The Blog For Truth, Justice, & The Josh Way

Boxing New Pound-For-Pound King

mmX — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:18:49 GMT

With Floyd Mayweather's retirement, that left boxing's mythical "pound-for-pound" title vacant. That is, until this weekend, when Manny Pacquiao claimed the throne with a thorough thrashing of 135 lb alphabet titleholder David Diaz, giving Pacquiao a world title in his fifth weight class. By all accounts (I haven't seen the fight yet, but plan to catch this weekend's rebroadcast), this was Pacquiao at his best, mixing in boxing skills with power-punching. With victories over Marco Antonio Barrera, Erik Morales, Juan Manuel Marquez, and now Diaz, Pacquiao is truly THE man in boxing.

According to ESPN's Dan Rafael, Pacquiao's next likely opponent is Edwin Valero. I've mentioned before in this blog that Pacquiao-Valero is a dream fight. With Valero 24-0 with 24 KOs, and Pacquiao being the offensive juggernaut he is, you're looking at a possible Fight of the Century.

Second Amendment Affirmed

mmX — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:35:24 GMT

The Supreme Court struck down the onerous DC handgun ban. Good for them. DC's officials disagree with the ruling, of course, worrying about the supposed escalation of gun violence we'll see, and not concerning themselves with Constitutional rights and the ability to defend yourself. Or the fact that their law probably triggered the gun violence they're worried about.

Help for the DGIWIM

mmX — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:20:25 GMT

Many readers of this blog know that I work for the Dan Gable International Wrestling Institute & Museum in downtown Waterloo, IA. If you've been following the news, you're aware of the flooding that has hit Iowa. Downtown Waterloo was hit badly, and unfortunately our museum was hit hard. Thankfully our staff is fine, but needless to say, a lot of valuable merchandise and collectibles were lost.

The museum plans to reopen, and everyone associated with the museum is working hard to make that a reality. But we do need help. The museum is a non-profit, and relies heavily on pledges and donations to stay afloat. And with unexpected rebuilding costs, we need funds now more than ever.

If you'd like to help, click here, and you can make a monetary donation via Paypal.

The museum's main webpage is here (which includes a picture of the flooding at its worst), and you can read our Executive Director's personal account of the flood here.

Obama and Federal Public Financing

mmX — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:51:33 GMT

It was announced that Senator Obama will bypass the presidential public financing system in favor of spending what he has raised, and will continue to raise, privately. The McCain people are complaining that this undermines the integrity of the public financing system.

On this issue, I say good for Obama (although he says he supports a robust public financing system). The less taxpayers waste on propping up presidential campaigns, the better. Considering that the money from this system is also used by the Big 2 to fund their conventions, among other things, it seems like this is a complete waste of taxpayer money to begin with. These parties can raise the money without help from taxpayers "volunteering" to assist the parties in getting out their continue-to-increase-the-influence-of-government-in-our-lives message to voters. If you support the message of the candidates or the parties, vote for them, give them money, knock yourself out. But as Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical."

Using taxpayer dollars to fund campaigns is justified by the the idea of decreasing the influence of money in politics. Here's an idea for the politicians wanting to purify the process-stop trying to extend your control into every single facet of American life. As pointed out in the excellent book Unfree Speech, 87% of the increase in spending in federal campaigns by individuals and lobbyists is due to increased government expenditures. The system encourages lobbyists and individuals to spend funds on politicians so they can carve out a little exemption for themselves from the heavy-handed policy coming their way.

The Left's Betrayal on Civil Liberties

mmX — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:50:08 GMT

The title assumes that the left-wing in Washington ever stood for civil liberties in the first place, and you know what they say about assuming things.

Anyway, on last night's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," Keith had on law professor Jonathan Turley, who stated that higher-ups within the Democratic Party have pretty much always known about Bush's illegal warrantless surveillance program. This link appears to confirm that sad reality.

And now many House Democrats (albeit not all of them) have have betrayed the 4th Amendment by giving President Bush his precious warrantless spying, along with his precious immunity for telecom companies that aided the government in its illegal activities. The Senate is expected to overwhelmingly support the measure as well.

