Xtra News Community 2
January 17, 2018, 02:28:19 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
 
   Home   Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10
 41 
 on: January 11, 2018, 06:37:25 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from The New York Times....

EDITORIAL: Is Mr. Trump Nuts?

It's the wrong question.
Efforts to diagnose the president from afar are
damaging to real efforts to address his unfitness.


By THE EDITORIAL BOARD | Wednesday, January 10, 2018



IS Donald Trump mentally fit to be president of the United States? It's an understandable question, and it's also beside the point.

Understandable because Mr. Trump's behavior in office — impulsive, erratic, dishonest, childish, crude — is so alarming, and so far from what Americans expect in their chief executive, that it cries out for a deeper explanation.

It's beside the point not because a president's mental capacity doesn't matter, nor because we should blindly accept our leaders' declarations of their own stability, let alone genius. Rather, we don't need a medical degree or a psychiatric diagnosis to tell us what is wrong with Mr. Trump. It's obvious to anyone who listens to him speak, reads his tweets and sees the effects of his behavior — on the presidency, on the nation and its most important institutions, and on the integrity of the global order.

Presidents should not, for instance, taunt the leaders of hostile nations with demeaning nicknames and boasts about the size of their “nuclear button”. They should not tweet out videos depicting them violently assaulting their political opponents. They should not fire the F.B.I. director to derail an investigation into their own campaign's possible collusion with a foreign government to swing the election. And, of course, they shouldn't have to find themselves talking to reporters to insist that they're mentally stable.

This behavior may be evidence of some underlying disorder, or it may not. Who knows? Mr. Trump hasn't undergone a mental-health evaluation, at least not one made public. But even if his behavior were diagnosed as an illness, what would that tell us that we don't already know? Plenty of people with mental disorders or disabilities function at high levels of society. Conversely, if Mr. Trump were found to have no diagnosable illness, he would be no more fit for the office he holds than he is today.

The problem lies in trying to locate the essence of Mr. Trump's unfitness in the unknowable reaches of his mind, as opposed to where we can all openly see it and address it in political terms. As the psychiatrist Allen Frances told The New York Times: “You can't say enough about how incompetent and unqualified he is to be leader of the free world. But that does not make him mentally ill.”

Unfortunately, a number of psychiatrists, politicians and others who should know better have increasingly taken up the Trump-is-crazy line. In The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, released last October, more than two dozen contributors, most mental-health professionals, concluded that Mr. Trump presents a grave and immediate danger to the safety of America and the world. No argument there, but why do we need to hear it from psychiatrists relying on their professional credentials? Dr. Bandy Lee, one of the book's editors, said the authors are “assessing dangerousness, not making a diagnosis.” Anyone with access to newspapers or Mr. Trump's Twitter feed can do the same.

The psychiatrists say they have a duty to warn the public about what they see as a serious threat to the nation. That's commendable, but they should consider how their comments will be taken by the vast majority of Americans, particularly in a highly politically polarized time. The language of mental health and illness is widely used yet poorly understood, and it comes loaded with unwarranted assumptions and harmful stereotypes. There's a good reason the profession established an ethical guideline in 1973, known as the Goldwater Rule, that prohibits psychiatrists from offering professional judgment on public figures they have not personally examined.

In the future, it would be a good idea if presidential candidates voluntarily submitted to a mental-health evaluation, just as they often do a physical one — and in that case, psychiatrists would have a critical role to play. But you don't need to put Mr. Trump on a couch now to discover who he is.

So what's the right way to deal with Mr. Trump's evident unfitness?

Not the 25th Amendment, despite the sudden fashion for it. Ratified in the wake of President John Kennedy's assassination, the amendment authorizes the temporary removal of a president who is unable to do the job. Its final section, which has never been invoked, was meant to clarify what should happen if the president becomes clearly incapacitated. One of the amendment's drafters, Jay Berman, a former congressional staff member who has said Mr. Trump “appears unhinged,” still doesn't believe that the amendment applies to his case.

