On August 19th, Jon Stewart, host of The Day Show, aired a clip of the show Fox and Friends in which host Brian Kilmead and guest Dan Senor attacked the proposed Islamic Cultural Center near Ground Zero by defrauding the project’s founder, Imam Rauf.

In the clip, Kilmead and Senor discussed a $300,000 donation to the project by the Kingdom Holding Company, an Arabian outfit who’s leader “funds radical midrassas all over the world,” according to Senor. Their logic was simple: if the leader of the Kingdom Holding Company has ties to Islamic extremism and Imam Rauf has ties to the Kingdom Holding Company, then, by the correlative property, Imam Rauf has ties to Islamic extremism and ground zero mosque may be a base of operations for terrorism in America.

Stewart also pointed out that the hosts of Fox and Friends failed mention the name of the man who runs the Kingdom Holding Company, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of the Saudi Royal Family, a billionaire investor nicknamed the Saudi Arabian Warren Buffet. Alwaleed is known around the world for his his charitable donations, but in the United States, he became a household name in 2001 due a slight political mishap.

Following the attacks on 9/11, the Prince donated $10 million donation to the Twin Towers Fund. Unfortunately, the check was never deposited. Mayor Rudy Guiliani returned the money after Alwaleed said the United States’ history of pro-Israel policies may have alienated some Palestinians and cultivated ill-will among the extremists. While there’s no question as the lack of tact and sensitivity, such sentiments are not radical or even uncommon. Understandably, Mayor Guiliani was offended. He took Alwaleed’s words as an affront to the American people and a justification for the attacks. He famously returned the $10 million check, stating that such claims are “very, very dangerous,”  “part of the problem.”

So how could the name of a man tied to a controversial story surrounding the most severe terrorist in American history have slipped the mind of Kilmead and Senor? After all, they should know his name very well. He’s the second largest shareholder of News Corporation, the company that owns Fox News. Could it be, as Stewart pointed out, that they avoided using his name to prevent Fox viewers from Googling him and learning of their financial ties?

After watching the episode, I was intrigued. How involved is Alwaleed bin Talal in News Corporation? Does he any influence over Fox News?

As it turns out, Alwaleed is more than a passive investor who saw a financial opportunity. He’s a business partner of Ruper Murdoch, owner of News Corporation. His involvement began in 1999, when he purchased 5% of the company. Today, he owns 7%, the largest share outside the Murdoch Family, which owns 30%.

In 2004, John Malone, of Liberty Media group, a rival media company, announced that he would consider increasing his company’s stake in News Corporation, threatening Murdoch’s majority holding. Murdoch then issued a poison pill provision aimed at blocking Malone. This angered investors, who threatened to sue News Corporation.

In the midst of the controversy, Alwaleed,  announced he would be willing to increase his stake in News Corp. to provide Murdoch with fnancial support. This was finalized on September 6, 2005 when Alwaleed increased his holdings to 5.46% of voting shares, which grant the stockholder the right to vote on a number of matters related to the administration of a company, including who will sit on the board of directors.

Commenting on his increased stake, Alwaleed said, “Last November I said that I had the utmost confidence in Mr. Murdoch, his management team and his succession planning, and that if necessary, the Kingdom companies would replace their non-voting shares with voting shares…The Kingdom companies now own a significant interest in News Corporation voting shares and may purchase more if the situation warrants.”

Later that year, while speaking at the Arab and World Media Conference in Dubai, Alwaleed discussed how he persuaded Murdoch to change Fox News’ coverage of street protests in France involving Muslims. Fox had displayed a banner that dubbed them “Muslim riots,” which Alwaleed felt was inaccurate. “I picked up the phone and called Murdoch,” Alwaleed said, “and told him these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty…Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.”

In 2008, Alwaleed’s Rotana Media Group and News Corporation partnered to launch two Fox-branded English television channels. The following year, News Corp. acquired a 10% stake in Rotana wiht an option to acquire another 10% in the future. Rotana also agreed to distribute Fox News DVDs throughout the Middle East.

Last January, Alwaleed appeared on The Charlie Rose Show and discussed his relationship with Rupert Murdoch and his son, James. Alwaleed said: “I met with Mr. Rupert Murdoch and Mr. James Murdoch. We are always in tough. I’m second biggest shareholder there. And no doubt that News Corp is moving on all the fronts. You’ve seen how FOX rating is skyrocketing…James is now managing Europe and Asia…I’ll be the first one to nominate him to be the successor of Mr. Rupert Murdoch, god forbid if something happens to him…I have full confidence in [James], full trust in him, and he’s capable. He’s really Rupert Murdoch in the making, and he’s almost there now.”

Over the past 10 years, Fox News has routinely lambasted Alwaleed on the air and taken jabs at anyone accepting one of his donations, with one exception. On January 15, 2010, Alwaleed was a guest on Your World with Neil Cavuto. For the first time, a Fox personality painted Alwaleed in a positive light. Introducing the segment, Cavuto said, “he [Alwaleed] takes very few interviews, but made a big exception for Fox Business and yours truly. It was extraordinary, as was his take on this country and this president” (brackets mine). Throughout the interview, Cavuto treated the Prince with the highest level of respect, even calling him “Your Highness.”