No surprise, Senator McCain supports the Bush administration. While McCain may be flip-flopping on some issues, the one thing he's always been consistent on is the belief in centralized power and authority.

Sadly, Senator Obama is also siding with the Bush administration, therefore siding against the Constitution. Obama's rationale is particularly galling, as he claims this "compromise" bill doesn't allow for warrantless spying. The "judicial review" included in the bill requires the government to go before the rubber-stamp FISA court, except in "exigent" circumstances. No way our government will abuse THAT toughly-worded provision. As for the immunity, our courts will waive any liability from the telecom companies that helped Bush as long as they have a note from Bush saying what they did was okay. Not a court order, mind you, but a "directive" from the White House saying it's all good.

Senator Obama is supporting this.

Change you can believe in MY ASS!!!

Pro Wrestling's Outlaw

mmX — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:42:41 GMT

When you think of outlaws who lived by their own rules in the world of pro wrestling, you'll probably think of someone like Steve Austin, raising hell and making life miserable for Vince McMahon. Or maybe the New World Order, hellbent on taking over WCW by any means necessary. Those were great angles, but that's just what they were-angles. Just storylines meant to attract viewers (which those angles did). But there is one wrestler from the past who indeed played by his own rules, not just in front of the camera, but in his behind-the-scenes business dealings as well.

That man is Frank Goodish. Best known by his wrestling name, Bruiser Brody.

Brody is the subject of the book, aptly titled Bruiser Brody, by Emerson Murray. Murray is listed as the author, and is definitely the brainchild of the book, but Brody's story is told through the eyes of the people he met in his childhood, football days and eventually his wrestling career. The fact that Brody was a very controversial figure in the business comes through very clear, as you get a lot of differing viewpoints on what kind of a man Brody was.

Most concede that Brody, when he wanted to, was one hell of a worker. Primarily a brawler, his style is considered a precursor to the hardcore wrestling epitomized in the old ECW and by the likes of Mick Foley. It is mentioned that Brody, due to his extensive Japanese experience, could work a technical style when he wanted to, evidenced in the book by a classic 1-hour match he had with Ric Flair. It's also conceded that Brody was a really big draw.

And that's where the agreements cease.

From the pro-Brody point of view, you hear about a man who would not allow a promoter to use and abuse him. They say he was an honest man who expected the same from those he worked with. He was viewed as a locker room hero for sticking up for himself and fighting for every dollar he was worth. The wrestlers loved working with him, as they were guaranteed big payoffs when they wrestled Bruiser Brody, thanks to his drawing power.

From his critics, you hear about a man who went into business for himself on numerous occasions. His word was of no value. He would come in and try to change matches in order to make himself look good, regardless of whether or not it was good for his opponent, or the territory he worked in. He had no problem screwing over promoters, as evidenced most blatantly by a particular deal he made once with Antonio Inoki.

Because of the diverse opinions people in the business have of Bruiser Brody, allowing other people to tell the story instead of one author proves beneficial. While sometimes the narrative gets choppy, for the most part this style of storytelling enhances the book, because it's very clear Brody was a complex man, and you can't objectively get the true story of a complex man through one set of eyes.

Lots of great stories in here, with great pictures that showcase his hardcore style. Of course, Brody's story ends tragically, with his murder in a Puerto Rico locker room by a booker. And just like his life, his murder is surrounded with controversey, as more than one person says Brody brought his death upon himself.

This book does an extraordinary job in telling the story of one of professional wrestling's most fascinating careers. If you're a pro wrestling fan, I highly recommend this book. I don't know how fast this book sells, but only 1000 copies were made, and my copy is # 639.

Available for purchase here.

An Inconvenient Lifestyle

mmX — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:33:16 GMT

Via Drudge, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has once again exposed Oscar-winner Al Gore for the fraud he is.

All the various global warming proposals out there have nothing to do with solving the problem, and everything to do with politicians getting their hands on money they didn't earn, so they can spend it on causes that will prop up their reelections. Or in Gore's case, getting you to hand money over to watch his movie, so he can live a more plush lifestyle.

If they really gave a damn about the environment, don't you think they'd practice what they preach?

