July 22, 2013

Please Help !!! (Important)

I am hoping that DUers will assist me on the conflict described in the below quote and link. (And that my computer skills are adequate enough to allow me to copy & paste it properly.)

http://www.change.org/petitions/antero-resources-and-the-state-of-ohio-protect-native-american-archeological-burial-grounds-in-ohio-owned-by-bonds

"The property is a prospective site for shale gas exploration, drilling and extraction. The property owners have refused multiple offers to purchase or lease rights on the property to drill for shale methane gas. That is their private right. Beyond that right, the property,and specifically the portion of the property Antero Resources seeks to excavate and drill, has also been identified as a Native American Burial Mound site. In addition, evidence exists that other significant and historic anthropological findings on this site may be disrupted or destroyed if excavation and drilling are performed on the Bond property. It is in the best interests of the County, State of Ohio, and Nation, if Antero Resources, and the State of Ohio are prohibited from allowing the imposition of Eminent Domain to procure the property, or any other legal or civil action, including the voluntary sale and use of the property for excavation and drilling for the purposes Antero Resources requires to recover shale gas from this property. Specifically, no excavation below grade should be allowed, and no sub-surface drilling should be allowed which might disturb or destroy any burial sites or archological relics of whatever archeological age, on the Bond Property, for any purpose."

This information was sent to me a short time ago. I have been in communication with the Onondaga Nation, and with the Nation's attorney, this afternoon. The possibility of this leading to a federal court case is high, in my opinion.

We need as much support from the general public as possible. Please sign the petition, and -- iff possible -- send it along to other groups and individuals who may be interested.

Thank you for your support!

H2O Man

July 19, 2013

When the Word is Given

In the beginning,
I misunderstood.
but now I've got it:
The Word is good.
-- John Lennon; The Word

If a tree falls in the solitude of the woods, and noone hears it, does it make any noise? If a president delivers the Word in the disorganized dust of the American wilderness, will anyone hear?

That was, in my opinion, the best speech that Barack Obama has made as the President of the United States. It ranks with his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and his 2008 speech on race, when he was seeking the democratic nomination.

It is as distinct from the post-verdict hand- and hate-wringing on cable news, as sugar from shit.

Yet if it is used only as a topic to argue with those who think differently, it will be reduced to the level of meaninglessness as hundreds of other presidential speeches -- merely fine words that come to nothing.

But if we use it to question ourselves in an on-going internal dialogue, and then act upon the answers we reach -- even if they are uncomfortable -- then it could rank high among the most influential of US President's speeches.

Peace,
H2O Man

July 17, 2013

Blood Brothers

"It's impossible for a chicken to produce a duck egg -- even though they both belong to the same family of fowl. A chicken just doesn't have it within its system to produce a duck egg. It can't do it. It can only produce according to what that particular system was constructed to produce." -- Malcolm X; May 29, 1964.

The above quote comes from a speech that Malcolm X delivered in New York City, in response to a month-long collection of articles in the local newspapers about a group of young black males called the "Blood Brothers." This highly secretive group, armed with deadly firearms and intent upon the indiscriminite murder of white people, existed only in the imaginations of a segment of the city's white population.

This isn't to imply that there were no young black males in NYC with access to weapons, and hatred for white folk. Rather, it illustrates how a fearful segment of the population, fed a lie by the media, could come to see literally every young black male as posing a potential threat to their safety and well-being.

Of course, our society has made progress on issues involving "race" (another concept that exists only within people's heads) in the last 50 years. But after the verdict was announced in the Zimmerman trial, I found myself wishing that Minister Malcolm were here to deliver a message of truth to the citizens of this nation.

The American criminal justice system tends to produce one outcome for young black males: incarceration, parole, and probation. A larger percentage of young black males are "enrolled" in the prison-industrial complex, than in our colleges and universities. With this in mind, one could hardly be surprised that Zimmerman was found "not guilty," even though he absolutely murdered Trayvon Martin.
The system in Florida is not geared to produce social justice for young black males. Had Trayvon lived to see 18, it is questionable if that system would have allowed him to vote in the next presidential election. That same system has created a system of laws that allow for specific segments of the population to carry concealed, loaded firearms, and to "stand their ground," even when common sense shows them to be ethically or morally tresspassing on other people's rights and lives.

