“Somewhere in the middle of America/Let’s get to the heart of the matter/It’s the heart that matters more…”
—Counting Crows

Having a great experience here, meeting Ron Lyle in Denver, Leon Spinks in Nebraska, Ernie Terrell in Chicago, and George Chuvalo tomorrow in Toronto. Without hesitation, I can loudly state that all of these legendary boxers—who fought somewhere between the late 1950s to, well, so many comebacks—have been warm, intense, articulate in myriad ways, and candid and funny.

It’s such a privilege speaking to people you know but don’t know, and hearing their stories.

I really feel grateful to be able to explore life through other eyes, other upbringings, other sensibilities, other possibilities—for what else is relationship if not the exploration of these things?

These are people who literally risked their health and even their lives (by choice, no doubt, and yet…), for their own reasons, to be sure, but for the entertainment of others.

All I can say is that I have felt true fondness for them, and joy and respect in their company, and cannot accept that there is not more in place both to increase the physical and economic protection of boxers (standard harm reduction, for the love of god); to compensate them—like most every other profession and most professional sports—upon the completion of their careers.

That in itself would surely have cut down on at least some of the ill-fated, brain-pounding, fighting-to-survive comebacks. It’s tough enough to make a living by starting again at anything at 30 or 40 years of age…

But in boxing…?

As Ernie Terrell said, and I’m paraphrasing: it’ll take the promoters to make this point clear, and to set it in motion, but why would they do so willingly?

Indeed. This is the economic system revealing itself under complete deregulation. And before somebody—understandably perhaps—cries ‘Ban Boxing!’, I say, again, ‘If you want to ban boxing, ban poverty’, for there is an undeniable connection between the two.

If one throws in racism or classism, the connections are virtually complete.

Man it’s been great meeting these guys, and hearing their stories. And the crew I’m working with has been so creative, and so much fun, too.

“In the clearing stands a boxer and a fighter by his trade and he carries a reminder of every glove that laid him down or cut him tell he cried out, in his anger and his pain, “I am leaving, I am leaving” but the fighter still remains…”
—Paul Simon

Love to you, and all sisters and brothers,

Pete

My apologies for not having written lately. I have been on the road and very busy—but I miss the contact and trying to put out thoughts, ideas (and other people’s ideas) that may be inspiring, edifying or at least thought provoking.

I’m in Denver right now, and am getting a chance to hear the remarkable story of Ron Lyle, who after serving seven and a half years in prison, turned pro at 29, and fought some of the most memorable boxing fights of the 1970s.

The three most memorable were, in fact, three in a row: an 11th round TKO loss to Muhammad Ali in 1975, in which Ron was leading on the judges’ cards before the Technical Knockout, which is another way of saying the fight was stopped.

The two others were slugfests against perhaps the two hardest punchers of the 1970s, Earnie Shavers and George Foreman. The first was a 6th round KO of Earnie (whom we interviewed in Liverpool) and the second a fifth round KO at the hands of George Foreman.

This was George’s first fight after the upset loss to Ali in Zaire. Both fights are almost impossible to believe, and remind the viewer of why people are so pulled to boxing, and why others are so appalled by it—and how those feelings so often coincide in life.

But as I’ve said before, if one really wants to ban boxing, it begins with banning poverty (and racism, and classism)—not to mention the warrior nature. Good luck!

But beyond Ron Lyle’s boxing life, he now runs a gym at the Salvation Army in Denver, teaching kids to box—as he always wanted to do. He also speaks to children in detention centres, sharing his remarkable ‘comeback’ from the prison system.

The project is a great success, bringing together the Hispanic and black communities in the area (as it wasn’t before).

The centre is remarkably well run. Six years ago there were 300 members, 90 percent black, with virtually no Hispanic membership. Now—and a lot to do with the boxing program—there are three thousand members, with a large Hispanic membership and increased caucasian membership.

The Lord works in mysterious ways in a mysterious, yet sometimes practical, world.

The boxers have been terrific, and talking to Ron this morning was simply great. Here’s to trying to make it in a, at times, stunningly difficult and wondrous world.

Nebraska is unpcoming. Then Chicago and Toronto.

Lots of love to you,

Pete

When brothers and sisters courageously stand together across (or at least in spite of) national boundaries for what is so clearly right—yes, even more right than the rules of free trade!—the heart soars.

