Pre-traumatic stress disorder
Posted by Richard on November 10, 2009
It's been fascinating (and disturbing) to watch the evolving story of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan in the media since the massacre at Ft. Hood last week. It began with the FBI, barely an hour after the shootings and with no evidence or investigation, declaring that this wasn't a terrorist act.
The mainstream media and leftist propagandists (but I repeat myself) quickly picked up that meme. Newsweek, in a contemptible piece, declared that Hasan's act was a symptom of "a Military on the Brink." The Huffington Post on Friday was awash with similarly vile posts about how the war, the "sick" military, American foreign policy, our cowboy insistence on defeating our enemies, and/or lack of sufficient mental health care funding were to blame for Hasan "snapping" (see here, here, and here for examples).
Then there was the ABC News story, picked up by many others, parroting the family's explanation that Hasan snapped because he was "constantly harassed," called a "camel jockey," and subjected to "bullying" for being a Muslim.
And there were countless suggestions that Hasan, who counseled post-traumatic stress disorder patients, had succumbed to PTSD himself.
Filling in for Rush on Friday, Mark Steyn joked that, since Hasan has never been deployed to a war zone (or even overseas), he must have suffered from "pre-post-traumatic stress disorder" — something akin to feeling pain in your leg because you're going to break it next week. But these days, it's not easy to parody the left. A while later, Steyn was informed that a commentator on NPR had in fact suggested Hasan was suffering from "pre-traumatic stress disorder" due to his pending deployment. It was Tom Gjelten on NPR's Morning Edition (emphasis added):
GJELTEN: That's right, Steve. You know, you referred to the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. There's – almost seems to be a phenomenon that you could maybe call a pre-traumatic stress disorder. There have been a lot suicides in the Army, many more as a result of these wars than in previous years. Interestingly enough, as many soldiers have killed themselves before they were due to be deployed as after. Thirty-five percent of the suicides are pre-deployment, 35 percent are post-deployment. So there seems to be an issue here of expectation of what you are getting into. And the fact that Major Hasan would've known better than others, even, about how traumatic combat experience would be, you know, raises the question of, you know, was he an example of these soldiers who are literally freaked out by what they are likely to face when they are deployed?
Freaked out — as if the psychiatrist Major would be going into battle with a rifle instead of sitting in an office holding counseling sessions.
Even as such nonsense was being offered, a mountain of evidence was accumulating that Hasan was a radical Islamist and had been for years. He proselytized his co-workers and his patients (a gross violation of professional ethics), warning them of the deadly consequences of remaining infidels. He praised suicide bombers for killing the soldiers who waged war on Islam. He worshipped at the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, VA, maybe the most radical Wahabbi mosque in America, alongside two of the 9/11 hijackers. He remained in touch (into this year) with its former imam (now living in Yemen), Anwar al-Awlaki, who praised Hasan as a hero who did the right thing. He contacted or attempted to contact al Qaeda leaders.
This evidence was only spottily reported in the U.S. mainstream media (for thorough coverage, check the British press, especially the Telegraph). And then, usually accompanied by demurring that we don't know what motivated him or why he "snapped." The President cautioned us not to "jump to conclusions," and that blathering idiot, Chris Matthews wondered aloud on national TV, "it's not illegal to call up al Qaeda, is it?"
Dorothy Rabinowitz outlined a lot of this insane, delusional denial in an excellent Wall Street Journal column this morning. And growing numbers of people — even some in the media — are now questioning why the FBI, CIA, Justice Dept., and Army all failed to "connect the dots" regarding Hasan.
They failed because even now, eight years after 9/11, our government institutions and their media lapdogs refuse as a matter of policy to acknowledge the dangers of radical Islam and its many adherents. They practice as a matter of policy a suicidal political correctness that makes a question like "it's not illegal to call up al Qaeda, is it?" something other than absurd. For fear of offending the easily offended and violent, they embrace dhimmitude, and they're going to get a lot more of us killed.
Maj. Hasan isn't an isolated phenomenon. He's one of many examples in the U.S. (and many, many more in other countries) of what Rusty Shackleford called "individual jihad" and Daniel Pipes dubbed "sudden jihad syndrome." Three years ago, an Islamist website even published a "Guide for Individual Jihad."
