Feminist-Left Unabashed in its Dishonesty

Kathryn Jean Lopez over at The Corner links to a post by Jessica Valenti, Executive Editor of Feministing.com, about the "scary" new Director of The Office on Violence Against Women.

Why is the new Director so scary? Well, she is "another wacky Bush Appointee," Mary Beth Buchanan. First lets run down some of the other "wacky appointees" listed on the White House Press release Valenti links to:

• Belinda Childress Anderson, the first female President of Virginia Union University, to the President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Governer Mark Warner credited Anderson, a black woman, with bringing financial stability to the 140 year old university and raising its academic standards. VUU is a historically black university that counts among its alumni Jesse Jackson, Douglas Wilder and Samuel Lee Gravely, Jr., the first black Admiral in the United States Navy.
• Verna Fowler, Member the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin and founding President of the College of the Menominee Nation, to the President's Board of Advisors on Tribal Colleges and Universities. Fowler has been involved in education of Native Americans for 40 plus years now and has also served as Executive Director, Director of Credit and Finance, and as the Superintendent of Education for the Menominee Tribe.
• Beverly Daniel Tatum, President of Spellman College, to the President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Spellman is a historically black college for women founded in 1881 and ranks among the top historically black colleges in the United States. Tatum has taught, lectured and been published (including by the Harvard Education Review) on the issues of race, racial identity and the psychology of racism.
• Laura L. Rogers, of California, to be Director of the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking at the Department of Justice. Ms. Rogers currently serves as Director of the National Institute for Training Child Abuse Professionals. Previously she served as a Senior Attorney of the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse at the American Prosecutor's Research Institute. She has also served as a Deputy District Attorney in the San Diego County District Attorney's Office. (Ms. Rogers information quoted directly from White House Press Release)

This list of incredibly qualified women and men (Most members of a minority) from just this one set of appointments goes on; what a wacky, scary bunch.

But, on to the wack-job that really bothers Ms. Valenti:

• Mary Beth Buchanan (ominous organ rift please): Ms. Buchanan is the first woman in Pennsylvania's history to be Presidentially appointed to the position of United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Buchanan also served from June 2004 until June 2005 as the Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, a Washington D.C.-based office that provides administrative support to the 94 United States Attorneys' Offices. As an assistant U.S. Attorney for the same district she helped form the Western Pennsylvania Crimes Against Children Task Force. Until her appointment as United States Attorney, Ms. Buchanan served as the Chairperson of the Crimes Against Children Task Force and the district's Child Exploitation Coordinator; she's served as Chair of the Judiciary Committee of the Allegheny County Bar Association; President of the University of Pittsburgh Chapter of the American Inns of Court, and President of the Women's Bar Association of Western Pennsylvania.

You get the picture.

What in Valenti's eyes makes Buchanan someone to be so loathed and feared? Well, for one thing she had the audacity to prosecute 55 people, including Tommy Chong for helping his son sell drug paraphernalia over the internet, a crime in Pennsylania; one of the articles Valenti links to that chronicles the martyrdom of Chong seems to imply that after 9/11 all law enforcement should be solely focused on terrorism-related activities. Oddly enough, however, one of the wacky things about Buchanan according to Valenti and several comments under the story is that Buchanan supports the Patriot Act (!).

Buchanans' next crime against women is prosecuting a California adult film company for three movies it produced and distributed. To quote from the CBS News article Valenti links to to show what a bad choice Buchanan is:

She believes that three films produced and distributed by Extreme Associates by mail and over the Internet contain coercive and violent sex, along with other material that is vile and degrading. Rob Black, president of Extreme Associates, considers that a compliment. One film, called “Forced Entry,” includes shots of women getting raped and murdered. It also includes suffocation, strangulation, beatings and urination. Black calls “Forced Entry” a slasher film with sex, loosely based on the Hillside Strangler case. But 60 Minutes couldn’t find enough plot to show anything beyond the opening credits.

