1. Fascism Rising
2. 2016 Election Thank You Notes
3. Robert Reich: Why We
Need a New Democratic Party
4. The Political World After Trump’s Win
5. In Wake of Trump
Victory, Progressives Urge
Democratic Party Overhaul
6. Trump Will Have Vast Powers. He Can Thank Democrats
is a Nederlog of Monday, November 14, 2016.
is a crisis
log with 6 items and 6 dotted links and it consists of some
further deliberations on the meanings of Trump's election as president
Item 1 is an article on the rise of
fascism in the USA, but it seems not too well informed about fascism,
neofascism or "neoliberalism"; item 2 is by Ethan
Coen and is short and funny (in a bitter way); item 3
is about Reich's pleading for a New Democratic Party (and I think this
will be difficult); item 4 is about Trump's win and
is decent; item 5 is about what to do with the
Democratic Party; and item 6 is about Glenn
Greenwald on the enormous powers Trump gets, mostly thanks to
part, for the moment --
In case you visit my
Dutch site: It was OK for two days now, but again didn't work out
in Holland the last days: It keeps being horrible most days. And it
still does (on 11 - 13 xi.2016).
case, I am now (again) updating
the opening of my site with the last day it was updated.
(And I am very sorry if you have to click/reload several times
last update: It is not what I wish, nor how it was. 
In case you visit my
Danish site: This worked correctly on 11 and 12 xi.2016, but not
before nor on 13.xi.2016.
And I think now this happens intentionally on both my
sites, for this did not happen for 20 years on the one,
12 years on the other. (13.xi.2016).
I am very
sorry, and none of it is due to me. I
am simply doing the same things as I did for 20 or for 12 years, that
also went well for 20 or for 12 years.
keep this introduction until I get three successive days
in which both providers work correctly. I have not seen
for many months now.
1. Fascism Rising
The first item today is by Stephen Hopgood on AlterNet and originally
on Open Democracy:
This starts as follows:
Is this how it begins? With rage, with
the demands of the entitled millions who feel their birthright has been
stolen, with those who claim “we built this country, we fought its
wars, when is it our turn?” Donald Trump is by any stretch of the
imagination an awful candidate to be president of the most powerful
state on earth, a sexist, racist,
impulsive narcissist who lies
with abandon and hates
Hm. Yes and no. First, I think Donald
Trump is a kind of fascist, but not a
classical one, but a neofascist (and see
below in  how I define these terms).
This is not a serious difference, at least not in journalism, but the
other one is:
It did not begin with Donald
Trump. In fact - I think, but with a lot of evidence that is
spread over the currently nearly 1400 flles (!!) I wrote about
the crisis since September 1, 2008
- Trump's election is the outcome of Reagan's and Bush Sr.'s policies
in the 1980ies and early 1990ies, of Clinton's "neoliberal" Third Way
policies that supported the rich, of Bush Jr.'s "neoliberal" policies
that supported the rich, and of Obama's "neoliberal" policies that
again supported the rich.
Again one way of describing the
last 35 years since Reagan became president that is - while it is
one-sided and partial - considerably more adequate than the
propaganda of the Republicans and of the Democrats is that ever
since Reagan, indeed quite possibly due to Lewis Powell's pleadings, the
political elites of both the Republicans and the Democrats
have been vastly corrupted,
with many millions of dollars (some of which enriched the Clintons),
that stimulated these politicians to do what the richest wanted them to
This is also to say that I think that the
elites that run the Democratic Party have consistently frauded
their electorates ever since Bill Clinton
(a fraud for the rich) became president, and they frauded their
electorates because they were rich to start with, got a lot richer with
corrupting moneys from the banks, and decided to stop socialism, to
stop social democracy - see the "Third Way" - and to
go for the "neoliberal" ticket all the way, while pretending
that this served their voters, which were lies from the very
start. Indeed the same lies were copied by
other false careerist
"social democrats" like the awful Blair and the horrible Kok. (I think
the Republicans did the same, but since they have been the
party of the rich for a long time, I blame them less.)