Pipes argued that this phenomenon means that all Muslims must be considered potentially dangerous. I disagree. People like Dr. Zudhi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, are decidedly not potentially dangerous. In fact, they're critically important — and immensely brave — warriors in the fight against radical Islamism.
But Pipes is partly correct. The mosques funded by the Saudis, distributing radical Islamist literature, and preaching Wahabbi doctrine, the mosques controlled by Hezbollah, and all the men who worship at these mosques and have been or are being radicalized by them are potentially dangerous. No, we don't lock people up or strip them of their rights for having a dangerous potential. But we shouldn't turn a blind eye, either.
When such a person is in the military, and provides plenty of warning signs of extreme radicalization, we sure as hell shouldn't ignore those signs and promote him! When we're that willfully ignorant, people die.
Tabacco said
I am impressed by your thoroughness! One minor suggestion: try to think like an unbiased, non-American and even without proof, the whole affair makes sense.
Whether or not Hasan is connected to a Terrorist conspiracy is not the issue – the issue, ignored in the US media, is did America bring it on itself!
We invaded Iraq for self-serving reasons, Hussein had no relationship to 9/11/2001 or bin Laden, it is 8 years since 9/11/2001 and 6 years since we invaded sovereign Iraq. And we are still there, causing deaths, not preventing deaths as we would have the world believe.
Ask yourself if China invaded the US, caused the deaths of millions of Americans comparable to what we’ve done in Iraq, and a native American serving in the Chinese Army murdered a slew of Chinese soldiers, would you consider that American a TERRORIST or a PATRIOT?
I’d love to read your response to my hypothetical scenario.
Tabacco
David Aitken said
Tabacco said: “Whether or not Hasan is connected to a Terrorist conspiracy is not the issue – the issue, ignored in the US media, is did America bring it on itself!”
I think that question was settled long ago by Thomas Jefferson who sent us to war against the Barbary Pirates (Muslims) who were attacking our trading ships. You can read a little of that here: http://www.islam-watch.org/ThomasJefferson/Founding_Fathers_Fight_Islam.htm
David Bryant said
That’s an excellent post, Richard. The pandering pundits of political correctness would have us believe that the murderers are the victims. What a crock of shit!
Mr. Tabacco, people are either living breathing volitional beings, or they are automatons. I’ll assume that you think people are free to make their own choices. I suppose, then, that your hypothetical native American (Iroquois? Sioux? Navajo?) soldier would have considered carefully where his allegiance belonged _before_ he joined the Chinese army. If he were an honest man, he would have abandoned all personal allegiance to America before joining up with the Chinese.
If he were later to go on a murderous rampage against his Chinese brothers, he would reveal himself as a lying, dishonorable son of a bitch, and no amount of emotional pleading could ever make an honorable man think otherwise.
Maj. Hasan is a native American — he was born in Virginia. He enlisted in the ROTC program voluntarily, and he gave his sacred word of honor that he would “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; …(and) bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” He further declared: “that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.”
Did he honor the solemn promise he made to you, Tabacco, and to every other American? No he did not. He is a dishonorable liar, and no amount of waffling about how “America brought this on itself” can change that indisputable fact.
Tabacco said
David Aitken: Sorry, but I don’t see your point! What has Jefferson got to do with Bush! America was not thee world power in Jefferson’s day!
David Bryant: “The pandering pundits of political correctness would have us believe that the murderers are the victims. What a crock of shit!” – You got it backwards! Stick to your day job – putting words in my mouth is NOT YOUR CALLING! “The pandering pundits of political correctness would have us believe that the ‘victims’ are the murderers.” – That’s what I implied, and that’s NOT a crock of shit!
Sorry about my confusing wording, but I meant American – I was NOT thinking ‘Indian’ when I used the term ‘native’ – sorry! However, since that is the interpretation, so be it! Indians are Americans too!
“soldier would have considered carefully where his allegiance belonged _before_ he joined the Chinese army” – do you mean like American boys “considered carefully” that Bush’s words reflected the Truth and then found out they were all self-serving disaster capitalist lies?
Or that seniors listening to Talk Radio “considered carefully” those “Deather” allegations and found out that by opposing Obamacare, they were supporting Private Insurers because Talk Radio lied!