Interestingly, the Prince’s royal treatment on Fox came shortly after he increased his stake in News Corporation yet again. According to News Corporation’s SEC filings, report that Alwaleed had just increased his ownership to 7% of voting stock, an investment of nearly $2 billion and more than anyone apart from Rupert Murdoch himself.

For now, I can’t help but wonder how the folks over at Fox and Friends feel working for a man that be funding “radical midrassas all over the world.” In fact, I wonder how a lot of Fox pundits feel.

In 2001, Bill Sammon referred to Alwaleed’s money as “blood money.” Later that year Sean Hannity said that he would ”have nothing to do” with the Prince’s money, then in 2005 he denounced Harvard University and Georgetown for accepting donations from the Kingdom Holding Company. In June of this year, Glenn Beck said that Alwaleed flew his money into the twin towers and that America “doesn’t want your money.” Laura Ingraham, has echoed the sentiments of Brian Kilmead and Dan Senor, suggesting that accepting “Arabian money” was in some way suspicious.

Such close financial ties to Alwaleed should bother Sammon, Hannity, Beck, Ingraham, and Kilmead. If they truly believe that Alwaleed funds Islamic extremism, they should be losing sleep over the fact that their work on Fox News may be filling the coffers of terrorist cells. They should also consider their hypocrisy, knocking American universities and Imam Rauf for accepting money from Alwaleed, then turning around and doing the same. On the other hand, maybe they don’t actually believe that Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is such a suspicious character. Maybe they’re just slinging conservative rhetoric.

I’m not sure which is worse, the slander, the hypocrisy, or the dishonesty. One thing’s for sure, the folks over at Fox News are perfectly comfortable operating with the lowest level of journalistic integrity. So much for being fair and balanced.

***

It should be noted, there’s little to no evidence that Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is tied to “radical midrassas” or any form of Islamic extremism. He is known as a moderate Muslim who has financially supported groups dedicated to American-Islamic relations.

Today, I want to talk about cooking. We’re going to experiment with memorizing tabular data in the form of culinary ratios using a combination of the wardrobe method and a simple grid system described by Jerry Lucas and Harry Lorayne in The Memory Book.

You might be thinking, “Wait a minute! Why are we memorizing culinary ratios?

The answer to that question, allow me to refer you to the article Memory Sports Nutrition, the first in a series by Johann Randall Abrina. In it, Johann rightly observes that while there has been little research into the optimal diet for a memory athlete, there is no shortage of literature on the relationship between diet and brain health. In addition, everyone has their own idea about how to best prepare for intellectual exercise:

In 1754, philosopher and theologian Jonathan Edwards wrote:

“By a sparingness in diet, and eating as much as may be what is light and easy of digestion, I shall doubtless be able to think more clearly…”

Then we have the musings of Ben Pridmore:

“junk food is very much the way to go if you want to be a great memoriser…”

Finally, we have the great Tony Buzan (quoted by Johann):

“Good Food = Good Brain, Junk Food = Junk Brain”

Despite the diversity of opinion, Buzan seems to have the right idea. In the article, Chess Diet: Eat or Play, Yury Markushin expands on Buzan’s assertion by arguing that that the chess champion’s diet is one that’s rich in good carbohydrates, proteins, fish oils, and b-vitamins.

So how do we follow the advice of Mr. Buzan and Mr. Markushin? One of the easiest, and most economical ways, of pursuing a healthy diet is to prepare the food yourself. That’s where the culinary ratios come in.

What Is a Culinary Ratio?

In his book, Ratio, Michael Ruhlman writes that a culinary ratio is a, “fixed proportion of one ingredient or ingredients relative to another…it’s not like knowing a single recipe, it’s like knowing thousands.” In short, a ratio can be thought of as a fundamental recipe from which all other recipes are derived. Let’s look at a quick example:

The most basic bread dough is as follows:

5 Parts Flour : 3 Parts Water (plus yeast)

Everything from pizza dough to fancy artisan breads can be derived from this simple 5:3 ratio. Now, all you need is a little baking know-how and you’re good to go (for more information, I recommend Ruhlman’s book).

Time to start memorizing!

Wardrobes and the Simple Grid

This method combines two techniques: a basic number-letter grid (as described in The Memory Book) and the wardrobe method.

Let’s have a look at our ratios:

As you can see, we’ll be working with five basic ratios: bread, pasta dough, pie dough, biscuits, and pound cake. To memorize the chart, we’ll work through the following steps:

• Set up a letter-number grid with peg words for each cell.
• Assign the chart’s headings to two wardrobes.
• Link the ratio information to the peg words for each cell.

Setting Up the Grid

In the number-letter grid, each column is assigned a letter, and each row is assigned a number (or vice-versa). Each cell is then labelled with its letter-number coordinates.

The next step is to create peg words for each cell in the grid. Each peg word will begin with the letter of it’s column. We’re beginning with column-letters because it’s easier to use a vowel in a peg word if it is designated as the first sound in the word. The second consonant sound of each peg word will come from it’s row number (according to the Major System).

You may have to spend some time memorizing the peg words, but a little extra work in the beginning pays off in the long run. The easiest way to study them is to work down each column (A1, A2, A3, etc.).

Now, well we have to do is associate the information to the appropriate pegs.