Isn’t this something:

Even as the Zimbabwe crisis worsens, an extraordinary solidarity movement has taken hold across Southern Africa—sparked by a South African dock workers’ union that refused to unload a Chinese shipment of Zimbabwe-bound weapons.

Their refusal to facilitate Zimbabwe’s crackdown has ignited a wildfire that is spreading across the continent. Now, as pressure builds, China is publicly wavering—and might decide to bring the arms home.

To be sure, the act is symbolic. By that I mean there are, delivery or no delivery, enough small weapons in Africa and in Zimbabwe to continue/unleash war and mass killings for decades. But a ‘refusal to participate in evil’ is made by these actions—which is always profound.

American governmental support for the action is always welcome, yet exemplifies Noam Chomsky’s ‘We Own The World’ theme, that makes clear the hypocrisy of even this stand.

Are there also blockades at Lockheed-Martin stopping weapons from reaching Iraq, or anywhere else? There probably are, knowing how many wonderful Americans there are. But you get the point of my question. The killing continues; the profit continues.

The numbers of dead and displaced in Iraq are truly staggering—and undeniably criminal to anyone not utterly inculcated by a belief in their country’s own right to unilaterally mete out violence.

Chomsky writes:

There is a huge debate [in the US] about the invasion of Iraq, but no question about whether we have a justification to do it. Of course, we have the automatic justification to do it—because it’s us.

We have a justification to do anything.

The dockworkers solidarity is beautiful, and inspiring, and says ‘yes’ to the right of the people of Zimbabwe to not be further victimized/slaughtered by the weapons industry—which is a huge part of the war engine, as any moron could attest.

Here’s a petition worth looking at and even signing, if it’s up your alley. What effect it has on the dictatorial nature of Robert Mugabe and his henchmen (or the heinous trade of small weapons) I do not know, but it nonetheless symbolizes human solidarity at its best, stating unequivocally that humans who are able can choose to protect the unprotected, and stand in solidarity with the vulnerable.

Check it out here.

Lots of love and solidarity to you—and here’s hoping the people of Zimbabwe (and Tibet, and Sudan, and Iraq, and everywhere else) will be safe, and left in peace,

Pete xox

las poker schedule vegas Cheap OEM Adobe Software

Ahimsa means to cause no harm, or as litle harm as possible.

I was out walking with a dear friend today, in the remarkable sunlight that nourishes this planet, and with belly relaxed, a simple little thought came to me that might be interesting enough to share:

“The only thing harder than being yourself is not being yourself…”

I hope, whatever you’re doing, it is movingly you lovingly towards a reconciliation of that paradox—and, if so, creativity is involved, for it takes creativity to evolve, and to love, and to stand with grace and love and strength in this remarkably crazy world…

Pete xox

In my experience, one of the things that people need to do is figure out what appeals to them personally. If you are going to devote time to good works when you already have plenty of other things to do, then you have to like what you are doing…
—Dr Paul Farmer

In a moment away from my research for some upcoming interviews, a line came to mind:

If you want to ban boxing, ban poverty.

Yesterday I happened to see on the Larry King show (on line) a few-months-old argument between filmmaker Michael Moore and journalist/doctor/media guest Sanjay Gupta (Senior CNN Medical Consultant).

It was revealing, and for all Michael Moore’s supposed ego and so on (Maufacturing Dissent etc), what he speaks out for is in my opinion about a million times more relevant, revealing and vital than what Dr Sanjay Gupta stands for.

Hearing Gupta being the cool head of reason and ‘balanced’ reporting (on CNN!), I was unable to grasp what it is exactly Gupta does stand for (other than which makes CNN not too uncomfortable).

To be the devil’s advocate in this situation seems to me to be the wrong approach for any doctor who truly believes in the Hippocratic oath, or at least the idea to give care to those in need. Disagree with some of Moore’s methods, sure, but stand in sincere solidarity (as opposed to “I don’t disagree”) with his outrage over a lack of coverage for tens of millions of people (in a country that can afford an endless war).

At a guess, though, Dr Gupta seems to me to be—and maybe even unknowingly—a well-groomed apologist for power-brokers running a medical system that leaves over fifty million people (elderly, women and children—1.5 Canadas) without access to health care in the most powerful country in the world.