Even if invoking the amendment were the best approach, consider what would need to happen. First, the vice president, plus a majority of Mr. Trump's cabinet, must declare to Congress that the president cannot do his job. If Mr. Trump disagreed, they would have to restate their case. Only then would both houses of Congress get involved, and each would have to agree by a two-thirds vote. The chances of any of these steps being taken in today's political environment are less than zero.

Impeachment would be a more direct and fitting approach, if Mr. Trump's actions rise to the level of high crimes or misdemeanors. But this path is similarly obstructed by Republicans in Congress, who are behaving less like members of a coequal branch with oversight power than like co-conspirators of a man they know is unfit to govern.

The best solution is the simplest: Vote, and organize others to register and to vote. If you believe Donald Trump represents a danger to the country and the world, you can take action to rein in his power. In November, you can help elect members of Congress who will fight Mr. Trump's most dangerous behaviors. If that fails, there's always 2020.


__________________________________________________________________________

Related to this topic:

 • Caution: Entering Trump's Mind

 • Trump's Threat to Democracy

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/opinion/is-mr-trump-nuts.html

 42 
 on: January 11, 2018, 06:36:45 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from The Washington Post....

Trump's ambassador to Netherlands was asked to name a person
‘burned’ because of Islam. He couldn't.


Dutch journalists questioned Trump appointee Peter Hoekstra on anti-Muslim remarks he made.
He refused to answer.


By ELI ROSENBERG and AMAR NADHIR | 11:21PM EST — Wednesday, January 10, 2018

U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands Peter Hoekstra takes questions from the press on Wednesday. — Photograph: John Thys/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images.
U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands Peter Hoekstra takes questions from the press on Wednesday. — Photograph: John Thys/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images.

PETER HOEKSTRA, the newly minted U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands, held his first conference with the Dutch media at his new residence in the Hague on Wednesday.

It did not go well.

Dutch journalists peppered Hoekstra, who became Trump's ambassador after serving 18 years as a Republican congressman from Michigan, with questions on unsubstantiated claims he made in 2015 about the chaos the “Islamic movement” had brought to the Netherlands.

“There are cars being burned, there are politicians that are being burned,” he had said at a conference hosted by a conservative group. “And yes, there are no-go zones in the Netherlands.”

The comments have widely been described as inaccurate, and reflect certain conspiracies about sharia law that crop up in some circles of the far-right in the West. When pressed by the Dutch reporters, Hoekstra declined to retract the comments or give specific examples to back them up.

In fact, after saying that he would be “revisiting the issue,” he simply refused to answer the question at all.

But the reporters were not done with the line of questioning yet. Instead of moving on, another reporter would simply ask a variation on the question again.

“Everybody there had one question: that crazy statement you made, are you going to withdraw it?” said Roel Geeraedts, a political reporter at the Dutch television station RTL Nieuws in a phone interview about the event. “We were not getting answers, so we all kept asking it.”

Geeraedts published a segment with video of the remarkable exchange on social media.



(click on the image to view the video clip at Twitter)

After at least one person had asked the question, Geeraedts followed up to ask Hoekstra about a John Adams quote — Adams was the United States' first ambassador to Holland — that was mounted right behind the ambassador. Hoekstra said he had read the quote, which expresses Adams' hope that only “honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.”

“If you're truly an honest and wise man, could you please take back the remark about burned politicians or name the politician that was burned in the Netherlands?” Geeraedts asked.

An uncomfortable silence followed the question.

“Thank you,” Hoekstra said, before trying to call on someone else over the clamor of the reporters in the room.

“Excuse me, I asked you a question,” Geeraedts said.

Another journalist jumped in.

“Mr. Ambassador, can you mention any example of a Dutch politician who was burned in recent years?”

Again, silence, as Hoekstra stared around the room.

“This is the Netherlands, you have to answer questions,” another reporter said.