Creating our Wardrobes

A wardrobe is an ordered list of words that function as memory pegs. Linking information to a wardrobe results a list that can be easily recalled and navigated.

One of the advantages of using a wardrobe is that the linked information becomes synonymous with each peg word in the wardrobe. For example, if we link 26 pieces of information to the alphabet, the result is a new ordered list of words, each of which refers to a letter. This new list can now function as a second alphabetic wardrobe.

We’re going to use this concept to memorize our chart’s headings. The list of baked goods (left column) and the list of ingredients (top row) will not be contained within the grid itself. Instead they will be stored in two different wardrobes. Together, these wardrobes will function as an index directing us to a specific portion of the chart. This creates a more consistent grid that contains nothing but the actual ratio data, rather than a mix of ingredient titles and baked goods.

First, we’ll link our list of baked goods to each row using peg words from the Major System. This will create our first index. Each baked good will refer us to a specific row in the chart.

• 1 (Tie) – Bread: A loaf of bread putting on a tie
• 2 (Noah) – Pasta Dough: Noah building the ark out of a pile of wet noodles.
• 3 (Moo, a cow) – Pie Dough: A pie, with four legs, grazing in a field and mooing.
• 4 (Roux, an ingedient made with butter and flour) – Biscuit: A biscuit wearing an apron mixing roux in a pan.
• 5 (Lei) – Pound Cake: A pound cake wearing a giant pink lei and hoola dancing.

Next, we’ll link our ingredients to the alphabet using a thematic wardrobe based on animals. This will link each ingredient to a specific column, creating our second index.

• A (Alligator) – Flour: A giant bag of flour, with the head, arms, legs, and tail of an alligator.
• B (Bee) – Liquid (bottle of water): A bottle of water painted like a bee flying around and buzzing like a bee.
• C (Cat) – Eggs: A cat laying eggs.
• D (Dog) – Sugar: A dog singing Pour Some Sugar on Me by Def Leppard
• E (Elephant) – Fat: An elephant eating junk food and getting fat.

Now let’s put this all together. When I think of the word “bread,” I’m directed to row one. Then, to get the ratio, I move through row one from left to right (A1, B1, C1, D1, E1). As I arrive at each column, I know that the “A” column refers to flour, the “B” column refers to liquid, etc.

Linking the Ratio Data into the Grid

Every baked good in our ratio chart doesn’t contain every ingredient. So the first thing we have to do is fill in the blank spots with zeroes:

To link our ratio data into our grid, we’ll create images using a simple Person-Object technique.

• Person: The person performing the action in our image will be the cell’s peg word.
• Object: The object receiving the action will begin with the sound of the number we want to memorize (Major System)

To demonstrate this, let’s look at how we’d link the ratio data for pasta dough (including the zeroes) into our grid:

Pasta Dough: 3 Parts Flour : 2 Parts Egg

• A2 – 3 Parts Flour: Annie (fictional character from the play, Annie) is trying to shave a monkey.
• B2 – 0 Parts Liquid: A bunny is piloting a in a sailboat.
• C2 – 2 Parts Egg: A giant candy cane fighting a ninja.
• D2 – 0 Parts Sugar: A sand dune opens up and swallows a group of soldiers.
• E2 – 0 Parts Fat: A mutant enchilada drives into a stop sign.

Following the same process for each of our ratios will install the rest of the information into our grid. From now on, when we think of “pasta dough,” we’ll jump to row two of our grid. As we move through the row, the peg word for each cell will remind us of the number amount of each ingredient in our ratio.

An Alternative to Peg Words

As an alternative to memorizing peg words for each cell of the grid, we can create Person-Action-Object images for each cell:

• Person: The person in the image will be the animal for each column / ingredient.
• Action: The action will begin with the sound of the first letter of the row number (Major System)
• Object: The object will begin with the sound first letter of the ratio number want to link to the cell.

Let’s look at a quick example using the pasta dough ratio above.

Pasta Dough: 3 Parts Flour : 2 Parts Egg

• A2
  • Column A (Flour): Alligator
  • Row Two: N
  • 3 Parts Flour: M
  • An alligator nailing a picture of a monkey the wall.
• B2
  • Column B (Liquid): Bee
  • Row Two: N
  • 0 Parts Liquid: S
  • A bee (dressed as a soldier) neutralizing an enemy soldier.
• C2
  • Column C (Eggs): Cat
  • Row Two: N
  • 2 Parts Egg: N
  • A cat nurturing a baby ninja.
• D2
  • Column D (Dog): Dog
  • Row Two: N
  • 0 Parts Sugar: S
  • A dog nominates himself to a be senator.
• E2
  • Column E (Fat): Elephant
  • Row Two: N
  • 0 Parts Sugar: S
  • An elephant naming his son after Stephen Colbert.

Conclusion

Today, we created a grid system for memorizing culinary ratios that combined a number of techniques, including Jerry Lucas and Harry Lorayne’s number-letter grid from The Memory Book, the wardrobe method, and even a little bit of Tony Buzan’s Self-Enhanced Memory Matrix (SEM3). While no system is perfect, a good grid system and a little creativity is great way to retain massive amounts of information. If you have any questions, comments, or ideas about how to optimize the grid, share them in the comments.