This is anti-anti-violence against women? But we're not through yet. Buchanans' other crime was helping to prosecute a 54 year old Pennsylvania woman for posting stories on a web site depicting adults having sex with pre-teen children. Why would Valenti not like that? To (fully) quote our intrepid feminist:

"She’s an anti-obscenity crusader, prosecuting people for written stories on the internet and going after any and all porn. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of violent porn and the like, but Buchanan strikes me as more interested in enforcing morality than the law.) The legal director for the Pittsburgh ACLU once called Buchanan "the vanguard of [former U.S. Attorney General John] Ashcroft’s attempt to impose his morality on others." Yikes.
So basically, this sucks. I can see it now...VAWA funds being diverted to conservative anti-obscenity groups under the rhetoric of protecting women. I am completely freaked out."

Like totally.

More interested in enforcing morality than the law? If this is the quality of thought and logic produced by degrees in Womens and Gender Studies, such as the one Valenti obtained from Rutgers, refunds should be issued forthwith. In Valenti's world, being against depictions of kidnapping and rape of women as well as small children is suspect if done from a moral perspective.

While there are morals not enforced as laws, all laws are based on the concept of morality, including laws protecting women against hostile work enviornments, children against sexual predators and governing that VERY narrow range of speech so brereft of social value that courts and juries hold them as not protected. Perhaps Ms. Valenti could explain why we should consider the constitution a guiding authority if it is not moral at its foundation?

Valenti's post is the textbook example of Bush Psychosis and the rejection of critical thought in favor of emotional hysteria. A giant leap forward for women everywhere.

At last! A Nativity Scene that will not draw a lawsuit..

Young Conservatives of Texas hit back with humor on a serious issue. (Hat Tip Pajamas Media)

Bush: No Graceful Exit

New York Post story reports Bush says what amounts to no exit as soon as possible. That's, uh, good to hear. Maliki says he has not received the support he needs to get the country under control, but seems to continue to reject more direct American military intervention. Initial reports from the Iraq Study Group do not sound good. I have a sinking feeling.

In response to Vienna and the ACLU:

"All I can do is fall down on my knees and cry 'Holy, Holy,' All I can do is fall down on my knees and cry 'Holy, Holy'; You are HOLY.." (Salvador "Cry Holy")

Hit the Road Jack, errr Nick....

St. Nick out in Vienna.

(Hat Tip LGF)

Newt: Second phase of Iraq "failure"

In New Hampshire.

On the Human Events website he lays out a vision of an aggressive move in Iraq reminiscent of George Washington crossing the Delaware and 11 important questions regarding the Iraq Study Group Report.

He has several good points. Admitting failure in the context of willingness to change, rather than quit, is productive. Newt is no cut and runner for sure.

He also points out what to many of us is obvious: Iran and Syria are not ran by dullards, but rather by shrewd men who know their region - they also cannot be trusted; there are components of the democratic majority the administration and republicans can work with to obtain our goals in Iraq, and; the changes have to be big, bold and decisive.

Go Newt.

Oh Dear God, will this mean more FRENCH tourists too?

News from The Guardian of falling dollars, rising Euros and trips to the U.S.

Baghdad from the Inside: Heartening and Heart Wrenching

Mohhamed at Iraq The Model shared this post with the world yesterday; it reaffirms the best and worst of what we all see in Iraq to one degree or another.

Continuing my theme from last Friday regarding the absurdity of comparing Iraq per capita or deaths per 100,000 as a measure of how good or bad things are going there - my central argument was that they were distinctions with big differences and it did not change the horror of the human toll on the ground (A death is Baghdad is not less tragic or consequential because two die in Mexico City or vice versa). I think this passage from the ITM post linked above illustrates this well:

We decided to go home earlier than usual that day and then we were met by the terrible news about the savage massacre in Baghdad that took away hundreds of innocent lives. I avoided looking at the news after I heard of the open-ended curfew and we had to get prepared for the worse.Terrorists and militias started an open war; the battlefield is our city and the fuel is innocent civilians as always since those criminal groups find it easier to kill civilians than to confront each other (and rid us of their evil). The big problem is that the security forces are not strong enough to stop them, worse than that, some members of these forces let themselves become partners to the criminals.We had no choice but to rely on ourselves to protect our homes and neighborhood insurgents and militias alike. In our mixed block the elders met to assign duties and make plans in case things go wrong. They decided that people should all exchange cell-phone numbers as the fastest means to communicate at times of action, it was also decided that if someone calls to report an attack on his home, everyone else must go up to the roof and start shooting at the direction of the assailants.More roadblocks were erected and older ones strengthened—streets and alleys were blocked in any possible way to prevent any attack with vehicles.They also agreed that no one moves on the streets after a certain hour at night and any moving person would be dealt with as a threat. (Emphasis added)