Does the REVOLution Go On??

mmX — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:19:14 GMT

He's been pretty much an afterthought since McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination in March, but Ron Paul is officially ending his campaign. The leftover campaign cash is going to an advocacy group called the Campaign for Liberty, which will try to aid libertarian-leaning Republicans.

When he started his campaign, I was a Ron Paul fan. During the course of this campaign, though, I've come to view Ron Paul as just another politician, albeit with better voting record than his colleagues. While my first column at AmericanChronicle.com wasn't real stellar, it did touch upon a few glitches in his armor. I found it hard to believe someone who didn't fight government pork, and indeed put his own earmarks into spending bills, was going to tackle the larger issue of runaway government spending (which by his voting record, he would've increased discretionary spending by $73 billion in the 109th Congress). Also, he's one of these anti-immigration Republicans who thinks building a fence, regardless of what it does to property owners, is needed for immigration reform.

The real kicker, though, came this January, with the revelation of the race-baiting in his old newsletters. The Paul line explaining these was that they were ghost-written by some unknown source. Most people in the know, however, believe it wasn't some unknown source, but a very known source, Paul's long-time colleague Lew Rockwell. If Paul's colleague, still a close adviser, endorses police violence, and Paul allowed this guy to write articles in his name, what does that say about Paul's view on the state's ability to use violent methods?

I hope Paul's Campaign For Liberty is successful in interjecting some much-needed libertarianism into the Republican Party. That said, I'm never real confident about using the political process to limit government. By its very nature, the political process invites government to interfere, regulate, tax, and manipulate. Plus, for any movement to be successful, its leaders need character. Sadly, these newcomers have taken as their role model someone whose character is in serious question.

Partisan Politics, Circa 1800

mmX — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:47:52 GMT

Pretty much every election year, you'll hear the various candidates talk about the need for debating the issues, and to abstain from personal attacks, almost like they're harkening back to some golden era when politics was above such treacherous tactics.

Maybe these candidates need a history lesson.

Such a lesson is provided in Edward Larson's book, A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign. This book takes a look at how even back in the day, our Founding Fathers, and their respective allies in the press, were not above divisive squabbling. While the title implies the book is about strictly the 1800 presidential election, the book delves into the issues that divided the country, and how those rifts eventually created the modern day two-party system we have, thus resulting in the first true political campaign for the presidency.

The central figure in the book is John Adams. Adams, of course is an American hero, one of the country's chief proponents for independence from Britain. For Adams, security and order were important, as during his presidency he created a navy (along with standing army, although he considered this aspect unnecessary, but did so in order to get his navy), and signed the Sedition Act, which was used to squelch the speech of his political oppenents. While he was already distrusted by the Republicans of the day, these measures solidified their distrust for him. At the same time, Adams was distrusted by the his own Federalist Party, in particular the High Federalists. In particular, his attempts to attain peace with Revolutionary France (after creating the Navy to combat French vessels in international waters) earned their ire. Adams was the man in the middle of these intense partisan debates, and as a result, ultimately doomed in his quest for reelection.

Thomas Jefferson was a hero of the Revolution, the architect of the Declaration of Independence. He feared a strong central government, and felt measures like the Sedition Act and the creation of the standing army were a threat to the country's liberty. His views on the freedom of religion, frugal government, and a check on the power of the executive branch got him branded as a dangerous anarchist, and an atheist by his opponents. Likewise, Jefferson and his allies branded their opponents as monarchists who would take us back to the British style of government that we declared our independence from.

Principle to that belief in monarchy was Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was a firm believer in strong national government and the hereditary system the British employed for their government. The most fascinating part of the book is the feud between Hamilton and Adams. Despite being in the same party, Hamilton was always scheming to push Adams out. Hamilton tried, behind the scenes, to keep Adams from attaining the presidency in 1796, and again tried to manipulate his ouster in 1800. Most brazenly, Hamilton published a 54-page letter denouncing Adams in the worst terms, despite "endorsing" him for the 1800 election. Hamilton's naked ambition for power is on full display in this book, and was rightfully feared by his opponents in my view.