By power-brokers I think I mean the HMOs and ‘privatizers’ in general, who base everything including the medical system on the maximization of profit—and thus by definition, not on the maximization of care, let alone universal care.

LOOKING FOR STRAUSS RELIEF

Worse, this American sensibility has a profound influence on the Canadian system. This medical condition is exacerbated by our Prime Minister, heralding from the so-called Calgary School, which is in direct line with President Bush’s near-sighted extremism.

The word neo-con is so profoundly apt.

I have yet to hear one word from Prime Minister Harper offering enlightened, original criticism of his mentor to the south, despite Bush pushing the average citizen in the States to an absolutely inconceivable amount of debt, financially and morally with the rape of Iraq.

FROM BIG PHARMA TO BIG FARMER

And then tonight I was, in a break, reading through the beginning of Tracy Kidder’s wonderful book, Mountains Beyond Mountains: The Quest of Dr. Paul Farmer, a Man Who Would Cure the World. It is, as the title describes, the story of the remarkable Paul Farmer, an American doctor who has spent a life working with the poorest of the poor (and the unhealthiest of the unhealthiest) in Haiti.

Reading from this book is what triggered the line about boxing and poverty at the beginning of the piece.

And then I wondered: what would a read-through of Kidder’s book on Farmer (let alone a visit with Farmer) do to the belief system of Sanjay Gupta? Would it shift him even a bit towards Farmer’s passion for justice, and away from the amoral emptiness that he, in my opinion, defends—when he should be, as a doctor, defending access to medical care?

Here’s a short video of Paul Farmer talking, echoing the opening quote, and saying why he’s inspired.

Three lines from the book leaped off the page. The first in relation to those in the Western world who cannot get medical coverage (pg 21):

At Zamni Lasante [the Partners in Health clinic in Haiti]…patients were supposed to pay user fees, the equivalent of about eighty American cents for a visit [the average pay in Haiti is a dollar a day or less, according to the book].

Haitian colleagues of Farmer’s had insisted on this. Farmer was the medical director, but he hadn’t argued. Instead—this was often the way, I would learn—he had simply subverted the policy.

Every patient had to pay the eighty cents, except for women and children, the destitute, and anyone who was seriously ill. Everyone had to pay, that is, except for almost everyone.

And no one—Farmer’s rule—could be turned away.

And two aphorisms from German physician Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902), who has a profound influence on Farmer.

One:

Medical education does not exist to provide students with a way of making a living, but to ensure the health of the community.

And a second, and this is stunning:

The physicians are the natural attorneys of the poor, and the social problems should largely be solved by them.

Wow. Imagine if that was exercised even more fully in spirit and action.

Mountains Beyond Mountains, at least the beginning (being all that I have read), is a deeply inspiring book.

Lots of love and good health to you and yours, and may you always have access to medical care,

Pete xox

While the Democratic Primary takes up huge chunks of thinking power (even for us Canadians), powerful multinational leaders who know what’s really going on are gathering in New Orleans, of all places, to “harmonise” business dealings between the US, Canada and Mexico.

Overall, I think this might just mean getting together to make exploitation of all sorts easier for multinational companies—who have no interest in any given nation whatsoever, anyway—and much harder on people and the environment in general, by definition.

“The world” (meaning anything but the world, of course), it seems, appears to have decided that seeking ways to maximize the lifting of those who are, for myriad reasons, less fortunate, or have less access and opportunity to live with self-sustaining dignity, is just too much in ‘competition’ with the legislations and deregulations that maximize profit.

At least that’s how kamikaze journalist Greg Palast reads it, and he’s always worth the read when the TV advertisements doubling as news no longer offer anything at all towards understanding anything all.

New Orleans is a gathering of the little known North American Competitiveness Council.

You’ll notice it’s not the North American Compassion Council. Or even the North American Competitiveness and Compassion Council. I don’t know why they don’t add it in. Look how easily the Department of War became the Department of Defense. That euphemism was added in 1949 in the US, and all over the world, after the War, in the 40s and 50s.

Anyway, this council involves the gathering of CEOs and bigshots from lauded multinationals who haven’t yet got enough out of the system: Wal-Mart, Chevron, weapons giant Lockheed-Martin amongst 27 big boys in all.