Small wonder that same system would put the murder victim on trial. The only thing that surprised me was that the defense attornies did not introduce those 1964 newspaper articles into evidence, to support Zimmerman's paranoid beliefs about the severe danger Trayvon posed to the good people of his community.

I will be surprised if the Department of Justice actually takes any action beyond "investigating" the murder. It's not because investigators and lawyers will be unable to identify an avenue for prosecuting Zimmerman for infringing upon Trayvon's civil rights. Young black males should have the right to purchase ice tea and skittles without being profiled and murdered. And to walk home in the rain, without a racist, violent escort.

I am reminded of the 1998 incident, where a racist hate group viciously assaulted my nephew. They were upset that a brown-skinned high school scholar-athlete was getting positive media attention, after leading his team to a state title. I've discussed this before on this forum: the gang members, after calling my nephew "dumb nigger," would attack him in a dark parking lot, and leave him for dead. Although he sustained permanent physical injuries, the local justice system could not produce justice. The 280-pound gang leader, who admitted punching and kicking my nephew as he lay unconscious on the ground, got a $50 fine -- because he had an open can of beer at the time of the assault.

The DOJ did investigate, to determine if my nephew's "civil rights" had been violated. The FBI investigator that came to my relatives' home was a good man. He understood what the deal was. He was Jewish, and talked about his extended family's experience in Germany. And he spoke about the cancer of hatred that threatened our society. But he could not encourage any hope that the DOJ would do anything beyond investigate. While the investigators and lawyers were sincere about seeking justice in the land, the politicians who headed various government agencies always view every situation in the context of political gain versus loss.

Yet good people do not have to accept total defeat and a lack of social justice. In the incident with my nephew, we used the media coverage of the thugs' trials (4 of the 17 gang members were charged) to educate the public. More, we took advantage of the opportunity to engage groups and individuals who normally identified themselves as marginalized by the system. We registered new voters. We expanded our ability to influence the outcome of local elections; today, we are not limited to deciding which candidate the system puts forward will win -- we successfully run our own candidates.

If everyone outraged by the Zimmerman verdict would register one person to vote, our numbers would double. Register two, and we triple. Invest an afternoon or evening in community organizing, and decide the next election. Harness the potential strength, and gain the ability to elect our own candidates.

That is the only way to actually make meaningful changes in the system. And it can be done.

Peace,
H2O Man

July 13, 2013

Zimmy the Pinhead

The jury is engaged in its second day of deliberations in the George Zimmerman trial, as I write this. As a result, the commentators on the cable news programs are in search of topics to fill the segments or shows on the trial. Highlights of the closing arguments can go only so far, which could increase the likelihood of panels discussing some of the important social dynamics involved in the case.

These issues include: gun control; fear of crime; laws on self-defense, including "stand you ground"; profiling; and the justice system. These are all important topics for discussion, and there are a variety of opinions on each that are worthy of our consideration.

There are also tangents to these issues; for example, some of the media is covering stories about concerns that there could be a violent response to a "not guilty" verdict. Such coverage could be seen as reinforcing an idea that violence is an option; yet what remains unstated is that it could be people like George Zimmerman acting on this fear, rather than young men like Trayvon Martin.

Let's take a closer look at this, keeping in mind that Zimmerman is not a unique individual -- there are many, many other people (overwhelmingly male) with his general personality type. There are similar sad excuses for men in your and my communities, We may even walk past one of them on the street, or in the store, today.

Zimmerman has correctly been called a "wannabe cop." And I'm not saying it is "bad" for someone to want to have a career in law enforcement. But I am definitely saying there can be both good and bad reasons that people want to be police officers, and that with those men having Zimmermaniac Personality Disorcer (Axis II), a huge quantity of the bad lies below a shallow surface of psuedo-good.

A defense witness who testified as an "expert" in violence compared Zimmerman to Pee Wee Herman, and Trayvon to Chuck Norris. In doing so, he exposed himself as an advocate for the defendant. Why? Because he is Zimmerman's wettest dream: a tough guy who views violence as the ultimate answer to life's questions. But Zimmerman is neither Pee Wee or a tough guy. (Note: Pee Wee resolved the theft of his bike without guns or violence.)