In his book, Master Your Memory, Buzan outlines his memory system, the Self Enhanced Memory Matrix or Sem Cubed (Sem³). Sem³ is an elaborate peg system allows you to store 10,000 pieces of information in a giant table. It combines the major Major System with a set of 100 Sem³ pegs, each of which is based on a theme.

Each column represents a block of 1000 numbers divided evenly between 10 cells. Each cell contains 100 numbers, represented by each row. Lets break this down a bit:

• If we look at the cell marked “A”, we see it’s in the 3000’s column and the 200-299 row. Therefore, the “A” cell contains the numbers 3200-3299.
• Next, let’s look at the cell marked “B.” It contains numbers 8500-8599.

Get the idea? Good, let’s move on.

Themes and Pegs

Next, Buzan creates the 100 Sem³ peg words by assigning a theme to each row. Each cell within a row is assigned a peg word reflecting its theme. If the first row (0-99) was given the theme animals each cell would be assigned an animal peg.

Now we can begin to put it all together. Combining the Sem³ grid with the major system allows you can create at least 10,000 unique images on the fly.

Take the number 5025. An image representing this number could be a goat wielding a knife. How did we arrive at that image?

1. Determine the cell that contains the number. In this case, it’s the goat cell, since our number is between 5000 and 5099.
2. Use the Major System to create a word representing the specific number within the cell. In this case, 025 = knife.

To sum it up:

(Goat = Any number between 5000-5099) + (Knife = 25) = 5025

Applying the System

We now have 10,000 unique peg images. To use this system, we simply allocate part of the grid to the information we want to memorize and link our information accordingly.

Let’s say we want to remember some information about each member of the Beatles. We’ll place this information in the 1000-1099 cell, the cat cell. The first four numbers within that cell and their images are as follows:

• 1000: A cat with a hand saw.
• 1001: A cat dressed up as King Tut.
• 1002: A cat acting as Noah building a big ark.
• 1003: A cat mooing like a cow.

Now we include each of the Beatles in this image.

• 1000: A cat performing as a magician and sawing Paul McCartney in half.
• 1001: John Lennon is an explorer who opens King Tut’s tomb only to find a giant cat.
• 1002: Ringo Star is helping Cat-Noah build the ark.
• 1003: George Harrison and a cat are brazing in a field mooing like cows.

We have now assigned each of the four Beatles to a block of numbers in the Sem Cubed grid. Now, we can use the link system to tie more information to each of the Beatles.

• Paul McCartney played bass. If we think of “bass” as the fish: Paul McCartney getting eaten by a giant bass.
• Paul also had a band called Wings. We can chain this information to “bass” by imaging a bass growing wings and flying away.

By using the link system to tie long strings of information to individual locations on the Sem³ grid, the possibilities are limitless. Go give it a try and share your thoughts in the comments!

Historically, missionary work and humanitarian aid have topped the socio-economic priority list of the Church. It wasn’t until the 1950′s that politics established a presence in American churches, brought on by Billy Graham’s message that America’s greatest weapon to defend against the threat of Communism was the Gospel. The unity of faith and patriotism set the stage the marriage that was to follow.

Two decades later, A common enemy made the Church and the Republican party unlikely bedfellows, namely, abortion. Church leaders Francis Schaeffer, James Dobson, and others saw the political platform as a powerful way to spread the pro-life message and hopefully, overturn Roe vs. Wade, while politicians recognized an opportunity to leverage a massive demographic, conservative Christians.

Today, the Church’s political agenda and the values of the Republican Party are mirror images. Social and moral issues rooted in Christian doctrine as a high on the Republican priority list as cutting taxes and small government. Visit a politically active church and you’re more likely to be invited to an anti-abortion rally than asked to volunteer at a soup kitchen.

To be fair, it’s easy to see why the abortion issue is important to the Church. The Judeo-Christian world view, together with a conservative reading of Scripture, make it plain that man was created in God’s image, life is sacred, and murder is a sin (Genesis 1:27; Exodus 20:13, 21:22-25; Psalm 11:3; Proverbs 24:11-12; Matthew 5:21-22; James 2:5-9). The Pslams offer a few subtle hints that a fetus may be a human being. Together, a cohesive doctrine emerges: to abort a fetus is to take the life of another human being, which is a sin.

Biblically speaking, however, the crux of the issue is not the age of the person being killed, but the fact that a human life is being taken. Given this, one would expect to see the Church flex as much political muscle protect the lives of children and adults as it does the unborn. Focusing a little political energy pushing Congress to enact legislation that offers socio-economic support, but, as we’ll see later, reduce the number of abortions by providing much needed economic assistance.

Unfortunately, the Bible’s compassion and humanitarianism don’t jive well with the Republican Party’s stance on small government and trickle down economics. Politically, it’s difficult to obey Scripture’s commands feed the poor and care for the needy while simultaneously cutting welfare benefits and battling affordable healthcare legislation (Matthew 19:21, 25:35; Luke 12:33, 14:13, 20:46-47; Galatians 2:10; James 1:27, 2:2-6). The internal conflict, coupled with decades of political rhetoric, have often caused the Church to ignore pressing social issues in favor of combating abortion.

Ironically, such a strategy may have done more harm than good.