Later:

Rough times blur the vision and disrupt reason, I understand that. When you hear stories about people burned alive or mass public executions it makes you imagine that the streets are full of monsters coming to predate everything and makes you shout calling for merciless punishment upon even those who are only suspects.Being stuck at home for four days with all the violence going outside and the fear that it might reach you at home was a horrible experience. When the news came that the curfew was over and people began walking on the streets again there was a strange feeling that was particularly very strong this morning in Baghdad; despite all the rumors and fear from more wide-scale revenge attacks there was a feeling among the people that they must go out on the streets and live in all possible means.The most beautiful scene was that of students going to their schools and colleges despite all what happened in the days before.Not everyone will absorb the lesson but I'm sure that this last dose of terror has changed the feelings of so many people here, a change in favor of denouncing and rejecting violence, I hope.

The entire post highlights two major themes I've been hitting on the past several days: equating the violence in numbers or nature with Miami or Washington, D.C. with that in Baghdad just does not wash. In America violence is rarely ideologically driven and is often (as much as 50% in some cities) criminal on criminal, not to mention that often counted in violent deaths in the United States are such categories as suicide, self defense or protection of family/property and domestic violence. Subtract all of that and life in virtually any neighborhood in any city in the United States is Shangri-La compared to Baghdad.

The second part reflects the hope and the need for Iraqis as a group to reject citizen on citizen violence instigated by outsiders and sociopaths.

One last thing - On the story of false reports of violence by Associated Press and others broke by Flopping Aces and well covered by Michelle Malkin and Gateway Pundit, it is interesting to read this last quote from the ITM post:

The other star of the crisis was rumors about ugly revenge attacks and I sometimes feel that those rumors are part of the terrorists and militias propaganda campaign

Al Sadr backers walking out of Iraq Government

According to C-Span minutes ago.

Iraq, winning, lies and action....

Last week (just a few posts down) I argued that violence in Iraq is bad enough in any context and we better figure out a way to control it. I stand by that, but want to clarify :

Gateway Pundit posts today about the relative calm in the majority of Iraq and specifically about Sunnis and Shiites living side by side in Basra, rebuilding infrastructure and in general enjoying a peaceful existence that would likely shock a lot of Americans and Europeans.

Over the past few days Flopping Aces has developed, in a great bit of investigative journalism, that Associated Press and The Los Angeles Times are reporting false or exaggerated stories about military operations and sectarian violence. NBC News proudly declared a Civil War in Iraq:

On "Today," Lauer said NBC News consulted with many experts and carefully deliberated before making the call. He said there are two clearly defined groups, the Sunnis and the Shiites, using violence to gain political supremacy, and there's a government in place that's unable to protect people.

Carefully Deliberated. Sounds Familiar.

Now the problem: While some reports are surely exaggerated or outright falsehoods and while the provinces are quiet, Rome is burning.

As I pointed out on Friday, there is more than enough real violence and mayhem to go around in Baghdad and nearby provinces and cities. Peoples with deep and dogged hatreds, thirsts for power and needs to control are in fact killing one another at what any sane observer would call an alarming rate. Our forces perform bravely and brilliantly on a regular basis in Iraq under sometimes nearly impossible circumstances, including trying to serve, save a people who (even when not warring against one another) may not want the magic of western style democracy.

Rich Lowry in his column and Stanley Kurtz in a Corner post at NRO raises two themes in dire need of serious discussion among all conservatives, and indeed anyone who does not want to see Iraq fall into chaos or under Iranian-Syrian control.

First and foremost, Leadership. No war goes according to the game plan; every war from Iraq back to Caesar's war to put down the Gallic revolt led by Versingetorix finds itself careening off course in unexpected ways, including colossal blunders by Kings, Presidents and Generals. (Victor Davis Hanson in a piece both tongue in cheek and deadly serious catalogues the mistakes of World War Two and how they would be reported today.) It is exactly when things go wrong that leaders rise while others fall or fail.