What do we know about Zimmerman that can help us to know with certainty what took place the night he murdered Trayvon? George has a legal history: he has two charges on record, one for a "domestic" incident, and one for a conflict with a police officer. In both instances, Zimmerman blamed the other person involved for not doing what he wanted them to do. An attribute of ZPD (Zimmerman Personality Disorder) is their believing that they are an authority, and thus, anyone not doing exactly what they want are resisting authority -- and need to be punished.

Zimmerman knew he was not a tough guy. But that was definitely his goal: he wanted to be able to administer "justice" to people who disobeyed his rigid mental rules for society. Hence, he trained, three days a week, in an MMA gym. Like police careers, there are both good and bad reasons to take up MMA. George had bad reasons, unless one choses to believe he simply wanted to drop weight. In fact, his actual reasons were the same as those that led him to get the concealed firearm permit.

Zimmerman racially profiled a 17-year old, because in his mind, black male teenagers wearing "hoodies" are criminals, punks, and assholes. I mean, what other options are there? Well, when Sgt. Z of the Wannabe Police Department saw one of "them," he began to simmer at the very thought of how "they always get away." He wasn't going to let some desk jockey tell him he needed to stop following this punk. Not in his town.

If there were two teenagers, Zimmerman would have stayed in his car. (More than two, and he would have shit his pants.) But because he believed Trayvon was afraid of him, George got out and followed. He caught up to Trayvon, and began to bark orders in his best Chuck Norris imitation. With gun in hand, he believed "the suspect" would be safe to push around.

Trayvon realized that this was no police officer -- it was an aggressive, unhinged, punk asshole with a gun. And Trayvon was exactly right. So he fought back, quite literally fighting for his life. Zimmerman was soon lying flat on his back. Since his MMA moves weren't working, he shot the boy.

All of Zimmerman's original cover story to the police were designed specifically for what he was convinced that Trayvon was: a criminal. If and only if Trayvon Martin were a thug, in that neighborhood on a criminal mission, and presenting a vicious threat to the community (especially white women), Zimmerman's story would have made sense. The thug, recognizing that an Authority was closing in on him, would have done what George believed black males wearing hoodies are genetically programed to do: he attacked from the dark shadows, and threatened to kill George.

Had that been true, the case would have gotten little but local attention. Obviously, Sean Hannity would have had him on his show, and pinned the Fox Freedom & Hero Award. George would have used this on his next application to a police department. But it wasn't true.

What is true is that it can be dangerous to be a black male teenager/youth in the United States. It's not a contest, or a debate about if that is a more dangerous status than, say, being a Native American female, or any other identity that is prone to being victimized in our violent society. And the sad truth is that, by and large, those punks, assholes and thugs that commit acts of violence against human beings they identify as targets, tend to have a pretty fair chance of avoiding legal consequences. And not only meaningful legal consequences -- any consequences, at all.

I am hoping for a guilty verdict on the manslaughter charge.

Peace,
H2O Man

July 5, 2013

Decade

I read the OP/thread started by Will Pitt, about claims this forum is an echo chamber versus a resource for activists earlier today. It got me thinking about how we are approaching the ten-year anniversary of Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s NY Times op-ed, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa” (7-6-03). Just over a week later, the pre-corpse known as Robert Novak published a column that revealed Valerie Plame’s identity. Two months later, a Washington Post article noted that even before Novak’s column was printed, two top White House officials had called at least six DC journalists, and disclosed the name and occupation of Wilson’s wife, Ms. Plame.

Initially, those people who were paying attention to the Plame scandal -- including people here on this forum -- viewed it as a White House effort to punish Wilson for publicly calling the president on his infamous “16-words” lie during his State of the Union address. It was also correctly seen as a warning to others: cross us, and we will crush you. This was directed at more than just Wilson, or even the few journalists who had reported on the investigation he conducted in Niger in the weeks before Wilson’s op-ed.

The Plame scandal was something that a small group of associates and myself found fascinating. We knew, without any question, that there was far more to the scandal than what was being discussed in the corporate media, or even on progressive internet sites. One of my associates -- a relative working in Washington, DC, who is active in the Democratic Party -- would suggest to me that I should join one of those progressive sites. Specifically, the Democratic Underground.