Or that by switching back and forth between Democrats & Republicans, we end up playing POLITICAL PING-PONG while accomplishing NOTHING?
People who swear to LIARS are not bound by those oaths! This may be beyond your conservative ability to understand. But I try anyway! If you give an oath to anyone, who has lied and already betrayed you, then why should you stand by it when the person you made the oath to lied from the beginning. The CONTRACT is null and void! In business it’s called “breaking a contract”! In marriage it’s called DIVORCE!
Hasan did not break the contract – President George W. Bush did! Your lack of legal knowledge is showing!
You used the word “automaton” – I find that full of irony since that term describes you better than any I could have supplied. Thanks!
“he gave his sacred word of honor that he would “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” – I agree with that oath! Unfortunately you fail to realize that “domestic enemies” include the Bush administration! Our own president was the greater enemy! But thanks again for supplying me with the rope to hang you! It’s late at night and I have not the inclination to do the research!
You should have made this speech to your former president, George W. Bush, not to Major Hasan or Tabacco!
Glad I could set you straight! But that’s why I blog in the first place!
Tabacco
PS Your attempt to speak forcefully through the use of profanity is proof of your own lack of education. “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt”.
rgcombs said
David A., thank you for that link. It’s an excellent brief history, and the Franklin letter is a fascinating bit of history.
David B., bravo! Thank you for your moral clarity and eloquence.
I want to address another aspect of Tabacco’s analogy. It equates a hypothetical conquest of a free, democratic republic in order to subjugate its population with the conquest of a brutal dictatorship, freeing its people from the fear of rape rooms, human shredders, poison gas attacks, and unspeakable torture on a massive scale, and then helping them rebuild their country and achieve self-government under a constitution that protects basic human rights.
This vile expression of moral equivalency is akin to arguing that there’s no moral difference between the Wehrmacht occupying France in order to subjugate its people and find more Jews to kill and the U.S. Army occupying Germany to stop the Holocaust, liberate Europe, and end a brutal fascist regime bent on world domination.
It’s like failing to distinguish between the man who kills to prevent a woman from being raped and the rapist who kills her protector so that he can continue raping.
It’s a debased moral perspective that’s incomprehensible to me. And utterly repugnant.
Tabacco said
rg combs:
You have a marvelous facility with our language. However you are not dealing with a neanderthal! What you have done is used a plethora of words, with unrelated context signifying nothing and misconstruing both my words and my intended analogy at the same time. Your intent was to evade answering a simple, straightforward question with the use of semantics.
That might work on your other Readers. But it won’t work on me. I do not compare Nazis with Americans circa 1945. I compare Nazis with Americans circa 2003! The difference is astronomical! American presidents were infinitely less evil in 1945.
You too should keep your day job and leave the Sophistry and misdirection to the Rush Limbaughs and Sarah Palins. Until now, I had a lot more respect for your honesty!
I repeat the question one last time, “Ask yourself if China invaded the US, caused the deaths of millions of Americans comparable to what we’ve done in Iraq, and a native American serving in the Chinese Army murdered a slew of Chinese soldiers, would you consider that American a TERRORIST or a PATRIOT?
I’d love to read your response to my hypothetical scenario.”
Please spare us all another attempt at evasion or another pathetic pandering exhibition! We, who are honest, are embarrassed for you.
Regards,
Tabacco
David Aitken said
Tabacco said: “David Aitken: Sorry, but I don’t see your point! What has Jefferson got to do with Bush! America was not thee world power in Jefferson’s day! “
The point is that the radical Muslims don’t care whether you’re a world power or not. They care whether you’re a radical Muslim or not. If you are not, you are an infidel and deserved to be killed, and they’ve been doing that for a very long time.
Tabacco said
To one and all:
The point is that the radical Christians don’t care whether you’re a 3rd world country or not. They care whether you belong to OPEC or not. If you are, you are prey and deserved to be killed, and they’ve been doing that for a very long time.