Palast writes:

While you Democrats are pounding each other to a pulp in Pennsylvania, the President has snuck back down to New Orleans for a meeting of the NAFTA Three: the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico.

You’re not supposed to know that—for two reasons…

One of the reasons is because you’re not supposed to know about it. The other is to showcase what can be done with a disaster like Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

Please read or look up Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine to further understand what or how economic vultures often swarm in after a disaster, calling themselves proud capitalists, but profiting through tax-paying handouts and inside jobs that would make subsidy-addicted politburo Communists blush (and I can’t even remember what politburo means).

Palast again:

The populist radio hosts railing against the coming North American Union don’t realize that these CEOs won’t take away our flags or Fourth of July or Star-Spangled Banner.

The rags and flags will always be kept around to con the schmucks along the Yahoo Belt into donating their children to the Iraq Occupation or other misadventures.

Likewise for Mexico’s rulers: A billionaire like Carlos Slim, the richest man on the planet (sorry, Mr. Gates), didn’t buy the Mexican government to “protect” his nation from Gringos but to protect his media monopoly.

The corporation that purchases Canada’s leaders, Barrick Gold of Toronto, has looted treasuries from Tanzania to Nevada to Chile—and shared the spoils on both sides of the border with their well-greased advisors Brian [did he ever pay back that 2 million dollars?] Mulroney, former Prime Minister of Canada, and George Bush Sr., former head of the US CIA.

And here’s the kicker, worth remembering, without becoming overwhelmed with cynicism, but more aware through knowledge:

So there is no United States of America nor Canada nor Mexico—at least as we like to imagine ourselves in our national fairy tales: self-governing democracies run by we the people or nosotros el pueblo. There’s just the diktats of the North American Prosperity Council. Get used to it.

To underscore the fact that you aren’t invited, nor our elected representatives, [the great Canadian Maude] Barlow related to me that the US Ambassador to Canada told her the legal changes wrought in New Orleans will not be put before the three national Congresses for a vote. “We don’t want to open up another NAFTA,” he told her.

So, they’ll skip the voting stuff. Democracy is so, like, 20th Century.

Palast’s full piece, José Can You See? Bush’s Trojan Taco, is here.

Whenever something is going on that captures the imaginations, passions and even hopes of the masses, you can bet that what really makes a difference, to the richest of the rich, is going on simultaneously, and relentlessly.

This tension has most likely always existed.

And these covert adventures are not a quiet attempt to increase equality, let alone love—of that you can be sure.

Love to you,

Pete

After a few months of researching boxing, this much I can tell you: ‘facts’ change over time. It doesn’t even matter if there is footage of the ‘facts.’ Mythologies arise, and are called truth.

Welcome to the world.

So imagine what happens to the stories, on the ground, with war (especially when you throw in tax-payer paid privatised security systems, the weapons industry—the Military Industrial Complex—and their friends the media). Or arising mythologies in the case of the following debate, witchhunts, genocides and other horrific things.

To begin, let me say this debate between D’Souza and Shermer is relatively friendly but, like most any effective Gallup Poll question, asks the wrong question altogether: Is Christianity Good For The World?

It’s a bit like asking Are Men Good For The World? because men commit virtually all the killings?

Wait a second, don’t ask the second question. The answer’s too up in the air.

SHERMER THE MONEY!

Anyway, as Michael Shermer points out, it depends on which Christians one is talking about—just like it would depend on which men (or women) or most everything else, and even then it’s all up to one’s belief. Although militant atheists will hate Shermer’s generosity, it seems to me that what he is saying is deeply important, if not an absolute truth.

You could dress Hitler up as a Nazi, a Communist (he hated communists), a Catholic (he at the very least worked with Catholics) or anything else—heck, even as a marginal vegetarian—and he would be profoundly distasteful in terms of personality.

Further, as evidenced everywhere, two well-intentioned, highly intellectual people can have remarkably polarized takes on a given subject.

This is not an argument for relativism, relatively speaking. But relativism, as a force, plays itself out as a natural human phenomenon anyway, due to the individuality of every person (and culture) on the planet, and its (wo)manifestation.

Here’s the debate.

RELATIVE GODS AND GOD’S RELATIVES

One note, I found Michael Shermer’s statistics on religion (sort of vs) spirituality—asking which people do the most for others, etc—provocative. You probably will too. Shermer speaks in the second half of the first part.