Call it coincidence if you will (I don’t believe in “coincidence”), on the same day that Mr. Pitt published what I still consider to be the best article about the scandal, and that Patrick Fitzgerald was assigned to lead the Plame scandal investigation, I joined this forum.

I knew that the nucleus of the White House cell that pushed Ms. Plame’s identity was the Office of the Vice President. More, it was not simply a case of Dick Cheney attempting to cover his numerous and purposeful lies about the “threat” that Iraq posed to our nation, in order to justify the US invasion. Yet, these outright lies played a role.

There’s a strange documentary that frequently plays on Showtime, titles, “The World According to Dick Cheney.” For some misguided reason, it attempts to portray Cheney in a noble light. Still, it is of some value: for example, it shows how Cheney orchestrated the staffing of the Bush administration, placing the power in foreign policy far above W’s head. And it makes brief mention of how Dick Armey -- hardly a moral man -- had been opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Cheney met with Armey in order to change his mind.

Cheney told Armey that the White House had “top secret” documentation that: [a] Saddam’s family had strong personal ties to Usama bin Laden’s family; and that Saddam was extremely close to the production of “suitcase” nuclear weapons. The vice president explained that these documents were so frightening, that the White House could not show them to Congress -- much less the public -- or they would surely cause a global panic. The following day, Armey came out publicly in favor of the Bush administration’s plans to invade Iraq.

Now, Dick Armey is a fecal specimen who personifies everything that is wrong in the federal government. But by July of 2003, even he was privately complaining about Cheney’s lying to him. And so when Wilson began publicly calling out the president on those 16 words, Cheney was definitely looking to cover his tracks. And those tracks led from the OVP straight to the CIA, where Cheney (along with Scooter Libby and Newt Gingrich) had harassed analysts ….and where Cheney’s demand that CI investigate the “yellow cake” bit resulted in Wilson’s trip to Niger.

There was yet another reason for the OVP’s leaking Ms. Plame’s identity, though. It was, in fact, the very reason that I joined the forum, and was an early participant on the “Plame Threads.” Those threads were, I believe, among the best examples of the DU community’s ability to research and organize the events of that scandal. It truly was, in Mr. Pitt’s words, a real “think tank.”

Those threads reached far beyond this forum’s readership. And well beyond the internet’s progressive and liberal sites. Reporters from one cable television station kept track of them; it was not uncommon to read something here on DU, a couple of days before it was reported on MSNBC or others. I was contacted by a variety of people, including a well-known journalist who wanted access to my “source,” and an aide to a career politician who served in the administration in President Obama’s first term. DU helped shape the larger discussion on the Plame scandal.

I am among those who is disappointed that DU has frequently been more of a heckler’s chamber, or an argument swamp, than a think tank for the progressive left. As I’ve noted before, DU reminds me of an airplane that was found by a tribe of people. Some used the seats for comfortable chairs and couches. Eventually, someone found that its motor ran, and began using the plane for a touring car. But they never realized that plane could fly. And DU could fly, too.

Peace,
H2O Man

July 2, 2013

The Lion's Den

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir to? 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream ……
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered Country, from whose bourn
No Traveller returns, Puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
Thus Conscience does make Cowards of us all ……
With this regard their Currents turn awry, ……
Be all my sins remembered.
-- Hamlet


Malcolm X used the first few lines of this powerful soliloquy in one of his speeches at Harvard. It’s been taking up some space in my mind today, since I started driving home after a medical appointment. One of my doctors -- a registered republican who often votes for democrats -- asked me if I would be running for a seat in the state assembly in the next election.

To run? Or not to run? That’s the question. I am, by nature, prone to counting numbers in regional election contests. I would not run, if I didn’t think there was a chance of winning. And from my estimates, there is a chance to win.

I think that one of the problems that people who are sincere about wanting social justice is that we hope that someone else will do for us, what we need to do for ourselves. Also, too many potentially good candidates are discouraged, because we inhabit republican areas. It’s far more likely, for example, for a democrat to win an election in NYC or one of the other urban centers, than in the very republican rural regions in upstate New York.