The 2005 Abortion Surveillance Report, published by the Center for Disease Control, found that number of abortions per year has been decreasing steadily. Between 1990 and 2000 the abortion rate fell 18-21%, that’s 300,000 fewer abortions. Surprisingly, 1990′s saw little change in legal restrictions on abortion.

To account for the decline, Catholics in Alliance conducted a study entitled, Reducing Abortion in America: The Socioeconomic Factors. They reported that changes in welfare policy were the primary factors contributing to the decrease in the abortion rate. Increasing economic assistance to lower income families and higher male employment was found to lower the annual number of abortions by as much as 205,000, a 20% decrease.

The study also found that poverty contributed to the abortion rate. Lower poverty rates were found to account for an increase of as much as 10%. The rate of abortion among women living below the poverty line is four times that of wealthy women. A 17% increase has been observed as female unemployment has risen.

What does all this mean? It seems that providing economic assistance to the poor is the most effective way to reduce the abortion rate in America.

What does this say about the Church’s Republican voting record to reduce welfare and social services? Some justify the position by arguing that abortion is akin to murder and simply reducing the abortion rate isn’t good enough. They argue that it must be fought directly, with a view to overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Politically speaking, the Church needs to review its strategy. Thirty years of protests, punching ballots, and political endorsements, have done little to further the cause. Evidence suggests that the real enemy in the war on abortion may not be Roe vs. Wade, but poverty. Maybe it’s time to consider a new strategy and the socio-economic plans of a different political party.

There comes a time when you have to reconsider your goal. If the goal of the Church is purely political, there is no reason to change now. It can continue spinning its wheels on the abortion issue while helping conservative candidates win elections, but if it wants to save lives, it has some serious thinking to do. If the Church continues to make perfect the enemy of good, opting for the all or nothing approach, the church will continue to yield little fruit for all their effort. On the other hand, if the goal is to save lives, it’s time to consider a new strategy, one that may not change the law of the land, but one that has demonstrated it’s ability to save the lives of children, adults, and even the unborn.

Maybe the best way to support the pro-life movement, is to vote for the pro-choice candidate.

The headlining fight featured Dan Keefe of Brickhouse Fight Team proved victorious over Woody Weatherby of Renzo Gracie, NH. After two five-minute rounds, the fight was too close to call and the judges announced a third, sudden-victory round. Early in round three, Keefe secured a take down and spent most of the round throwing strikes from Weatherby’s guard. With seconds remaining, Weatherby reversed positions and lock up an arm bar. The bell rang before Keefe was forced to tap. The judges awarded Dan Keefe the win.

In the co-headlining fight, local favorite Calvin Kattar faced Rodrigo Almeida. The crowd, peppered with bright yellow Calvin Kattar tee-shirts, exploded when the lights dimmed and Hulk Hogan’s Real American theme song blasted from the speakers as Kattar was announced. The fans were less than receptive to Rodrigo, who aimed to tarnish Kattar’s 6-1 record.

At the start of round one, Rodrigo attempted to neutralize Kattar’s reach advantage by shooting in, securing Kattar’s legs, and taking him down. It wasn’t long before both fighters were back on their feet. Sticking to his game plan, Rodrigo worked for a second take down and drove Katter into the corner. Kattar locked a guillotine around Rodrigo’s neck and dropped to his back. Rodrigo tapped out at 2:16 of round one.

In one of the featured bouts, John Benoit of Renzo Gracie, NH won a split decision victory over Damien Trites of Wai-Kru. Round one began with Trites dominating Benoit. But it wasn’t long before Benoit established his rhythm, peppering Trites with combinations and a very effective ground game.

WCF 7 also featured appearances by UFC veterans John Howard and Jorge Rivera, Mark DellaGrotte of Sityodtong USA, and actor Kevin James.

Results
Dan Keefe def. Woody Weatherby – Judges decision after round 3
Calvin Kattar def. Rodrigo Almeida – Submission-Guillotine – 2:16 Round 1
Greg Rebello def. Jerry Spiegel – Unanimous Decision
Tom Moreau def. Don Carlo-Clauss – Split Decision
John Benoit def. Damien Trites – Split Decision
Elias Rivera def. Scott Rehm – Submission-Heel Hook – 2:43 Round 1
Travis Bartlett def. Guillermo Echuaca – Ref. Stoppage – 2:18 Round 1
Saul Almeida def. Dan O’Keefe – Submission-Peruvian Necktie – 1:16 Round 1
Nick Evangelous def. Matt McKusker – Ref. Stoppage – 2:41 Round 1
Aniss Anlhajjajy def. Aaron Petrucelli – Split Decision
Marcos Escalante def. John Walsh – Submission-Rear Naked Choke – 1:24 Round 1
Zack Burhans def. Jeff Silva – Unanimous Decision
Nelson Gaipo def. Ryan White – Ref. Stoppage – 1:07 Round 1
Noah Wiseman def. Steve Beck – Submission-Rear Naked Choke – 1:50 Round 1

In the previous article, we examined pragmatic arguments for and against torture. Now, we’ll take a look at the moral side of the issue.