The book also looks at the partisanship of the press during that era (Fox News has nothing on those guys) and its role in the election. Chief among the press is James Callender, who gets prosecuted for his anti-Adams screed The Prospect Before Us. An ally of Jefferson's at the time, Callender would go on to expose one of Jefferson's biggest secrets.

This book is recommended reading. American politics has always been a dirty business, and the idea that America's Founding Fathers had some homogenous belief system is patently false.

The books is available for purchase here.

Mayweather Stunner

mmX — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 23:51:33 GMT

In what can best be described as unexpected, boxing's pound-for-pound king Floyd Mayweather announced his retirement today. This is not the first time Mayweather has "retired" as he announced after fighting Carlos Baldomir that he would retire after his multi-million dollar fight with Oscar De La Hoya. That retirement didn't last long, as he came back after Ricky Hatton called him out.

This retirement may be more legit, however. His rematch with Oscar this September was going to net him somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 million. For him to walk away from what would probably be the biggest payday of his career, in the prime of his career, I think is telling. He's become a multi-media star this past year, and as long as he's smart with the money he's earned, he doesn't need the payday from the De La Hoya rematch. On Mayweather-Hatton 24/7, the HBO series used to promote that fight, Mayweather admitted that his body was breaking down. That could very well be playing into his decision to step away as well.

As a boxing fan, I'm disappointed. Mayweather is clearly boxing's best right now. Fans were eagerly anticipating him stepping into the ring with this summer's Miguel Cotto-Antonio Margarito winner. Mayweather-Cotto had the makings for one of the biggest fights in history. That said, Floyd has earned the right to step out on his terms. I'd much rather he stepped away healthy, happy, and financially secure, as opposed to being a broke punch-drunk has-been that refuses to go away. There's too many boxing tragedies in the sport, and it would be nice to see a few more careers end the way Lennox Lewis's career did.

If Mayweather is at peace with this decision, hopefully boxing fans will respect it and applaud the accomplishments he's had in the Sweet Science. And hopefully Mayweather can stay at peace with his decision and enjoy a good life after boxing.

Bob Barr, The Libertarian Party, Ideological Purity, and Campaign '08

mmX — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:50:36 GMT

Over Memorial Day weekend, the Libertarian Party nominated Bob Barr as their candidate for President.

In a previous blog, I was pretty harsh on the LP, asking what it says about the "party of principle" to nominate Barr. I've been mulling over my initial thoughts since Barr won the nomination. The LP tends to attract a lot of fringe elements (hence why many libertarians distinguish themselves from their capital-L counterparts), but Barr is the first serious candidate they've nominated in years. It shows they're trying to legitimize themselves, and have their ideas taken seriously. Granted, they're not winning anything this year, but taking a small step forward is better than a step backwards.

One of my knocks against Barr was a record not consistent with what libertarians would stand for. He voted to authorize Bush the war-making decision in Iraq, voted for the PATRIOT Act, and was a fierce drug warrior, among other things. It raises an important question: just how important is a candidate's ideology? Libertarians are often accused by conservatives of being too idealistic. Considering just how bloated conservatism has become, I consider that a badge of honor.

But does the demand for ideological purity unnecessarily weed out good candidates? Many libertarians, myself included, are suspicious of Barr. That said, one study shows Barr to have a fairly libertarian voting record during his days in Congress. Not perfect, but not bad either. And Barr, in the words of Reason magazine correspondent David Weigel, nailed himself to the cross and apologized for his past transgressions.

For me, ideology is important. It appears the opposite of ideology is bi-partisanship, and getting things done for the sake of getting things done, regardless of the consequences. And those consequences seem to result in our rights, our freedoms, our privacy, not to mention the money in our wallets, slowly eroding away. But to expect 100% purity is impossible.

From there, it comes to whether you can trust a candidate when he/she says they've made a mistake and have learned from it. The lack of sincerity on her vote for the Iraq War is likely what sunk Hillary. Is Barr's apology sincere?? That's something libertarians, myself included, need to consider.