Right now we have a Commander in Chief who in 2004 seemed to know where he stood and had an air of decisiveness that garnered him a record number of votes over a challenger who gave him everything he could handle - it was no cakewalk. I believe now as I did then that President Bush made enough Americans believe he had the plan to bring stability to Iraq without falling into the kind of indiscernible policy citizens feared and remembered from Vietnam, one where we were not losing but did not have the political will from our leaders OR the electorate to do what was required to win.

Fast forward to now and our Commander in Chief now meets with Nancy Pelosi who has described President Bush as incompetent, a liar and dangerous; he awaits the report of the Iraq study group in a manner that is evocative of someone looking for marching orders. On the military front, if his commanders in the field told him anything from the beginning except destroying Muqtada al-Sadr on the summer of 2004 was exactly the right thing to do, he took bad advice. If they did tell him that and he allowed anyone to override their advice it was a huge mistake. Iyad Allawi, the Iraqi Interim Prime Minister at the time, thought taking out al-Sadr was precisely what needed to be done.

Second, following up on the Kurtz post at NRO, were we (we go to war as a nation) more than a little naive in thinking that elections in an inherently unstable situation were going to pull the various factions together enough to have political and not (often) violence driven solutions to their differences? Also, to backtrack a moment, was the awful decision to enter into yet another truce with al-Sadr made simply in order to not delay the January 2005 elections? I agree that wars cannot have timetables as a rule of thumb; did we make the mistake of thinking democracies can?

Do we have the will now to support "going strong" if President Bush decides that is the game plan? I don't think there is enough support among Americans for "go long" and to go home at this point would be a larger failure than what any democrat or fatalist thinks we currently face.
We have the military resources to take out those like al-Sadr who are a brick wall on the road to an Iraq that can survive on its own. It will cost dear lives on both sides. But we must act decisively soon, both politically and militarily.

It's not defeatism to ask the questions and hope for action, but circumstances sometimes drive a nation at war to hard options. Those who think we are not at that point or very, very near it, are try to put lipstick on a pig.

Associated Press: Gullible or Propagandist?

Flopping Aces may have found the story of the year.

One wonders what might have been if the media during Tet were subjected to the citizen scrutiny shared today? More on this after I have digested this rapidly evolving story.


(Big Hat-Tips to my wife & Gateway Pundit)

Islam, Smith & Wesson and Protecting Women

Fausta's Blog has a great post on a perhaps emerging trend of "Submission Sheik." Please read the entire article, but I present from that story my Quote of the Day:

According to this site, the purpose of the veil is protection. While some decadent Westeners think of condoms when someone mentions protection,
This is the whole point, modesty is prescribed to protect women from molestation or simply, modesty is protection. Thus, the only purpose of the veil in Islam is protection.
Some of us decadent Western women, however, prefer to protect ourselves with firearms. Never mind that the mark of a civilized society is men's self-control.

As the father of two daughters, ages 21 and 19, I could not agree more.

Iraq, Washington, D.C. and statistics

I've always thought one of the things that separates conservatives from liberals (and I've been around plenty of both) is conservatives are more introspective about their positions. In fact, I often think we can become paralyzed over our own debates and endless assessment of policies and what makes a conservative.

But I am stunned over the numbers game a number of conservative blogs, many I respect deeply, are playing today. It actually started last May when Republican House Member Steve King took the floor to compare the deaths per 100,000 (the standard statistical measure) in Iraq and some American cities. His point was that in many places many more civilians died over a year than were dying in Iraq. Context for numbers is good and required for intelligent discussion; but the context has to be complete.

Many of the hundreds killed in Iraq every day are slaughtered by the forces of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a man so secure in his power and his 10,000 man militia he feels comfortable saying who the leaders of Iraq can and cannot meet with, including the President of the United States. The U.S. Military has been held back from getting al-Sadr before and is being held back now. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refuses to move against al-Sadr. In fact, it seems coalition forces are doing little besides being used as moving targets right now, unless fired upon directly, with no offensive operations of any significant size or scale being undertaken.