On April 29, 2009, the Pew Research Center published their analysis of a survey that aimed to explore the correlation between political partisanship, religion, and one’s opinion about torture. Surprisingly, 62% of white evangelical protestants and 48% of white mainline protestants agreed that torture is sometimes justified.

How can we explain these results? Does the Bible justify the use of torture?

The Bible states that God has given the nations of the world the sword (Romans 13:1-7). Traditionally, this has been understood to mean that God gives every nation the right to exercise capital punishment. Does this right translate into a right to torture a prisoner of war? To make that claim would be a stretch. The interrogation of a POW for information he may or may not have is not the same as dealing citizen who has tried and found guilty of a crime. The Bible does not address specific conventions of war or the responsibilities of government.

A pragmatic argument could also be made based on the Biblical command to love and care for others (Matthew 9:19). If forced to choose between torturing a detainee and risking the lives of people, we should choose the lesser of the two evils and protect the lives of the innocent.

At his 100th Day Press Conference, President Obama gave a counter argument to this position with an appeal to national integrity. The President cited Winston Churchill’s decision not to torture German POW’s during World War II, even as Britain was being bombed. He went on to say that torture, “corrodes the character of our country,” and “In some cases, it may be harder, but part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy.”

In an article entitled 5 Reasons Torture is Always Wrong, David P. Gushee, professor of moral philosophy at Union University wrote that humans were created in God’s image and therefore,  “human dignity, value, and worth come as a permanent and eradicable endowments of the Creator to every person.” He went on to say that when it comes to justice, Scripture favors the vulnerable. In the case of an interrogation, the detainee is more vulnerable party and should be protected.

In the end, its difficult to reconcile any Biblical justification for torture with the majority of Scripture. Its hard to argue with the commands in the New Testament to love your enemies, turn the other cheek, and never repay evil with evil (Matthew 5:39, Romans 12:17-19, 1 Thessalonians 5:15).

So if the Bible doesn’t torture, why do so many Christians? In the article, The Torture Debate: A Closer Look, the Pew Research Center reported that one’s political party and ideology had was more closely correlated to one’s opinion of torture than any other demographic, including religion. It seems that for much of the evangelical Church, the Bible is not the sole moral authority. This shouldn’t be surprising given the ever-growing ties between the Church and the Republican party.

Before we delve into moral and ethical arguments about torture, we must ask the simple question, “Does it work?”

Pragmatism, as a moral philosophy, places emphasis on practical consequences. Something is deemed good if it produces the desired results. While it may appear utilitarian on the surface, pragmatism is not void of ethical standards. When engages in pragmatic reasoning it is from within a social or governmental construct. In the United States, the Constitution serves as that construct. A politician may be pragmatic in his public policy, but those policy choices must fall within the boundaries set by the Constitution.

The Church has long viewed pragmatism as a flawed moral philosophy. Its focus on practicality smacks of moral relativism, posing a problem for Christians who look to the Bible as their sole moral authority. But, when push comes to shove, decisions still have to be made based on what will work. For the Church, the Bible serves as the construct that reigns in pragmatism and sets moral boundaries.

The difficulty arises when the Church rubs up against an issue that pits morality and practicality against one another. Should the Church denounce the use of harsh interrogation techniques for the sake of loving one’s enemies? What if it could produce information that saves lives? Is it the moral choice to love our enemy while leaving others to die in the process?

Before dealing with such questions, we must first ask, “Does it work?” After all, arguments in support of harsh interrogations are only relevant if they produce practical results.

What follows is a brief overview of the pragmatic arguments for and against the use of the Bush administration’s advanced interrogation techniques. After reading, share your thoughts and discuss and discuss.

Arguments for Harsh Interrogation

A number of individuals have argued for the efficacy of enhanced interrogation techniques, including Former Vice President Dick Cheney and former director of the CIA Michael Hayden. They argue that these techniques have produced valuable information and banning them would weaken America in the fight against terror.

Are they right? Well, there’s little question that these techniques have worked in the past. After being waterboarded, Abu Zubaydah gave information that lead to the capture of Kahlid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, who later divulged information that lead to the arrest of Al-Quaeda’s Southeast Asia leader, Hambali, and warned of a potential attack in Los Angelas.

Another common argument is an appeal to the ticking time bomb scenario. It is argued that traditional methods of interrogation take time. Its a long process of developing rapport with a prisoner and slowly drawing out information. If ever there was an imminent threat to American lives, harsh interrogation techniques would be the fastest way to quickly extract information from a detainee.

Maybe the question to ask is not whether or not harsh interrogation techniques work at all, but whether or not they work best.

Arguments Against Harsh Interrogation

President Barack Obama, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, Senator John McCain, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have all argued publicly that severe interrogation techniques are not as effective as traditional methods.

One of the most vocal opponents of the use of questionable interrogation techniques is Ali Soufon, an FBI agent and active member of the Joint Terrorist Task Force, On May 13, 2009, Soufon gave testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about his experience as an interrogator working with several terrorism suspects, including Abu Zubaydah.