But this is not the sort of
thinking that is familiar to Stephen Osgood. He blames Donald
Trump mostly, who is the "he" in the next quotation:
And now he is the standard bearer for
familiar social coalition, angry white working class men (and
women) with weak formal education and weaker job prospects, along with
disaffected white middle class conservatives, many of them religious,
who are furious that they lost the culture wars. We’ve seen this
coalition before: it’s a breeding ground for fascism. Liberals need to
wise up and fast.
No, the least this is, is misleading.
First, I do not quite see why this would be a breeding ground
for fascism: It's not the poor
uneducated whites who are capable of drawing up a fascist or neofascist
agenda, but these agendas are
drawn up by diverse leading elites. And second here is - once again - a
quote from the mathematical physicist Peter Woit, who simply stated the
evidence (I quoted this first on November 11):
Most of the explanations one hears of
Trump’s success don’t hold up if you look at exit polling numbers:
- Sexism: more white women voted for
Trump than for Clinton.
- Racism: many counties that went
solidly for Obama in the past went to Trump this election. Many Trump
voters last voted for an African-American President.
- Revolt of the rural poor whites:
While New York City went heavily to Clinton, nearby Suffolk County on
Long Island, with a median family income of $100,000, went for Trump.
- Ignorance, lack of education: Most
white college graduates voted for Trump.
So it's not "the poor whites" who
elected Trump: Trump's voters come from many places, including the
richer and the rich.
The following is also at most half right:
For Trump’s constituency, his obvious
and stupefying flaws are irrelevant. He’s a policy-lite hand grenade
intended to spark a revolution. From his admiration
for Putin to his authoritarian
style, right down to the machismo, sexual bravado and contempt for
minorities, the outlook for human rights in the US—let alone
globally—under Trump is catastrophic. For his coalition, human rights
shell game pushed by cosmopolitan liberals to steal the nation
away from its legitimate, mainly white,
heirs. Make no mistake about it, the right is on the move—in Britain,
Hungary, Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, India
and now, far more importantly than any of those, in the United States.
My main reasons to say this is at most
half right are that (i) "the right is on the
move" for quite a long while now
(in Holland it started not long after 2000 with the rise of first
Fortuyn and a bit later Wilders), and also (ii) "the right" also has
been on the move ever since Bill Clinton declared socialism was
impossible, and social democracy was old hat, and he was for the "Third Way",
which in fact was the "neoliberal" way, which was vehemently
pro rich while pretending to be for the poor.
Again the following is also at most half
I think by now that "Brexit" is a vague analogy which is
much employed by people who do not want to admit that the
"neoliberal" sell-out of virtually all liberal, progressive, social
democratic and socialist ideals started with the multi-millionaires
Bill Clinton and Tony Blair who earned part of their fame, and many
of their millions, with insisting that "neoliberalism" was the way, the
only way, and also the safe way, with men like them at the helm. (And
indeed, this was a huge success for their personal
After Brexit, I argued that winter
was coming for human rights. Well, it’s here.
It’s here because the liberal democratic
market model that has underpinned forty years of human rights
broken. It is here because what was supposed to happen, trickle
down affluence, never
did in any meaningful way. The age of rights, four decades of a
newly potent set of claims for dignity, equal treatment and
protection—for civility, for vibrant opposition to authority—were built
on what Trump supporters have
come to see as a lie. For them, human rights were not heralds of a
new era of fair shares for all but a way to steal the inheritance
of real Americans.
Also, the writer seems to miss entirely that the
"neoliberal" era started over 35 years ago, and that the 35
years previous to that (from 1945 till 1980) were the decades for human
And the article ends as follows, in what seem to me vagueries without
what is to be done? For human rights on the global scale,
fight Trump and Trumpism. Fight fascism. Stop this ill-starred pursuit
of failing global norms and institutions like the ICC, criminalizing
the crime of aggression and a Convention on Crimes Against Humanity,
and go where the struggle really is, on the ground, in national
legislatures, in national courts, where there really is an “us” versus
“them”. Embrace domestic, rather than international, politics. The
struggle is now about democracy, democratic organization, reaching out,
building coalitions of support that weaken the fascist base and getting
into, in a serious way, class, race and identity.