The trust factor also comes in when pondering a potential candidate who you for the most part disagree with, but share his/her views on key elements of that candidate's platform. In particular with Obama, is he serious about ending the Iraq War? Is he serious about restoring the civil liberties the Bush administration has trampled? Considering he's failed to even show up when key votes have come up in the Senate that directly deal with civil liberties, and considering he's probably not being straight with voters regarding his plans for Iraq, how can you rely on what he says during the campaign? Trust, or a lack thereof, is what will most likely prevent me from voting for Obama.

More on the "Cap & Trade" Scheme

mmX — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:26:18 GMT

A great article in the New York Post regarding the Senate's "cap & trade" plan for global warming. The article looks at the results with Europe's cap & trade system, and points out the likely effects the Senate bill would have on the US economy.

The best line in the article: "Just as tobacco taxes haven't eliminated smoking, a cap-and-trade tax won't eliminate global warming." Indeed, especially since cigarette taxes are not intended to lower the number of smokers, just use the money picketed from smokers' pockets to fund some pet project. And as this article mentions, one ambitious Senator already has her wish list made out for what we'll be funding.

Think this bill is still about saving the planet??

Will The Gov't Fix Global Warming??

mmX — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:42:59 GMT

How good of a track record does the federal government have at solving problems? A pretty good one, actually. That is, if by good, you mean bad. How's that War on Drugs working out? Or the War on Poverty?? How about the War on Teenage Sex?? Are we solving the problems in education??

Answers: Horrible, Counter-productive, Wasteful, and Not At All.

So the federal government has failed in reducing crime, failed in solving poverty, failed in stopping teenage sex, and failed to educate our kids.

So who better to turn to than Washington DC to fix global warming.

Washington's "innovative" solution: Add a long-term estimated cost of $10 trillion on the economy through a cap-and-trade system, in order to produce an infantile decrease in global temperatures.

I'm SURE they'll get it right this time, however.

Trusting McCain With The War??

mmX — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:43:15 GMT

If this poll is to be believed, than this election will not be a slam-dunk for the Democratic nominee like some seem to believe. McCain is seen as more trustworthy than Obama on the economy, the war in Iraq, national security, ethics, reducing corruption, and taxes.

This same poll mentions that 6 in 10 Americans wants the troops home from Iraq within a year. These same Americans DO realize McCain wants to guarantee a long-term presence in Iraq, right? Considering that our presence their keeps fueling this cycle of violence, we're not exactly talking a peaceful long-term presence, either.

Propaganda Secretary Comes Clean

mmX — Wed, 28 May 2008 23:28:09 GMT

The political world is buzzing right now over revelations made in former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan's new book. It sounds like the book pretty much confirms the worst thoughts everyone had about this administration: that Bush misled us on Iraq, that consequences of his actions were never considered, and intelligence that was contradictory to his goals was simply ignored.

With the Iraq War, Bush seen "his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness." According to McClellan, establishing an enduring peace in the Middle East was the rationale for the war. Which would therefore insure Bush's legacy. So we have 4000 US soldiers dead, another 30,000 wounded, and however many thousands of Iraqis dead, all so President Bush could make himself a great president.

Absolutely disgraceful.

Huckabee: Libertarianism is "Heartless"

mmX — Wed, 28 May 2008 23:56:22 GMT

A rather famous conservative once said that the heart of conservatism is libertarianism. Apparently Governor Huckabee wants whatever remnants of libertarianism that remain within the Republican Party expunged, as he calls libertarianism the biggest threat to "classic Republicanism" there is today. Not a disregard for the rule of law, not an obsession with power, not an unaffordable growth in reckless government spending, not manipulating information to legitimize an illegitimate war that has costs us lives & treasure & our reputation, NO!! Libertarianism is the #1 threat to the Republican Party, he says. Because without the benevolent knowledge and talent of government bureaucrats, politicians, and regulators, this country will go to hell in a handbasket.

According to Huckabee, "soulless" libertarianism means that the elderly will not get health care and children will go without a proper education. Maybe Huckabee should do a little research, as it's those at the forefront of libertarian thought that have made proposals for education reform and health care reform. Indeed, the small-scale implementation we've seen of HSAs and school vouchers has proven successful.