Face it, folks – religion has always been used as an excuse to murder, rape and plunder. Muslims didn’t burn St. Joan at the stake or crucify Christ. Muslims didn’t precipitate WWI or WWII. Muslims did not invent Fascism or Nazism. Muslims didn’t murder 6 million Jews. Muslims did not create the Ku Klux Klan. Muslims didn’t enslave Blacks in America or segregate them from Caucasians in the US or South Africa. Bernie Madoff, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Benedict Arnold, Terry Nichols, Jack the Ripper, Jeffrey Dahmer were not Muslims. Muslims didn’t construct the Great Wall of China or the Berlin Wall. Muslims didn’t sneak attack Pearl Harbor. And Muslims certainly didn’t invade Iraq to steal their oil and profit from munitions sale and serve as private contractors.
Why is it with the bloody and malevolent history of Christianity and Judaism, you only see a few acts by Muslims. Christians have done everything that Muslims have. You guys are like the youth, who murdered his parents, then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan.
Of course Muslims are abominations! But so are Christians and Jews. I can’t think of a major atrocity in AD, which did not involve Christians or Jews or both. In America regular Jews abhor orthodox Jews – I know this for a fact. In Northern Ireland Catholics and Protestants have been murdering each other for centuries. So why do you harp on Muslims. Your hypocrisy makes me defend them – and I don’t wish to defend any religion – they are all dominated by hypocrisies, deceits and disaster capitalists.
All 3 of you are myopic, prejudiced and deceitful. If you must tell the truth about Muslims, be honest enough to tell the truth about Christians and Jews.
Why do we not invade Rwanda, Chad and other 3rd world countries with substantial human rights violations – I’ll tell you why: because capitalists want oil and profits not redressing human rights violations – that’s only their excuse, not their reason. You bumpkins are just too gullible to see through their charade. Wake me when Caucasians protect exploited peoples in a country that doesn’t have oil!
Tabacco
Tabacco said
PS I forgot:
It is universally ignored just like Israeli Nuclear Weapons (WMDs), but Adolf Hitler was a CATHOLIC! Don’t take my word – look it up! Don’t tell me, “that can’t be true!”
You 2 other guys don’t know your history. This blog’s author does know history, but lies by omission. I blame you 2 for your ignorance, but reserve my harshest criticism for him, who knows better but misleads his flock. For he, not you, is truly evil! Ignorance is pitiable, not malevolent. He, who knows the truth and does not speak is no better than those, who watched that 15-year old being raped by many and did nothing.
The author FEIGNED INDIGNATION with me. He didn’t mean it. He was ACTING! “It’s a debased moral perspective that’s incomprehensible to me. And utterly repugnant.” – Those, without any true feelings or compassion, learn early on how to feign concern, emotion and indignity. Intelligence is often used as a tool to deceive.
You would make an ideal ally if you used that intellect for peace and mutual compassion instead of promoting hatred and bias. Shame!
Tabacco
David Bryant said
My, my. What a tempest in a teapot we’ve stirred up this time. I hope that Tabacco has calmed down a little bit by now.
“To one and all: … why do you harp on Muslims(?)”
Please reread my post, Tabacco. I didn’t refer to Moslems, or Muslims, or Mahomet, or Islam. Who’s putting words in whose mouth?
“People who swear to LIARS are not bound by those oaths! “
This proposition is dubious, at best. More than that, it seems that you are laboring under a misapprehension. Officers in the U.S. Army do not make a promise to the president. They make a promise to all mankind. Or, if they’re of a religious turn of mind, they may suppose that they’re making a promise before God.
Maj. Hasan made a promise. He received a commission in the U.S. Army. In return for his service, the Army gave him free tuition to attend medical school (what is that? A $200,000 value, more or less?) and they paid his salary (probably around $50,000 currently — I’m not certain about his years of service).
Did the Army breach a contract? I don’t think so. They afforded him a free education, they put him through a residency program, and they even promoted him to the rank of Major (which may have been a mistake,based on anecdotal accounts of his performance at Walter Reed).
“Your lack of legal knowledge is showing! “
Well, I’m not a lawyer. But I did work in the insurance business for 20 years, and interpretation of contracts was part of my job.
It’s true that a contract can be breached. When the breach occurs because of an original misrepresentation, a court may declare the contract to be “void in its inception”. In that case the legal remedy is to restore the parties to the positions they occupied before the contract was made, so far as that is possible.