So all in all this article seems to locate
the beginning of "fascism" with Trump (after Hitler) while it doesn't
seem to have any sense of the long history of "neoliberalism",
which is the propaganda term for neofascism, and that started in
the 1970ies and came to fruition under Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bill
Election Thank You Notes
The second item is by Ethan Coen on The New York Times
This is here mainly because I like the
ironies. It starts as follows (and is not long):
In case you are offended: I do not
say that their being also (completely irrealist) contenders for the
presidency of the USA was the only or the main
surprise! So many people to thank!
Stein voters: You helped elect a man who pledges that he will,
in his first hundred days, cancel contributions to United Nations
programs to fight climate change. If your vote for Ms. Stein did not
end up advancing your green agenda, it did allow you to feel morally
superior to all the compromising schmoes who voted for Hillary Clinton.
And your feelings about your vote are more important than the
consequences of your vote. So — thank you!
2. Gary Johnson voters:
Thank you, for similar reasons.
reason for Trump's winning, but I do think they contributed. 
There is this on Comey and Weiner:
Comey: Your publicity coup may have affected the outcome of
the election. Or it may not have. But it will certainly breed
speculation that it did. Such discussion will in some way serve the
reputation of the F.B.I. Or not. You had to bravely contravene bureau
protocols to make your contribution, so to you we owe a special thanks!
Weiner: You also found a surprising way to contribute! Thank
you, sir — your act never gets old!
This is about the same as for
the Stein and the Johnson voters: The actions of Comey may not
have destroyed Hillary Clinton's chances (she
owes most of the reasons for her failings to herself, her policies for
the rich, and her husband and his policies for the rich), but they
probably did contribute.
There is more that I skip, but
here is the end, which I think is justified:
Indeed. And this is a recommended article.
American electorate. Because in the end, we all did it
together. We did it! We really did it!
3. Robert Reich: Why We Need a New Democratic Party
The third item is by Robert Reich on AlterNet and originally on
This starts as follows:
It is time for a New Democratic Party.
The old Democratic Party has become a
giant fundraising machine, too often reflecting the goals and values of
the moneyed interests.
It has been taken over by
Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who
have focused on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street
executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in
Yes, indeed (and compare the
first article) - but I see two immediate problems: (i) if indeed
Reich's idea is for a New party, it seems rather a lot
of funding is necessary, and I do not see from whence that will
come (since the Old
Democratic Party got most of its funding from the rich bankers, who
again were served by the Democratic Party's elite, to the above effect
in Reich's second paragraph), while also (ii) it will be quite
difficult, even with a lot of funding, to destroy most of the Old
Democratic Party (which presumably will keep some of its
funding from the rich bankers).
And these are not the only problems I see.
Here is more from Reich:
We need a New Democratic Party capable
of organizing and mobilizing Americans in opposition to Donald Trump’s
Republican party, which is about to take over all three branches
of the U.S. government.
A New Democratic Party that will turn
millions of people into an activist army to peacefully resist what is
about to happen – providing them with daily explanations of what is
occurring in Trump’s administration, along with tasks that individuals
and groups can do to stop or mitigate their harmful effects.
This doesn't do anything to answer the two
problems I raised: These are mere desires, which will not be
realized without good funding.
Then there is this on the Democratic
(which is in fact for the rich):
A respected Democratic political insider
recently told me most people were largely content with the status quo.
“The economy is in good shape,” he said. “Most Americans are better off
than they’ve been in years.”
Wrong. Recent economic indicators may be
up, but those indicators don’t reflect the insecurity most Americans
continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they
Put otherwise: It goes more or less OK
for the richest 10%, to which most of the Democratic elites belong, but it goes wrong for the remaining 90% - and has
been going wrong for them since Reagan became president, and since
Clinton destroyed social security while enriching the rich.
The following is adequate:
Median family income is lower now
than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Workers without
college degrees – the old working class – have fallen furthest.
gains, meanwhile, have gone to top. These gains have translated into
political power to elicit bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, special
tax loopholes, favorable trade deals and increasing market power
without interference by anti-monopoly enforcement – all of which have
further reduced wages and pulled up profits.
Yes, indeed - and "[m]ost economic gains
(..) have gone to [the] top" also with the dedicated help
of Bill Clinton (who became a multi-millionaire because of it) and
Barack Obama (who hopes the same).
