big risks. And mostly that is my intent when i vote for someone.
that was precisely what the forefathers had in mind when they designed our constitution. An impotent, inefficient system where a miniscule amount of power is subdivided into overlapping jurisdiction. Thus, nobody had enough power to warrant corruption. However, I think we can both agree that the present day colosus has little to do with its founding document.PS: Do you get the feeling we'd get along in reality?
How about "Presidents Analyst"
Rich
and you thought your balanced equipment was a heated discussion. Just don't let Nigel in & the war won't go atomic.
I couldn't tell. After Trvolta started gorging on the doughnuts, I had to leave. I don't care if that's true to life, I don't have to watch it. However upto that point, someone did a PR job on Thompson's character.
don't forget the press...They'll rewrite history even more than they have already while this anti-constitionalist is out of the direct public eye, if Clinton's love afair with the sound of hisown voice doesn't shove his mouth back into the public pervue to remind us of his horrific legacy. But, I'm sure the press'll have this beast healing the sick & walking on water.
Interesting the the subject of the press has been brought up. While Clinton and his wife were claiming a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy", the press were gleefull participants in speading this lie. The fact is that an objective examination of Clinton's relationship with the press will show that there is in fact a Vast *Left* Wing Conspiracy. You know, the same people who blamed Bush Sr. for leaving us in a recession- and credit Clinton for the recovery, when in fact the recovery was 11mos old when Clinton took office. The same people who helped the White House obsure the details of Travelgate. The same people that recite the White House spin without checking facts or offering a contrary opinion. The same people who helped the White House slander any private citizen who decided to publicly criticise the president. The same people who have lied on behalf of the President and when caught, claim they were victoms right along with the "gullable" public.Sorry for the ramble.
Ross Lipman
rl1856@ix.netcom.com
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