You apparently labor under another misapprehension, Tabacco. Under the American system of jurisprudence, neither party to a contract is authorized to disregard the contract based on his own determination that the other guy lied. Instead, if one party believes the other party has breached the contract, he is obliged to sue for breach of contract. That way a presumably neutral third party can review the facts and decide who if anyone is at fault, and what remedy is appropriate.
Tabacco said
WHAT! Still more evasions and CHERRYPICKING!
This is my 3rd and last time. I am not so easily bamboozled as your other Readers:
“Ask yourself if China invaded the US, caused the deaths of millions of Americans comparable to what we’ve done in Iraq, and a native American serving in the Chinese Army murdered a slew of Chinese soldiers, would you consider that American a TERRORIST or a PATRIOT?
I’d love to read your response to my hypothetical scenario.”
Now since I do not expect you to demonstrate any sense of honor and respond honestly to that, I will demonstrate how an honorable blogger responds without cherry picking, then say goodbye for the time being – I too have a blog to run.
I begin by saying that I admire your mind, if not your ethics. Of all the Sophists I have encountered in blogging, you are at the very top! With reference to Sherlock Holmes, you are Dr. Moriarty!
“Please reread my post, Tabacco. I didn’t refer to Moslems, or Muslims, or Mahomet, or Islam. Who’s putting words in whose mouth?” – You begin this with: “Pre-traumatic stress disorder
« H E » email
posted Tuesday, 10 November 2009
It’s been fascinating (and disturbing) to watch the evolving story of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan in the media since the massacre at Ft. Hood last week. It began with the FBI, barely an hour after the shootings and with no evidence or investigation, declaring that this wasn’t a terrorist act.
.. Then there was the ABC News story, picked up by many others, parroting the family’s explanation that Hasan snapped because he was “constantly harassed,” called a “camel jockey,” and subjected to “bullying” for being a Muslim.” – DUH!
I’m sorry – I did not realize Maj. Hasan’s ethnicity suddenly and mysteriously morphed into Hindi or Hindu or that current “terrorist” conversation revolved around aborigines! And did you forget your own use of the word “Muslim”!
If you changed the subject, let me know! You and I both know the artifices of name-calling without actually saying it ourselves – we let others speak for us. Come on, Combs, even your most gullible Readers must see through that Sophistry!
“”People who swear to LIARS are not bound by those oaths! “
This proposition is dubious, at best.” – HOW SO? That may pass for “ANALYSIS” or “REFUTATION” @rgcombs, but @tabacco we have a much higher standard than mere aspersion! Our dialogue may be more instructive to you than to your Readers!
“Officers in the U.S. Army do not make a promise to the president. They make a promise to all mankind. Or, if they’re of a religious turn of mind, they may suppose that they’re making a promise before God.” – I luv it! Of course they are MAKING A CONTRACT WITH THE PRESIDENT! “Mankind”, I suppose, does not include the 1.5-2 million dead Iraqis! And God does not require genocide; I think there is a Commandment that addresses that issue directly!
“Did the Army breach a contract? I don’t think so.” – The “Army” has as its CHIEF COMMANDER whom? THE COMMANDER AND CHIEF! That, my sophistic friend, is the PRESIDENT! Of course, you already knew that!
“Well, I’m not a lawyer. But I did work in the insurance business for 20 years, and interpretation of contracts was part of my job.” – What job???
I too worked in insurance – twice! In DC, I worked for Continental Casualty as a claims adjuster re AARP & NRTA. In New York, I worked as an underwriter for the same CCC. Name-dropping is a two-edged sword!
“Under the American system of jurisprudence” – using phrases like that is the last refuge of the truly corrupt! I will not belabor that point – but I do invoke it!
“neither party to a contract is authorized to disregard the contract based on his own determination that the other guy lied. Instead, if one party believes the other party has breached the contract, he is obliged to sue for breach of contract. That way a presumably neutral” – I’m glad you qualified that bit of larceny with the word “presumably” – third party can review the facts and decide who if anyone is at fault, and what remedy is appropriate.