Here is more on how Clinton and Obama did
Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama
ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of
blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new
ones that paid at least as well.
Democrats also allowed antitrust
enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have
grown far larger,
and major industries more concentrated.
I agree - but I am not really sure whether
Reich indeed wants a New Democratic Party or wants to Renew
the old Democratic Party. And both
seem quite difficult.
4. The Political World After Trump’s Win
The fourth item is by Joe Lauria on Consortiumnews:
This starts as follows:
Yes, indeed: This seems to me to be along
the lines of a factually correct analysis. And according to this
analysis it are Bill Clinton and Tony Blair who - very
willingly, and certainly moved by expectations to profit themselves a
lot, which they also did - destroyed
socialism, destroyed social democracy, destroyed the trade unions for
the most part, destroyed the incomes of the 90%, and very much helped
the bankers to make 20 millions a year, for which both indeed
were duly paid by the rich, for Bill Clinton now is worth some $120
millions (take or leave a few) and Tony Blair now is worth about the
same (in pounds).
This election has struck what should be
a fatal blow to the Clintons’ Democratic Leadership Council
movement. Bill Clinton moved the Democratic Party to the
center-right at about the same time that Tony Blair did with the
British Labour Party. Both parties cut many of their traditional ties
to labor unions in the 1990s to embrace the economic neoliberalism of
their 1980s predecessors Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: welfare
reform, deregulation of the financial sector and “free trade.”
The effect on workers across the old
industrial belts has been devastating. Millions have been pushed out of
a middle-class lifestyle. They have seen their plants close and jobs
shipped to cheap labor markets overseas. Or they have lost out to
They’ve also seen the economy shift from
production to financial speculation. And they’ve seen the greatest
transfer of wealth in decades to the obscenely rich.
So the personal projects of Clinton and Blair succeeded extremely
(both are muli-millionaires), though indeed at the costs of hundreds of
millions who became poorer or did not gain anything the last 35 years.
Here is some more on the character of Bill Clinton and also on the
character of the present Democratic Party:
I agree about Bill Clinton (and repeat that his
personal future and his personal income gained an enormous amount
through his policies).
As to the Democratic Party: This will remain the same as long as the
present elite heads it, but then the present Clintonite and Obamite
elites will probably soon leave it and tend to their riches. How the
Democratic Party can be transformed after 26 years of corruption is not
clear to me now.
Last week, we learned
in a leaked speech that Bill Clinton gave last year that he denigrated Corbyn,
saying Labour “went out and practically got a guy off the street to be
the leader” of the party. “When people feel they’ve been shafted and
they don’t expect anything to happen anyway, they just want the maddest
person in the room to represent them.”
Bill Clinton’s remarks were typical of
the Democrats’ smugness and their contempt for ordinary people. So
there was some satisfaction in seeing the humiliation of these
careerist and corporatist Democrats on Tuesday.
Now, the Democratic Party had better
figure out how they can serve the interests of those blue-collar
workers or the party can expect more of the same. So far they are blaming
everyone and everthing for having created this workers’
backlash: sexism, the media, FBI Director James Comey (Clinton pinned
it specifically on him), Vladimir Putin, Green Party candidate Jill
Stein and even Clinton cheerleader Bernie Sanders (for “poisoning the
Finally, there is this on the present Democratic elite:
As it turned out, the Democrats
managed to lose the White House to Trump on their own. Though the
Democratic leadership won’t admit it, they now know that Sanders was
running the right campaign to defend workers’ interests and would have
been the right messenger to carry that message. However, to protect
their own privileged class interests and those of their donors,
establishment Democrats left the country open to the dangerous victory
of Donald Trump.
Yes, this seems true in at least two
Democrats lost the White House through their own incompetence,
dishonesty, immorality and their backing up the few rich at the costs
of the many poor. And Bernie Sanders would have been their right
choice to defeat Trump, but Sanders did not make the
presidential elections through manipulations of Hillary Clinton's
associates - or so it seems.
And this is a recommended article.
5. In Wake of Trump
Victory, Progressives Urge Democratic Party Overhaul
The fifth item is by Andrea Germanos on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
As Hillary Clinton puts
partial blame for her electoral defeat on F.B.I. Director James Comey,
some progressives are calling for an overhaul of the Democratic Party,
with new officials that represent grassroots, not corporate, interests.