DINESH D’SOUZA DEBATES DE-TRUTH

D’Souza is a good debater, sans doute—and supposedly he once dated Ann Coulter, which is quite a thought and a curious image.

Regardless, like so many debaters, D’Souza reminds me of that wonderful type of person who can convince and teach a great deal, but will learn (or adjust) only that which reinforces their own viewpoint.

Of course, I too am like this (annoying).

Imagine if we actually debated to learn and to explore, instead of to win.

But back to Dinesh.

For example, as a defence of Christianity, D’Souza makes the interesting observation that, from recent evidence, only something like 2100 people were killed in the Inquisition, and adds that only 18 people were killed at the Salem Witch trials.

Which recalls that famous Abbott and Costello sketch:

Which trials are you talking about?
The witch trials.
That’s what I’m asking: which trials!
The Witch Trials. I’m talking about witch trials.
I know! That’s what I’m asking! Which trials are you talking about!
That’s what I said: witch trials!

Granted, with a mode of delivery meant to show how open, compassionate and unbiased D’Souza is, he says that 2118 people killed (or whatever it was he said) are 2118 too many—which of course they are. But, he adds, it’s not in the ballpark of seriously bad ideologies, like Islam or Communism.

What D’Souza fails to mention is that something like 50 to 60,000 ‘witches’ were actually burned to death during the episode of Witch trials, from something like 110,000 trials.

The effects of public torturing on a peoples’ psyche need not be addressed here. Suffice to say, when I read recently about one writer in China being sent away for 10 or 15 years for sending an email to a pro-democracy movement in the West, I got nervous by what I write—a bunch of love-dovey stuff—even though I live in the West!

Tha’s how persuasive such violence is. Imagine if three of four writers were killed in America or Canada for what they wrote. It would chill the air. Imagine fifty thousand.

Fifty-thousand deaths is a serious reign of terror, that would silence all but the very few.

Here’s a little more history on that.

Speaking of Michael Shermer, by the way, and a person I like by what I know, it was I who edited (cutting out simply the insults) the segment of his show he did with good friend and astrologer Jeffrey Armstrong.

The comments on that piece are hilarious, and instructive in how sure they are of what has been edited and what hasn’t. One of the big cries of outrage is the ending I supposedly left out.

It is quite simple. Michael finished with this shocking revelation (this is sarcasm):

While skeptics will explain the results of our study as due to chance and wishful interpretation, believers will see them as further proof that the stars and planets directly influence our lives.

How sinister to leave that out!

What’s cool is I don’t even have to ‘believe’ in Astrology to say that Jeffrey’s results were interesting. I didn’t say scientific or conclusive, but interesting. And, one could argue, worthy of respectful follow-up.

For a really long-winded essay on the piece (which I wrote in my long-winded way), press here.

That ol’ youtube-edited chestnut is here.

What all this has to do with a D’Souza-Shermer debate on Chrisitianity, I’m not sure—but then again, I’m not sure of much.

But is Chrisitianity Good For The World? All I know is that love is good for the world. And where Christianity preaches and lives love (and where this love is heard and manifests), it is very good for the world.

No longer love your neighbour, love your enemy (actually, love your neighbour too).

Love to you in this mystery we call life—love more!

pete xo

There are, of course, infinite ways to decipher statistics. Nonetheless, here is a fascinating and instructive lecture from the invaluable and distinguished Law Scholar Elizabeth Warren (I have blogged her before and quoted her in essays).

I realise no one under thirty-five will watch this, but it is so interesting, and I recommend it highly. The illusions we live inder! All I can say here is what we believe we are spending more on (although this is for the States), since say 1970, is invariably incorrect (food, clothes etc).

What has increased massively is more ominous. Massive increases in mortgages (thus, the banks are raking it in), health insurance (thus, insurance folks are raking it in—and her comments on health care are fascinating), cars (but simply because we have two cars to match the two-income family) and taxes, despite those anti-Big State Conservatives with their ‘conservative ideologies’ being in power, ha ha ha ad nauseum.

There is a huge increase in the likelihood that a woman with a six month old baby in 2007 will be working full-time, as compared to a woman with a 16 year-old child in 1970! So interesting.