Sherry Keneson-Hall, an embassy counselor who was helping run the news conference, pushed back, asserting that Hoekstra was answering the questions.

At least one more journalist fired the question off. Reporters had asked the question at least five times.

“We were all astonished that he didn't want to take back the comment. It was simply untrue, so why not take it back?” said Geeraedts. “It was awkward, to be honest.”

Hoekstra has been in hot water in the Netherlands for the remarks since he was first confronted by a Dutch journalist, Wouter Zwart, in December. Hoekstra falsely claimed to Zwart that he had never made the remarks and called them “fake news”. Moments later, he denied that he had called them fake news.

Video of the bizarre exchange, juxtaposed with his “no-go zone” remarks, went viral, and the episode drew a slew of critical headlines in the United States and the Netherlands.



(click on the image to view the video clip at Twitter)

Hoekstra's silence when faced with reporters' questions on Wednesday drew a similar response.

“Embarrassing performance from controversial ambassador,” read a web headline at De Telegraaf, one of the country's largest newspapers. “Ambassador Hoekstra lost his way again in The Hague,” read another. “Very uncomfortable meeting between ambassador and journalists,” went RTL Nieuws.

Hoekstra pointed to the public regrets he had made for the exchange with Zwart on Wednesday. But he did not clarify whether the apology was meant to include the no-go zone comments when asked on Wednesday. At one point, he seemed to indicate that he was most concerned about the interview, not the statements.

“It is not about my personal views anymore. This is about the views on the policies of the United States of America as directed by this administration,” he said. “One interview is not going to have an impact. The other thing I just want to reinforce, this relationship has been maintained by countless people over the last 400 years, this is not about me.”

A CNN report published this week documented multiple times Hoekstra had referred to “no-go zones,” in European cities during appearances on conservative media, including talk radio, and a print op-ed, and unearthed other instances where he had given fuel to conspiracy theories about Muslims.

He speculated that some 10-15 percent of the Muslim community in the world — 270 million people — were radical Islamist militants and appeared to imply that Huma Abedin had “egregious” ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a claim that The Washington Post's fact-checker Glenn Kessler, and other publications, have determined as “bogus”. On another far-right show, Hoekstra said he had considered the possibly that President Barack Obama might be intentionally aiding the rise of Muslim extremists.

The State Department did not return a request for comment.

Geeraedts said he believed that Hoekstra's behavior confirmed some suspicions the Dutch have about the Trump administration.

“A lot of Dutch people have seen the press conferences of the White House and seen how some questions are not answered,” he said. “Everybody knows about ‘alternative facts’. And this fits that picture.”

He said that the press corps' unwillingness to let the question go was a spontaneous response, and said he had seen a similar tactic employed on a smaller scale when Dutch politicians gave evasive answers to direct questions. But he said politics in the Netherlands differed a bit from the current situation in the United States.

“In the Netherlands you don't get a straight up answer, if you ask straight up questions,” he said. “But you hardly get false answers.”


• Eli Rosenberg is a reporter on The Washington Post's General Assignment team.

• Amar Nadhir is social media editor at The Washington Post.

__________________________________________________________________________

Related to this topic:

 • Trump's ambassador to the Netherlands just got caught lying about the Dutch


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/10/trumps-ambassador-to-netherlands-was-asked-to-name-a-person-burned-because-of-islam-he-couldnt

 43 
 on: January 11, 2018, 05:53:27 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Im2Sexy4MyPants
Proof of your mental illness is that you support communist slavery and murder of innocents

Communist China Worldwide Plan, Organ Harvesting, Slave Labor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yhFdzo3_jo






 44 
 on: January 11, 2018, 05:36:21 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

Don't mess with the mentally-ill Prez....


And now we all get to read the entrails of Steve Bannon




 45 
 on: January 11, 2018, 05:31:52 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from The New York Times....

‘Trump Place’ Asks if It Can Be Called by Any Other Name

The board of a Manhattan building bearing the president's name has asked a court
to protect its right to remove it, without facing a lawsuit in return.