Soufon testified that the harsh techniques authorized by the Bush administration are “from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat Al-Qaeda.” Rather than leveraging the intelligence available on a detainee, Soufon argued that harsh techniques employ a “force continuum” in which interrogations become progressively more severe until the will of a detainee is broken. He stated that such an approach is ineffective for several reasons:

• Al-Quaeda terrorists are trained to resist torture that is far more severe than the US Government is willing to authorize.
• Terrorists are trained to expect torture when caught. When a detainee finds himself in a situation similar to that which he has been trained for, the detainee is given “a greater sense of control and predictability about his experience, and strengthens his will to resist.”
• Harsh interrogations often lead to false information.
• A harsh interrogation is designed to work over a period of time, often taking much longer than traditional methods.
• Those who conduct harsh interrogations are private contractors that do not necessarily have experience in intelligence operations, terrorism, or Al Quaeda.

Should Christians support torture? The is the first in a series of articles discussing the controversy surrounding the Bush administration’s harsh interrogation techniques, President Obama’s decision to ban their use, and how the Christian Church should respond.

Since the 2008 election, partisanship has dominated the political landscape. Complex issues are reduced to meaningless talking points in an effort to cultivate partisan loyalty. Rumors and misinformation pepper much of our conversation. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the issue of torture and interrogation techniques. For the average American, giving thoughtful consideration to the issue is not easy when being bombarded by rhetoric and commentary from the media.

The evangelical wing of the Christian Church stands in a unique position when it comes to moral issues, straddling line between politics and faith. With the establishment of the Christian Right in the 1970′s, Church leaders such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Francis Schaeffer succeeded in tying traditional interpretations of the Bible to the policies of the Republican party. For many evangelical Christians today, to be a believer is to vote Republican. This has been augmented in recent months with a growing partisan sentiment that leaves no room for any grey areas: “You are for me or you are against me.”

However, one cannot serve two masters. Despite its political ties, the Church is commanded to have a greater loyalty to the teaching of the Bible. Sometimes, Christians have t make a choice between their doctrine or their politics.

So when it comes to torture (or advanced interrogation techniques) what does the Christian find when he or she turns to the Bible? On the surface, it appears that the issue should be rather cut and dry. Didn’t Jesus say that Christians are to love their enemies and turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-48)? But then again, Paul wrote in Romans that God has appointed world leaders and that they do not “bear the sword in vain” (13:1-7). Maybe that means that a govern has a God-given right to “bear the sword” in its use of harsh interrogation techniques. When we add partisan politics, the political lobbying of Church leaders, and touch questions about ethics and morality to the mix, the issue gets even more complicated.

Ultimately, one’s opinion on the issue is a matter of personal faith. At the end of the day, Christians have to sit down and decide for themselves how their faith applies to the situation. They have to decide what they believe is right.

The goal is to help Christians do just that. In the articles that follow, you’ll find quotations from memos released by the government, testimony from Congressional hearings, arguments from both sides of the issue, and a variety of discussion questions. As you read each article, share your thoughts in the comments, discuss the issues, and let let iron sharpen iron. For now, consider the following questions:

• How would you define torture?
• Is it ever appropriate to use interrogation techniques that could be considered torture? If so, when?
• What should the Church’s position be on the issue?

On the under card, Jay Fortier, Nick Evangelous and Jeff Remmick each had first round submission victories. Rick Hawn was also awarded the win in round one when he knocked out Billy Flynn. Ryan Quinn and Jimmy Grant both had their hands raised as a result of unanimous decisions by the judges.

The first featured fight of the night saw Anthony Leone of  Bombsquad defeat Chris Grandmaison (Renzo NH). Leone was able to control Grandmaison with superior wrestling. With the victory, Leone moves to 4-0. Damien Trites ended his fight with Jose Lopez at 1:13 of round one with a triangle choke, Trites looks to be a force at 155. Greg Rebello was awarded a unanimous decision victory over Shawn DePaul.

The one fight of night with a bit of controversy was Scott Rehm of USMMA/Florian MMA versus Stephen Stengel. The fight ended at 0:38 of round one when Stengel was deemed unable to continue by the doctor. Both men were clinched in the corner of the ring when Rhem attempted a slam that resulted in Stengel being dropped on the side of his head. The fight was stopped immediately, as it was clear that Stengel could have been severely injured. As a safety precaution, the doctor ordered that he be taken by stretcher from the ring. Stengel gave a big thumbs up to the crowd as he left. There’s no doubt that the drop was accidental and Scott Rehm was awarded the win, but one wonders if such a severe mistake should have been a disqualification.

Glenn Brown of the Green Mountain Boys faced John Benoit of Renzo Gracie NH, who had been on a seven fight win steak. Brown, who had recently returned from training in Las Vegas at Striking Unlimited with Ken Hahn, Rober Drysdale’s Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Academy, and Wanderlei Silva’s new gym, put on a great performance. He never stopped pushing the pace and overwhelmed Benoit with his wrestling. In round one, both fighters almost flew out of the ring when Brown shot in for a take down and drove Benoit threw the ropes. Both men nearly landed in the lap of Marcus Davis, who was sitting ringside. In the end, Brown won by unanimous decision.

Mike Dolce, an alumni of The Ultimate Fighter and new member of the Wolf’s Lair, was cornered by Quinton “Rampage” Jackson when he met Nuri Shakir (Bucket Brigade) in the ring. After an uneventful first round, Dolce caught Shakir with a punch that left him rocked. Dolce rushed Shakir, pinned him against the ropes and unleashed a flurry of punches. The referee stepped in when Shakir was no longer able to defend himself. Dolce won by referee stoppage due to strikes at 2:52 of round two.