Anyone who reads this little blog at all knows I am NOT in favor of abandoning Iraq. I'm in favor of winning. So my question is, who the hell cares how many are killed in Brazil? WE are not there. We ARE in Iraq and if we have no capacity to stop the violence by thugs like al-Sadr and the equally barbaric Sunni militias, it raises some questions that go to the very core of the handling of this entire enterprise up to this point.

The disbanding of the Iraqi military, the complete dismantling of the Baath government infrastructure, the training of Iraqi security and military forces and, not the least question by the way, why are we propping up Maliki who is propping up a murderous thug who kills innocent men, women and children and has declared open war on the United States troops in Iraq. Did we not go there to crush exactly these types?

Do we hang Saddam (I'm more in favor of slow death by scorpion) but coddle the man who coddles and kowtows to al-Sadr?

There is only one circumstance that would make me support a complete pullout from Iraq ASAP: if we're not there to win and bring dignity, peace and safety to the people of Iraq. We better figure out fast if that is what we are going to do, because I'll bet you everything I own that a U.S. military medic or surgeon holding a child mangled by yet another car bomb does not give a tinkers damm about the murder rate in Bolivia.

Thin Thanksgiving week

I'm out of town this week visiting family I only see once or twice a year, so the number of post are few.

I hope each and every person who visits my humble little blog enjoys a wonderful Thanksgiving day and ask for your prayers and thoughts for all of men and women in Uniform around the world.

The cost of winning

In my post of of November 6, 2006, I did my best to discuss the sorry but often necessary choice of war over peace and the death of some to insure the survival of the many. This post on TCS Daily by Philip R. O'Connor is somewhat parallel to my larger point.

Remember when....

Leading up to the election you were a right wing-nut and questioned the patriotism of democrats/the left if you said a vote for them was a vote for "cut & run."

Clinton, the former president, provided a rebuttal from a stage in Rochester, N.Y.
"On this 'stay the course in Iraq' deal, they say we're the cut-and-run crowd," he said. "These people don't look like cut and run to me," he said, gesturing at Eric Massa, a House candidate and Navy veteran, and former Sen. Max Cleland, a triple amputee from war wounds suffered in Vietnam a generation ago. " (DAVID ESPO AND ED WHITE - The Associated Press)

I guess Murtha, Levin, Pelosi, Kennedy, H.R. Clinton and the rest of the gang did not consult Cleland and Massa on Iraq Policy.

Analysis from Dr. Sanity

Dr. Sanity, for those of you with an interest in psychology/psychiatry breaks down some pressing need for therapy in the MSM. (Hat Tip Gateway Pundit)
PLEASE don't rob yourself by not reading every link in her post, it will take a while but is well worth it.



I have about 24 publications/websites on my RSS feed, everything from National Review to the New York Times; the post above explains why. If you just get your news from one or two sources, you can be dammed sure you're not getting it all or getting balanced coverage. We have a tendency to seek out what we agree with, I do to - but if we do not look for the back story, the quote that was not printed completely, we only rob ourselves.

Iraq, Pelosi, Levin and Churchill...

This November 16 post from TCS Daily is another great insight into the choices we face in Iraq.

Far too many are still hung up on 2003 and the reasons (or lack thereof, some say) for going into Iraq to begin with. Even if you take as true all of those who say President Bush cooked intelligence, wanted Iraq for its oil, wanted to get Saddam for trying to get his dad and so on it does not change the obligation we created to the people of Iraq and to the fallen American servicemen and women.

Carl Levin in this Detroit Free Press interview states;
"We've been there now as long as World War II, almost, and longer than the Korean conflict. And the solution here is a political solution. It's not a military solution. Everyone seems to tell us that, but then a lot of people don't follow through on their own logic."

And we've all heard from Levin some variation of:
"It is our firm belief -- and I believe it more deeply than ever -- that we have to force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own nation, that we cannot save them from themselves. I believe that, whether or not public opinion is 60% supportive of it or 40% supportive of it. That is my belief. I think it is more and more the belief of colleagues. ..."