By CHARLES V. BAGLI | Wednesday, January 10, 2018

A condominium in Manhattan known as 200 Riverside Boulevard at Trump Place would like to remove the president's name from the front of its building. — Photograph: Benjamin Norman/The New York Times .
A condominium in Manhattan known as 200 Riverside Boulevard at Trump Place would like to remove the president's name from the front of its building.
 — Photograph: Benjamin Norman/The New York Times .


MUST A New York City condominium forever bear the name T-R-U-M-P in large, brasslike letters? Or can it choose to take them down in favor, perhaps, of what a majority of residents believe is a more dignified name, 200 Riverside Boulevard, its simple street address?

That is the question before a State Supreme Court judge in Manhattan as part of a heated legal battle between the condominium's board and DJT Holdings, a corporate entity owned by President Trump.

There was a time in New York City and beyond when developers and businesses proudly emblazoned the Trump name on their residential buildings, hotels, steaks and water.

But since Mr. Trump was elected president, a small countertrend has emerged.

T-R-U-M-P letters have been peeled off three rental buildings also on Riverside Boulevard, as well as hotels in SoHo and Toronto. The Trump name was also excised from the now-defunct Taj Mahal casino on the Atlantic City boardwalk, but that happened at Mr. Trump's insistence.

The embattled condominium is part of a development that stretches from 59th to 72nd Street along the West Side, known variously as Riverside South and Trump Place. Mr. Trump bought the property, a former rail yard, in the 1980s, but with his business in distress, he ended up selling it to a group of Hong Kong billionaires who, with his help, developed it.

The Trump name was cemented in place by a four-page licensing agreement, signed in 2000. It described Mr. Trump as a “worldwide renowned builder and developer of real estate who enjoys the highest reputation in these fields among others,” but set only a modest value on the use of his name: $1. Not payable monthly or even annually, but $1 in total.

The name was not an issue until the presidential campaign in 2016 and Mr. Trump's subsequent election, when some residents began to object.

“I felt that he was way far right of my politics,” said Harvey Koeppel, who described himself as the first resident of the building. “I also felt he was dishonest. The way in which he conducted the campaign was, well, sixth-grade level would give him too much credit. I found him embarrassing.”

At three nearby rental buildings — 140, 160 and 180 Riverside Boulevard — the sentiment among tenants was so anti-Trump that the T-R-U-M-Ps on their buildings were removed before the president even took office.

A resident of 220 Riverside Boulevard, another condominium nearby, initiated a petition to remove the name from her building that garnered support from at least 57 homeowners and 24 renters in the building, although little came of it.

At 200 Riverside Boulevard, the board's residential committee conducted an anonymous survey of residents last February about whether to keep or remove the Trump name. The letter announcing the effort assured residents, in capital letters, that “THIS IS A BLIND SURVEY AND CANNOT BE TRACKED TO AN APARTMENT,” lest they be fearful of answering honestly.

“A majority was in favor” of removing the Trump letters, Mr. Koeppel, an independent management and technology consultant, recalled. He said a minority of residents had no issue with the letters, while others supported the president. Mr. Harvey and his wife, Peggy Koeppel, sold their 12th-floor apartment in July, after retiring and moving to the Hudson Valley, but not before they were forced to drop the price by 10 percent to secure a buyer.

Just before a meeting of unit owners to discuss the survey results, on March 29th, Alan Garten, the chief legal officer of the Trump Organization, sent a letter to the board saying that removal of the letters would constitute a “flagrant and material breach of the license agreement.”

Mr. Garten also said that many apartment owners had reached out to express “their grave concerns with the Board’s contemplated action.”

That cast a pall over the meeting, Mr. Koeppel said. “There was definitively a fear in the air.”

With a new board on its way in, a decision was delayed. Then, last week, the residential committee of the board asked the court to issue a declaratory judgment that the condominium has the right to use or remove the letters without violating its licensing agreement with Mr. Trump.