Of course these reforms are market-oriented, hence they're frowned upon the our enlightened leaders in government. Only the government can fix things. The last time I checked, the government was more involved in our education system than at any point in this country's history. How's that working?? As for health care, seniors are severely restricted in their health care choices thanks to Medicare regulations.

Compassionate big-government at work, indeed.

McCain Stuff

mmX — Thu, 22 May 2008 21:05:42 GMT

The good: McCain spoke out against the ridiculous farm bill, and its corporate welfare. The DNC, ignoring the corporate welfare of the bill, defended the bill because it provides funding for food stamps and nutrition programs. Nevermind that these programs only serve to reinforce poverty, not alleviate it. Fighting reckless spending would be the only glimmer of light to come from a McCain presidency.

The bad: A great article that deconstructs McCain's BS regarding Iran. Clearly a common sense approach to foreign policy runs counter to McCain's militaristic ambitions.

The ugly: It's been a long time coming, but McCain is finally rejecting Rev. John Hagee. For all the criticism Obama received in his handling of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's statements (which I thought he handled just fine), McCain is the one who should do some explaining, as he openly pursued the endorsement of a minister with well-known controversial views.

Farm Politics

mmX — Wed, 21 May 2008 23:19:27 GMT

I guess President Bush remembered where he put his veto pen, as he says he'll be vetoing the bloated farm bill that Congress has passed. Good for him, but both the House and Senate passed this with veto-proof margins, making it likely Bush's veto will only be ceremonial.

For all the talk certain politicians make about corporate welfare and special interests, those same people are more than willing to turn a blind eye when it comes to handing out some special-interest corporate welfare via farm subsidies. Thanks to subsidies like what we have in this bill, Americans taxpayers dole out $25 billion a year in taxes, along with another $12 billion in higher food prices, mostly to commercial farms with average incomes of $200,000 and average net worths of $2 million.

A lot of the inflation in food prices is thanks to the ethanol subsidy. Being an Iowan, it's blasphemous to be opposed to the subsidy, but the so-called benefit of ethanol is pretty much smoke and mirrors.

Since Congress is so damned concerned about price gouging, when will there be a hearing on the price gouging that has been orchestrated by politicians and corporate farmers colluding together? Don't hold your breath.

Bush-Slapped

mmX — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:05:30 GMT

Two great beatdowns on President Bush worth checking out:

First, Keith Olbermann's latest "Special Comment" where he responds to Bush's claims of "another attack on the United States" if we leave Iraq, along with Bush's alleged claim of giving up golf in the name of the war effort. Bush's flippant arrogance deserves to be called out, and Olbermann gives him a well-deserved lashing.

Also, another smackdown of Bush, courtesy of Cato's Ted Galen Carpenter. Taking a thinly veiled shot at Senator Obama, Bush warned of negotiating with terrorists and radicals during his trip to Israel. This despite the fact that we've sat down with Libya and North Korea during Bush's time in the White House. Carpenter's critique is more clinical than Olbermann's, but does an outstanding job of exposing the lack of understanding Bush seems to have regarding foreign relations.

More Demagogery From The Candidate For Hope

mmX — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:38:20 GMT

Senator Obama has spoke out against McCain regarding Social Security, claiming McCain supports President Bush's plans for privatization. Obama's solution to solve Social Security's funding crisis is real original: increase taxes on the wealthy.

This is very deceptive, but chances are a lot of the media will let him get by with it. As Peter Ferrara and Michael Tanner explain in their excellent book "A New Deal for Social Security" that the so-called Social Security Trust Fund is filled with IOUs, as any surplus money in the Trust Fund goes to the government to spend on general operating expenses. Any increase in taxes meant specifically for Social Security will likewise not be saved and invested to finance future Social Security benefits. Therefore the insolvency problem still lingers. Increasing taxes to "save" Social Security is just a ruse to finance some other pet project these politicians have.

If this sort of pay-as-you-go system was tried in the private market, someone would be arrested for fraud. For government, this is business as usual. It's the pay-as-you-go Ponzi scheme that is the root of Social Security's insolvency. The demographics of people soon going into retirement versus the workers available to finance that retirement is heavily schewed, with many more Baby Boomers than there are young workers. Without addressing pay-as-you-go, any talk of Social Security reform is fruitless.