In the past two election cycles, I’ve assisted five candidates in “local” elections, in an area where about 60% of registered voters are republicans, 25% are independents, and 15% are democrats. Each of the five candidates have won. As their campaign manager, I’ve focused on harnessing every possible vote -- including all registered democrats, the majority of independents, and a significant number of dissatisfied republicans.

To run or not? I’ve spoken to five groups: teachers unions; social workers unions; environmentalists/the Democratic Left; carpenters unions; and the Democratic Party. I have friends and associates who would invest time and money, if I were to run. It could be done.

June 30, 2013

Boxing (June 29)

June 29
At Mashantucket, Conn. (HBO): Gennady Golovkin vs. Matthew Macklin, 12 rounds, for Golovkin's WBA middleweight title.


Last night on ESPN’s Friday Night Fights, the studio host asked Teddy Atlas for a prediction on tonight’s bout. Teddy said that he respects Macklin as a tough and talented middleweight, but because styles make fights, he expects Golovkin to “go through him like a hot knife goes through butter.”

The host noted that Macklin has said this will be the first time Golovkin will need defensive skills. Teddy responded that, with Golovkin’s offense, it will be Macklin who needs those defensive skills.

I think Teddy is right. Macklin is a good fighter, but he is not hard to hit. And Golovkin has extreme power. I watched him from ringside last September, and was very impressed. He hits with extremely hard, accurate punches. And I think his defensive skills are there, too.

On another note, I had a lot of fun today, training my son with Marvis Frazier. We started with Darren hitting the heavy bag. Pretty soon, Marvis -- who hasn’t hit the bag in many years -- started going at it. Damn! Then they were on the speed bags and reflex bags, and before long practicing throwing punches at one another. Marvis will be up here when D fights.

June 28, 2013

Rachel Jeantel

Yesterday, in response to a couple of articles posted on DU:GD, I made some harsh remarks. Some people thought I was knocking Rachel Jeantel (I wasn’t); others thought I was being cranky (I was); and one person stated that I was jealous of another author’s writing skills (I wasn’t). I was in a foul mood yesterday. It happens. So, I apologize to any friends I offended.

I watched Rachel’s testimony. I thought that she did well. Thus, while I have sympathy for the loss of her friend -- and especially the terrible circumstances that connected her to the murder trial -- I found some of the things people said on TV, or wrote on the internet, to be condescending. Rachel struck me as a strong young lady, deserving of respect and understanding, but not to be viewed as a victim of the court proceedings.

I appreciate that courtrooms create stress. This is especially true at a time when certain trials take on a circus-like atmosphere in the national media. And I also understand, all too well, having friends and family members murdered. It may be that the combination of first-hand experience with courtrooms and funerals has impacted the manner in which I view both this trial, and Rachel.

The legal process provides us with a unique look at sociological issues in our culture. For example, taken as a whole, the legal system provides greater opportunities and protections for one sub-culture, the wealthy. Clearly, poor people make up the majority of those incarcerated in the prison-industrial complex. More, black people are more likely to be incarcerated for the exact same crime as are white folks. Yet only a fool believes that the poor and non-white are predisposed to criminal activities.

In the past, blacks were identified as a sub-culture in the United States; today, they are correctly viewed as a co-culture. Yet there is no one blanket “black culture.” Hence, when the host of a HLN program asked a black guest if “blacks view Rachel’s testimony differently than do whites?,” she thanked him for trusting her to speak for all black people. Safe to say, for example, that Clarence Thomas sees the world differently than Rachel Jeantel.

Rachel belongs to another sub-culture, one that was first recognized when “baby-boomers” became older teens and young adults: “youth.” Older forum members will recall when they were called a “counter-culture.” This illustrates an important point -- that the larger culture frequently reacts harshly to the differences in sub-cultures. This is especially true when the sub-culture takes pride in, and identifies itself with those differences. Again, older forum members will recall that the larger society sought “protection” from (re: to punish) those who wore bell-bottoms, colorful shirts, short skirts, and love beads. I still have some old “warnings” from right-wing, conservative christian leaders on the terrible threat posed by The Beatles: not just long haired pot-smokers, they, but Ringo’s drums beat out a subversive “jungle beat” (accurate quote) that made youth vulnerable to communism.