First, Senator Levin implies that Iraqis are not fighting and dying for their country on a daily basis; he could not be more wrong. Since January of 2005 an average of 193 Iraqi police and security forces personnel are killed each month. The worst month for American forces was 137 in November of 2004 and the average American killed per month since the start of the war is 65. Over 19,000 Iraqi civilians have died since January of 2005. In September of this year 3,389 civilians died.

Mr Levin wants to have his cake and eat it too on public opinion; he and other democrats say the public has spoken on Iraq and they want change, but then says he does not care if there is support for a near term redeployment. He then goes on to imply other democratic members of congress would be willing to ignore public opinion on the matter.


Nancy Pelosi said on the November 8 Newshour:
"So what is being accomplished by our being there? A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down. The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?"

First, Ms. Pelosi, the White House has said clearly what it considers victory, you just don't like the answer: MR. SNOW: No, I think what he was talking about is security objectives, but victory still is an Iraq that can sustain, defend and govern itself. (White House Press briefing November 10, 2006)

This is something the President has stated consistently. This "what is victory?" zen riddle posed by cut and run democrats is getting old. It is simply a way of tearing down a stated plan without offering one of their own, except of course to sell the Iraqis in to desolation and still blame George Bush.

Second, dear Speaker, how do you plan on disarming the militias? I'm sure we will wait until hell freezes over for an answer from Pelosi, Murtha, ET AL, on how to disarm the militias/insurgents without American military might to back up the Iraqi security forces. You see kids, they have it exactly ass-backwards: Disarm, control, hold, turn over, THEN you start a phased pull out.

You don't have to be Patton or a military historian to figure this out, even though in this case the vast majority of generals and experts agree. Just ask former CentCom Commander Anthony Zinni, retired Army Major General John Batiste, former Clinton administration NSC member Kenneth M. Pollack and, Current CentCom Commander General John Abizaid, to name a few. By he way, Iraq Defense Minister Abdul-Qadir al-Obaidi has publicly stated that U.S. forces pulling back and handing security over to Iraqi forces at this point is not a good idea.

Demoractic leaders are learning (I hope) that both the public and the experts agree that "change of direction" does not equal "cut and run."

Telling it like it is

The following comment and reply at Moonbattery regarding the sad and sophomoric post on Reason says it all for the libertarian position and why they get fewer votes than John Murtha running for Majority Leader:

Posted by: chsw10605 at November 14, 2006 03:33 PM

Theocratic Iran is social conservatism's logical end state--the only difference being the fictional work from which the government's fatwas are divined. The ideology is pure mysticism: a toxic brew of anti-science, anti-reason, and anti-intellectualism.

The incessant, goofball cries from social conservatives (like you) for war against Islam differ in no meaningful way from Iran's incessant, goofball cries for war against Judaism. It's a perverse philosophy of perpetual war, against enemies who can't be identified, for reasons that can't be defined.

Keep this in mind the next time you find yourself so befuddled over why on earth somebody might vote libertarian instead of republican.
=============================================================================
Posted by: Van Helsing at November 14, 2006 03:43 PM

Oh, yeah. Social conservatives using the Democratic process to defend the traditional definition of marriage is exactly the same as the ayatollah's stoning homosexuals to death. Social conservatives using the democratic process to protect unborn life is exactly the same as imams forcing girls to undergo genital mutilation. Social conservatives using the democratic process to stop molesters from taking their underage girlfriends across state lines to get abortions is exactly the same as virtue police honor-killing girls for talking to non-Muslims. Social conservatives using the democratic process to protest lifestyle indoctrination in the public schools are exactly the same as suicide bombers blowing up Israeli schoolkids.

Also, the answer to all of society's problems are open borders and drug legalization.

Keep this in mind the next time you find yourself so befuddled over why on earth somebody would vote republican instead of libertarian.
=====================================================================================
Some folks can say in a paragraph what others cannot get across in an entire book. Bravo.

Jose Padillas' Victim Status in danger

The above Washington Post story from today reports U.S. officials say Abu Zubaydah is the person who ratted out "poor Jose Padilla." Shortly after he was captured, U.S. officials said Zubaydah was believed to be a recruiter for Al Qaida (Although I must admit, between Padilla and "shoebomber" Richard Ried he was clearly not administering MENSA test to potential recruits).