Unfortunately – that word by me is disingenuous – deliberately, that 3rd party is also the federal government! No unbiased arbitration there! Judiciary are appointed by politicians or voted into office. All elected judiciary have R, D, or some other political annotation. It all boils down to government! And court-martials and military tribunals are even worse – RUBBER STAMPS! The US of A is not so far removed from dictatorships as we would like to believe, nor as you would have us believe.
I do not wish to leave under the misapprehension I do not respect your intellect – that is not true. In truth, sparing with you is probably the most fun I’ve had in 4-yeasrs of blogging! Debating with uneducated and ill-equipped contrarians is no fun at all.
As a child, I saw a man playing chess badly, but winning while also reading a newspaper. I thought, “I can beat a guy who plays like that!” After I made a few moves, the man put down his newspaper and chewed me up, announcing three different ways he could defeat me depending on my own final move. I learned a lesson that day, which I never forgot!
I had to put down my newspaper to debate you – not that other Reader! I presume you know that I know David Bryant and rgcombs are one and the same! You can hide your name, but not your mind!
Hope to pick up again sometime. Sincerely, it has been fun! The reason it was not too challenging for me is not due to any lack on your part; it’s because you picked the wrong side of the argument! Tabacco hides behind the TRUTH – that’s my secret.
Taking your side against myself, Tabacco could have done no better! The KEY is to always be on the right side of any argument. If not and someone challenges me, I too will look less erudite!
Should you decide to stop hiding out and answer my question above, please e-mail me to look in here for that response – contact@tabacco.blog-city.com.
Regards to a worthy foe,
Tabacco
rgcombs said
”I presume you know that I know David Bryant and rgcombs are one and the same! You can hide your name, but not your mind!”
Ha! Tabacco, at first I thought you’d simply become confused over who wrote what. But then I got to your accusation of sock-puppetry, and it gave me the best laugh I’ve had any many days. Thank you!
I’m sure David B. will also be amused. Although he may not find the comparison of intellect as flattering as I do. 😉
For the record, David B. is a good friend (as is David A.) — not an imaginary sycophant I invented a la Glenn Greenwald. The charge that we are one and the same is especially amusing in light of some of the rather heated discussions about the Iraq war that we’ve had.
Regarding your repeated insistence that I respond to your hypothetical scenario — I will not, because doing so would require me to implicitly accept the underlying premise that the two scenarios are morally equivalent. I reject that premise categorically, as I stated in comment #5.
Furthermore, almost everything you’ve said since then has followed the typical leftist tactic of changing the subject when you’re losing an argument. Case in point: the invoking of the left’s favorite demon, Bush. News flash — Hasan’s murderous attack occurred on Obama’s watch, not Bush’s. The Commander in Chief (not “and Chief”) is President Barack H. Obama.
Another case in point: the tired old leftist meme that Iraq was all about “stealing their oil.” If that was the motive, how foolish of us! Saudi Arabia would have been much easier pickings, much easier to pacify afterward, and yielded much more oil at a much lower cost.
Yet another case in point: all the blather about all the bad things in history that were ”not” done by Muslims and the “bloody and malevolent history of Christianity and Judaism.” This post was not about comparing the propensity for violence of Muslims and Christians, either historically or in the present day — that’s a completely different subject, which I may revisit in some other post (and BTW, I’ve been an atheist since age 14). But your presentation of that argument is so full of inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and non sequitors that it would take forever to address them all — and as I said, that’s a different subject, which you switched to after your original point was destroyed.
In point of fact, nothing you’ve said addressed the subject of my post. My post was not about whether Bush was evil or not, or whether the invasion of Iraq was justified, or whether the U.S. is imperialist, or which is more dangerous, radical Christians or radical Muslims. It was about how the Hasan case was covered by the media and characterized by elements of the U.S. government. It was about the mindset that, eight years after 9/11, still can’t bring itself to “connect of the dots” when they’re everywhere, begging to be connected — apparently for fear of appearing intolerant or prejudiced, or perhaps for fear of setting off the kind of world-wide violent response that a few harmless cartoons did. It was about a cowardice that cost lives.
Tabacco said
QED!
PS Now I know where you guys are from – Santa Mira!
Out a here!
rgcombs said
”Now I know where you guys are from – Santa Mira!”
Yes, and we have a pod all warmed up for you! 😉