Under the licensing agreement, the committee acknowledges the board’s obligation “to maintain the building in a manner consistent with ‘super luxury’ condominiums in Manhattan.”

But, the committee said in its suit, the agreement “does not obligate the board to use or display identifications,” but rather “grants the board the right to use the identifications should the board choose to do so.”

The lawsuit was first reported by The New York Post.

Harry Lipman, a lawyer for the condominium, said that the committee “took no position on whether the signage should or should not be removed.”

“If we obtain the ruling,” he said in a statement, “the committee will give the unit owners the opportunity to express themselves through a fair and democratic vote on the issue without any threat of legal action by the licensor.”

That election is not a foregone conclusion, of course, but in the presidential election, Mr. Trump received just 64,929 votes in Manhattan, versus 579,013 for his opponent, Hillary Clinton.


• Charles Bagli has been a reporter at The New York Times for more than 20 years, covering the intersection of real estate and politics. He has worked at the Brooklyn Phoenix, the Tampa Tribune, Daily Record and the New York Observer. He is the author of Other People's Money; Inside the Housing Crisis and the Demise of the Greatest Real Estate Deal Ever Made.

__________________________________________________________________________

Related to this topic:

 • Final Nights at the Trump SoHo Before Trump Checks Out

 • Trump Won the Election, but 3 Manhattan Buildings Will Lose His Name

 • What's in a Name? When It's ‘Trump Place’, It's a Revolt


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/nyregion/trump-place-manhattan-lawsuit.html

 46 
 on: January 11, 2018, 05:30:55 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from The New York Times....

To Fight Climate Change, New York City Takes on Oil Companies

The de Blasio administration is suing five major oil companies over climate change,
and urging city pension funds to divest from fossil fuel firms.


By WILLIAM NEUMAN | Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Mayor Bill de Blasio, left, vowed on Wednesday that city pension funds would divest about $5 billion from companies involved in the fossil fuel business. — Photograph: Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times.
Mayor Bill de Blasio, left, vowed on Wednesday that city pension funds would divest about $5 billion from companies involved in the fossil fuel business.
 — Photograph: Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times.


SEEKING TO position himself as a national leader against climate change, Mayor Bill de Blasio on Wednesday announced a two-pronged attack against the fossil-fuel industry, including a vow that city pension funds would divest about $5 billion from companies involved in the fossil fuel business.

The mayor also announced a lawsuit against five major oil companies, seeking to collect billions of dollars in damages to pay for city efforts to cope with the effects of climate change.

“This city is standing up and saying, ‘We're going to take our own actions to protect our own people,’” the mayor said, wearing a green necktie and sitting in front of large green sign that said “NYC: Leading the Fight Against Climate Change”. He added, “We're not waiting.”

But in fact the city will have to wait, potentially for many years.

The mayor acknowledged that the lawsuit, which he compared to successful lawsuits against large tobacco companies, could take years to reach a resolution.

The city lawsuit says that the oil companies — BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell — were aware for years that burning fossil fuels caused climate change but hid the conclusions of their own scientists. It says that the city has spent billions of dollars and will spend billions more to deal with the consequences of climate change, such as the effects of Sandy, and it seeks to hold the companies responsible for those costs.

Similar lawsuits were filed last year against oil companies by San Francisco and Oakland; the California counties of Marin and San Mateo and the City of Imperial Beach; and the City of Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz County.

“Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a global issue and requires global participation and actions,” Exxon Mobil said in an emailed statement. “Lawsuits of this kind — filed by trial attorneys against an industry that provides products we all rely upon to power the economy and enable our domestic life — simply do not do that.”

A spokesman for Chevron responded in similar terms, saying the lawsuit would “do nothing to address the serious issue of climate change.”

Eric A. Goldstein, a senior lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, had a different view, calling the lawsuit a “classic example of impact litigation that's designed to upend the existing order.” He said that lawsuits targeting the tobacco industry were once considered long shots but ended up being successful.