On ABC's "This Week" on
Sunday, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) said
that Comey's renewed investigation "did not help" because "it changed
the conversation. The conversation should've been about middle class
people. The conversation should've been about how to raise the minimum
wage and strengthen Social Security."
Addressing host George Stephanopoulos's
comment that "a lot of Democrats complain that that party has been
basically hollowed out under President Obama," the Congressional
Progressive Caucus co-chair said that what the way to come back is "to
have a vision to strengthen the grassroots" and to "make the voters
first, not the donors first."
Hillary Clinton is still indulging in propaganda:
Comey may have contributed to her defeat, but basically the defeat
of Clinton is her own fault, because - like her husband - she
chose for the rich and against the poor.
And I am sorry, but I think Ellison is lying/propagandizing
as well: Clinton's campaign was not about "middle class people"
nor about "the minimum wage", while Social Security
has already been mostly destroyed by Bill Clinton in the
In contrast (?) here is Robert Reich (also
In former Clinton Secretary of Labor
Robert Reich's assessment,
"It is time for a New Democratic Party" as it "has become a giant
fundraising machine, too often reflecting the goals and values of the
moneyed interests." A new party, instead, he wrote,
will do everything possible to advance
the progressive agenda at state and local levels—getting big money out
of politics, reversing widening inequality, expanding health care,
reversing climate change, ending the militarization of our police and
the mass incarceration of our people, and stopping interminable and
Issuing a similar message, Sanders
supporter Jonathan Tasini wrote
that the election results make room for "a difficult but urgent
mission—shaking the Democratic Party down to its foundation, ejecting
the failed Bill/Hillary Clinton economic and global worldview and
standing up for a set of populist, sound economic, and foreign policy
principles that could earn majority support."
What happened in America on Election
Day should not be seen as a victory for hatefulness over decency. It is
more accurately understood as a repudiation of the American power
structure, including the old Democratic Party.
Yes, but the problems I see with this are
that (i) really creating a New Democratic Party will
take a lot
of money and considerable time, while (ii) removing the elites from the
Old Democratic Party will be very difficult, apart perhaps from the
Clintons and the Obamas, simply because the rich bankers
will still protect and fund their kinds of political Democrats.
Then again, the situation is very
difficult, and this is a recommended article.
6. Trump Will Have Vast Powers. He Can Thank Democrats for
The sixth and last item is by Glenn Greenwald on Common Dreams and
originally in The Washington Post:
This starts as follows:
Liberals are understandably panicked
about what Donald Trump can carry out. “We have a president-elect with
authoritarian tendencies assuming a presidency that has never been more
powerful ,” Franklin Foer wrote
this past week in Slate. Trump will command not only a massive nuclear
arsenal and the most robust military in history, but also the ability
to wage numerous wars in secret and without congressional
authorization; a ubiquitous system of electronic surveillance that can
reach most forms of human communication and activity; and countless
methods for shielding himself from judicial accountability,
congressional oversight and the rule of law — exactly what the
Constitution was created to prevent. Trump assumes the presidency “at
the peak of its imperial powers,” as Foer put it.
Yes, indeed - and speaking for myself, I
would also add that (i) the ideas and the ideals of Donald Trump are
mostly neofascist (that he may call
"neoliberal"), while also (I am a psychologist: I know
what insane people are like) (ii) Donald Trump himself is not sane.
Especially the last will make Trump's presidency extremely
Then there is this - and I disagree with
the first statement:
Sen. Barack Obama certainly saw it that
way when he first ran for president in 2008.
Yet, beginning in his first month in office and continuing through
today, Obama not only continued
many of the most extreme executive-power policies he once condemned,
but in many cases strengthened
and extended them. His administration detained terrorism suspects
without due process, proposed new frameworks to keep them locked up
without trial, targeted thousands of individuals (including a U.S.
citizen) for execution by drone, invoked secrecy doctrines to shield
torture and eavesdropping programs from judicial review, and covertly
expanded the nation’s mass electronic surveillance.
Yes indeed, he did all the things
summed up in the second paragraph, and yet I am supposed to believe his
- extremely carefully orchestrated - propaganda
from 2008 that he was a genuine progressive liberal?! I don't:
he was a fraud from the word go, as was Bill Clinton.