Please watch her, and then watch what you’re doing, and protect yourself and others, with love and awareness and knowledge. Further, realize how unrealized and ignorant our politicians, business leaders and media are. You are the answer! (or at least part of it).

Lots of love to you and yours, with knowledge and health, and thanks to Elizabeth for her great work,

Pete xox

deck pipe price test

Yesterday I had the pleasure of interviewing the charming Sir Heny Cooper, the 74-year old former British and Commonwealth Heavyweight Champion. Sir Henry is the only living person to have fought Muhammad Ali before he was champion, as Cassius Clay (1963), and after Ali was champion (1966).

Interestingly, and by his own cockney-accented admission, Sir Henry is “a monarchist” who doesn’t think much of presidents and prime ministers.

I thought that was ironic, and at the same time revealing.

I’m not sure I understand his monarchist leanings (although the royal family has been good to Sir Henry, knighting him, OBEing him—when the Empire was an Empire—and having him for breakfast on many occasions, so that might be a hint. Further, the working class often have a great affection for royalty who, barring some sort of miracle/lottery, live as they never will—in this lifetime, anyway.

Either way, although not in any way a monarchist myself, I do have sympathy for Sir Henry’s thoughts about most presidents and prime ministers.

THE BIG RIGHT HAND

With the interview over and moving on to Earnie “the Acorn” Shavers, one of the hardest punchers in boxing history, do I know what makes a person go into boxing? No, for we are highly complex beings. But demographically, poverty, class and/or race prejudices are virtually guaranteed to be involved in choosing pugilism as profession—in fact, I can think of no exception, although there surely are one or two.

Hardly a surprise that such demographics might lead to viscerally aggressive ways to make a wage (as opposed to some of the less obvious white-collar methods of aggression: exploitation of people and environmental massacre).

OF HEALTH AND HORMONES

So what is the cause?

Well, according to recent evidence, it turns out that obsession-with-profit-by-any-means-possible and what makes the stock market go round and round, causing for some great wealth and for most great inflation, is a hyper-masculinized, hormonally-perpetuating impulse taking its marching orders from the pusherman known as testosterone.

In other words, this drug more dangerous than crack, this neo-reefer madness known as testosterone (or Crystal Test) makes unknowing addicts in $5000 suits helpless to believe they are following freedom’s call and the path of all things capitalistically righteous—when in fact they are mainlining their drug of choice (say hello to your root chakra), and through this reckless, degrading behaviour (known as living) create more and more inflation.

Yes, it would appear the Downtown Easide in Vancouver, known for its off-the-wall drug user statistics, has discovered its mirror image. There is an anemy, and the enemy is us.

Aaah! Lock up your children!

An excerpt from Testosterone Fuels Stock Market Success:

Each trader’s testosterone levels were higher on days when profits exceeded his one-month daily average than on other days. With elevated testosterone, traders may experience more confidence and risk-taking appetite—qualities that could bolster trading performance, the researchers suggest.

But there’s also a down-side. Too much testosterone or prolonged elevation could lead to impulsive decisions and extreme risk-taking, the researchers say, turning a trader’s profits into losses.

The full article is here:

I’ve always had an inkling that this insane cycle and addiction to profit-mongering (and perhaps consumption, in both meanings of the word) had very little to do with free will, libertarian ideals, exercising democracy, Rush Limbaugh’s tirades or good old fashioned capitalism, as most media suggest.

And perhaps in desolate countries where these profits are unattainable, different sorts of more obvious violence are inevitable. A man at least needs a job to feel worthy of the space he is taking up.

For the record, I would imagine that fervent, hyper-masculinized totalitarian communists, extremist religious fundamentalists and high-powered politicians get similar boosts of hormones when they feel they know everything, and have a right to control those who don’t.

Alas, it is neither wisdom nor character that makes this world go round: it is Homo Economicus, and it comes down to needing that kundalini hit that is somehow related to testosterone, if not the same thing.

Side-effects include massive wealth and parties with the beautiful people, and an inability to avoid repeating the same mistakes over and over.

My friends, we miraculous humans dwell inside a baffling and complex half-closed, half-open energetic system—this body—to which we give names names like Robert, Tatania or Abdul, and consider self.

Cycle your energy! Say no to insider trading! Tantra forever! Good luck!

Love to you all, my pumped up sisters and brothers,

Pete xox