The city comptroller, Scott M. Stringer, who sat next to Mr. de Blasio at the news conference, tempered his enthusiasm on the pension divestments, saying, “We're setting a formal goal to divest from fossil fuels.” He added that any decision would be complex, take time and must be viewed through a “lens of sound fiscal stewardship.” He said the goal was to complete the divestment within five years.

Trustees for the city's five pension funds would need to approve any divestment, weighing its effect on the funds' performance. A resolution submitted on Wednesday to the boards of the five funds called for them to “initiate a process for determining a prudent divestment” strategy in keeping with the fiduciary duty to responsibly manage the funds. It called for the boards to hire a consultant to study the issue and its impact on risk and return.

Mr. de Blasio said that a majority of the trustees on two of the funds — one for teachers and another for many employees not including police officers or firefighters — were ready to support divestment.

Some participants in the news conference noted that under Mayor de Blasio, the city's pension funds had previously divested from companies involved in the coal industry, as well as from private prison companies. But those investments represented a total of about $60 million, far less than the estimated $5 billion invested in fossil fuel companies. The total amount managed by the funds is about $189 billion.

The divestment announcement comes less than a month after Governor Andrew M. Cuomo promised to cease the state's investments in entities “with significant fossil-fuel activities,” and created an advisory committee to “develop a decarbonization road map.”

The news conference on Wednesday was held at a Lower Manhattan community center that Mr. de Blasio said had been flooded during Hurricane Sandy. It was attended by activists wearing buttons calling for divestment, who applauded frequently as Mr. de Blasio, Mr. Stringer and other officials spoke.

Mr. de Blasio has made other grandiose pledges to combat climate change. Last September he announced that the city would force the owners of large buildings, including apartment houses and office buildings, to retrofit them to save energy. But what he ultimately revealed was a vague plan that needed to be fleshed out and then enacted by the City Council, which quickly distanced itself from the announcement. Since then, no legislation has been introduced.

Mr. de Blasio is also opposed to creating a congestion pricing scheme that would charge vehicles entering parts of Manhattan, in order to reduce driving and finance public transit. Advocates say such a scheme would also help fight climate change, but Mr. de Blasio says that it would be unfair to poorer drivers and drivers from outside Manhattan.

He has also been criticized for frequently driving to Brooklyn from Gracie Mansion in Manhattan to go the gym, and for the little he has done to improve the energy efficiency of two homes he owns in Brooklyn.


John Schwartz and Jesse McKinley contributed reporting.

• William Neuman is a greater New York City area reporter at The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/nyregion/new-york-city-fossil-fuel-divestment.html

 47 
 on: January 11, 2018, 05:15:20 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

There is a good book you can read about Donald J. Trump's patently obvious mental illness.

CLICK HERE.

You can read all about how fucked-in-the-head President Dumb really is.

And the book was contributed to by 27 esteemed psychiatrists and mental health experts too!

 48 
 on: January 11, 2018, 05:04:13 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

Face facts....you are supporting somebody who is clearly GAGA.

Donald J. Trump is showing the same early symptoms also displayed by Ronnie Ray-Guns, except those symptoms are 1,000% more obvious in Trump's case.

Hahaha....how does it feel to be an idiot from Woodville sucked in by a mental retard in Jesusland?

 49 
 on: January 11, 2018, 04:20:42 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Im2Sexy4MyPants
George Soros criminal nazi collaborator gave 18 billion dollars to destroy america
but he won't get very far
he's a dead man walking
i want him either locked up in a prison or dead
hope someone kills the scummy commie nazi swine


 50 
 on: January 11, 2018, 04:09:13 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Im2Sexy4MyPants
come on you fuckhead retard everyone knows saying people are mental is right out of the communist playbook

communist countries have a long record of locking up anyone who does not agree with their politics in state run hellhole mental institutions

i would rather die than become a communist retard because they are weak brained idiots and screwed in the head

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10
Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Buy traffic for your forum/website
traffic-masters
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.078 seconds with 13 queries.