There is also this, that goes more or less
as I see it:
Obama’s approach to executive power
flipped so quickly and diametrically that’s it is impossible to say if
he ever believed his campaign-era professions of restraint. As early as
May 2009, Jack Goldsmith, a Justice Department official under George W.
Bush, celebrated Obama’s abandonment of his promises to rein in these
that “the new administration has copied most of the Bush program, has
expanded some of it, and has narrowed only a bit.” He added that the
“Obama practices will be much closer to late Bush practices than almost
anyone expected in January 2009.”
First, I disagree with Greenwald "that’s it is impossible to say if [Obama] ever believed his
campaign-era professions of restraint": Since all
we have from 2008 on Obama was very carefully orchestrated propaganda to make him president, while we have eight years of his
serving the rich, I think the sensible conclusion is that he
did what he meant to do (and lied to his voters,
as is very easy, and as he does very well and very
Indeed, here are a number of things
Obama did and signed and furthered, nearly all of which were in
the tradition of Bush Jr:
The article ends as follows:
This same dynamic — Democrats endorsing
vast expansions of executive powers — repeated itself time and again,
both within the national security realm and outside it. Obama issued
numerous signing statements purporting to nullify legal obligations, invoked
radical secrecy privileges to avoid lawsuits, eroded
long-standing Miranda rights for terrorism suspects, waged
a war in Libya even after Congress voted against its authorization and pioneered
novel means of using executive orders to circumvent congressional (i.e.
democratic) approval in a wide array of domestic policy arenas.
And of course, Obama aggressively expanded
the system of mass surveillance, including on U.S. soil, that had been
secretly implemented by the National Security Agency after 9/11.
With Trump looming, there is much
talk of uniting across ideological and partisan lines to impose
meaningful limits on executive authority, and those efforts are
justified. But, as progressives were repeatedly warned,
a matrix of power that has been defended and legitimized for 15 years
by both parties will be very difficult to uproot.
Yes, indeed - as I have pointed out
several times in this Nederlog. To repeat it: The Clintons were frauds.
Obama was a fraud. Both were much for the rich, and against the
non-rich. Both extremely increased the powers of the government, which
were taken from the people. Both were more like Republicans than like
(real) Democrats. And at least the Clintons became multi-millionaires
through their policies.
O, well... and this is a recommended
this is precisely as I said it does, and it goes on for
months now. I
do not know who does it, and I refuse to call the liars of
"xs4all" (really: the
KPN), simply because these have been lying to me from
2002-2009, and I do not trust anything they say I cannot control
myself: They have treated me for seven years as a liar because
"you complain about things other people do not complain about" (which
is the perfect excuse never to do anything
 I am saying
this not because I want to
offend but because I want to explain,
and my own explanatory definition of neofascism is this:
is a. A social system that is
marked by a government with a centralized powerful authority, where
the opposition is propagandized and suppressed or censored, that
propounds an ethics which has profit as
its main norm, and that has a politics that is rightwing, nationalistic, pro-capitalist,
anti-liberal, anti-equality, and anti-leftist,
and that has a corporative
organization of the economy in which multi-national corporations are
stronger than a national government or state, b. A political philosophy or
movement based on or advocating such a social system.
Also, I am
rather certain that most (not: all) of those who style
themselved as "neoliberals" in fact are neofascists as defined
(even though they probably do not like the term).
And this is
fascism as I
is a. A social system that is
marked by a government with centralized authority and a dictator, that
suppresses the opposition through propaganda, censorship and terror,
that propounds an ethics founded
on discipline, virility, and collectivism, that has a politics that is
totalitarian, anti-liberal, anti-individualist,
anti-equality, and anti-Marxist, that is also authoritarian,
rightwing and nationalistic, and often racist, and that has a corporative organization of the economy, b. A political philosophy or movement based on or
advocating such a social system.
following if you are interested: On Fascism
and Neofascism: Definitions.
(This lists 22 definitions of the term "fascism", and critically
reflects on them.)
I think this holds as I formulated it. (Also, I grant that I neither
like Jill Stein nor Gary Johnson, but this seems an aside.)