Luckily, youth has its own unique defense systems. Rachel illustrated my favorite of these very well. When an “authority figure” asks a young adult the same stupid question, over and over, the youth often displays her/his utter contempt for the questioner. I am convinced that this is one of the most sacred duties of youth in the larger society. And I say that as a father of four, each with an impressive skill set that allows them to make others fully aware of that contempt.

As a rule, witnesses should not argue with lawyers while on the stand. The attorney has unique advantages in that setting. The defense attorney who cross-examined Rachel is actually talented at his trade. Although his “knock-knock” attempt at humor was pathetic, he is good at coming across as a wise and thoughtful grandfatherly gentleman. But from what I saw, he was not entirely comfortable in questioning Rachel …..not because he was hesitant to try to expose weaknesses in her testimony, but because she was a worthy opponent. They were trading shots pretty well, in my opinion.

That’s why I have respect for this young lady in terms of her trial participation. I did not see her as the victim in that context. I felt proud of her, not sympathy.

June 27, 2013

Reunion

You say you’ll change the Constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head.
-- John Winston Lennon; Revolution


One thing I can tell you is
You got to be free
Come together,
right now
Over me.
-- John Ono Lennon; Come Together


“ ‘Come Together’ is a free-associating gumbooted walrus tossing off pithy one-liners …..originally conceived as a theme for Timothy Leary’s proposed campaign Ronald Reagan for Governor of California ….”
-- Nicholas Schaffner; The Beatles Forever; McGraw-Hill; 1977; page 124


I think that people should take the next 24 hours and stop arguing about those things that divide us, and concentrate instead on those issues and values that we have in common. As a show of good will, I’ll start:

[1] I think that we should concentrate on considering the ways that we -- both as individuals and as a group -- can apply the constitutional powers defined by the Bill of Rights, in an attempt to improve our society.

[2] I am convinced that late June and early July provide a wonderful opportunity for playing the music of The Beatles. Loudly. This includes in our homes, as well as in vehicles if we are riding around, with at least one window unrolled. (In preparation for a July weekend reunion with old friends from college, I have been listening to The Beatles and the Plastic Ono Band.)

Thank you for your consideration,
H2O Manifesto

June 22, 2013

Boxing (6-22)

June 22
At Brooklyn, N.Y. (Showtime): Paulie Malignaggi vs. Adrien Broner, 12 rounds, for Malignaggi's WBA welterweight title; Johnathon Banks vs. Seth Mitchell, rematch, 12 rounds, heavyweights; Sakio Bika vs. Marco Antonio Periban, 12 rounds, for vacant WBC super middleweight title


This promises to be a good fight card. The opening bout features Bika (31-5-2) against undefeated Periban (20-0).Bika is very strong and awkward; three of his loses were to world champions; he also lost an decision early in his career, and has been disqualified one time for hitting an opponent who was down. His most recent lose was in 2010, to Andre Ward -- in what has been Ward’s toughest fight to date. Bika has won three fights since then.

Periban has only had 4 fights outside of Mexico. Two were in Argentina, and two in the USA. This fight is a huge step up in competition for him. Judging from his opposition thus far, I suspect that Bika will be too much for him.

Banks vs. Mitchell is a return match; Banks (29-1-1) dropped Mitchell (25-1-1) twice in the second round last December, winning by a TKO in that round. Banks is taller, has a reach advantage, and has been involved in the sport a lot longer than his younger opponent. Although Mitchell was considered one of the best young heavyweight prospects, he had been seriously hurt in his last fight before Banks, by the relativel light-punching Chazz Witherspoon. Mitchell is a good puncher, and can certainly take out anyone he hits; still, I think Banks should win in under six rounds.

Broner (26-0) is moving up two weight classes to challenge Maligniggi (32-4) for his version of the welterweight title. I don’t think size will be an issue: Broner is only 23 and growing, plus he is less than 2 inches shorter, and has a 3 inch reach advantage. It is, however, a real step up in class for him. Last night, ESPN’s Teddy Atlas predicted that Paul would outbox Broner early, and test him, but that Broner would dig deep and pull off the victory. I agree with that.

Enjoy the fights!