In the main event of the evening Dan Ferrer of Team Santos faced Dan Bonnell of Sityodtong USA for the first ever WCF title. At the start of round one the two men squared off. During an exchange Ferrer shot in and scored a double leg take down. From there, Ferrer’s Jiu-Jitsu skills carried him through the fight. He took his time throwing strikes and working for the north-south position where he isolated one of Bonnell’s arms. Ferrer locked in a kimura and sat up. Bonnell fought hard, but was unable to free his arm. He submitted at 2:48 of round one. Dan Ferrer’s hand was raised, and WCF belt was strapped around his waist. It wasn’t all bad for Bonnell, he may have lost the fight but following the loss he proposed to his girlfriend inside the ring. She said yes. Congratulations to Dan and the future Mrs.Bonnell.

Results
Dan Ferrer (Team Santos) def. Dan Bonnell (Sit Yod Tong)-submission (Kimura) 2:48 R1
Mike Dolce (Wolf’s Lair) def. Nuri Shakir (Bucket Brigade)-TKO 2:52 R2
Greg Rebello (SYT/USMMA) def. Shawn DePaul (MSA/Mickey Ward)-unanimous decision
Glenn Brown (Green Mountain Boys) def. John Benoit (Renzo Gracie NH)-unanimous decision
Damien Trites (Wai-Kru) def. Jose Lopez (Ravenous)-submission (triangle choke) 1:13 R1
Scott Rehm (USMMA/Florian MA) def. Stephen Stengel-TKO :38 R1
Anthony Leone (Bombsquad) def. Chris Grandmaison (Sit Yod Tong)-unanimous decision
Ryan Quinn (ATT) def. Travis Coyle (USMMA)-unanimous decision
Jimmy Grant (Bombsquad) def. Nik Patnaude (Burgess)-unanimous decision
Rick Hawn (Sit Yod Tong) def. Billy Flynn (SSSF)-KO 1:12 R1
Nick Evangelous (Fenix Fight Club) def. Dymitri Shevchenko (Chase)-submission (heel hook) 2:30 R1
Jay Fortier (Burgess) def. Robby Roberts (Bruteforce)-submission (arm bar) 1:48 R1
Jeff Remmick (Chase) def. Josh Mellen (USMMA)-submission (triangle) 3:53 R1

FTG: How long have you been working with Frank Mir?

Drysdale: I’ve been with Frank for about a year now. Maybe about 9 or 10 months. I started working with him before we started filming TUF. I spoke to his manager and he said that Frank needed a BJJ coach and he asked if I would like to start working with Frank. We got along well. Its been really cool.

FTG: How long after that did he invite you to be a part of TUF?

Drysdale: Soon after. He was talking about filming it and he was like, “Hey Rob would you like to be my assistant coach on The Ultimate Fighter?” And when the opportunity came up I was like, “ya know what, thats a great opportunity. I’m gonna do it.”

FTG: Had you trained professional MMA fighters before?

Drysdale: Actually, No. I worked out with a lot of guys in Brazil before, but it was me being more like their training partners. Never just their coaches. Frank was probably the first guy I’ve worked with consistently as a coach.

FTG: What do you think of being an MMA trainer as opposed to a jiu-jitsu instructor?

Drysdale: Its different, I try to make it as specific as possible for his next fight. Trying to look for his opponents weaknesses and watch out for their biggest strengths and go from there. So its very specific and there’s a lot more attention. With a jiu-jitsu class you give everyone equal attention for one or two hours or whatever. When I’m rolling with Frank, Its all about his training and his opponent. Its a different mentality. Its a different approach.

The thing about coaching and teaching is it teaches you a lot. I’ve probably learned more from teaching than my students have. It forces me to really break everything down and really understand jiu-jitsu. You don’t get away with doing positions that you’ve just seen someone else do. You’ve got to really understand what you’re doing. I actually recommend teaching for every fighter. Every fighter should be teaching. It forces them to learn and understand.

FTG: How has teaching MMA fighters as opposed to traditional jiu-jitsu helped your game?

Drysdale: It opened my mind to different things. A lot of these guys are very experienced and have lot of knowledge to share. When talking about Frank’s strategy for example, he’s a smart guy, and a lot of ideas come up like, “What about this…what about that”, and it opens your eyes. Its different. When you come from a jiu-jitsu background its a different world. You have different objectives It’s a different sport I don’t care what people say. There are a lot of similarities but its not exactly the same. You have to give yourself time to adapt and really understand the differences. Working with these guys absolutely helps because most of these guys have an MMA background and haven’t been in the sport of jiu-jitsu. I’m teaching, but I’m also learning so much.

FTG: How did you get involved with Xtreme Couture?

Drysdale: I moved here about a year ago and had been planning on going there but was still establishing myself. Getting an apartment, and figuring things out. I got an email from one of the guys over there who invited me to come check out the gym. It was really something I had in mind so I was like, “yeah sure absolutely.” When I was over there I liked the guys right away. Its like a second home for me. I’m really glad to be part of the team. Its a great experience over there. I’m learning a lot from those guys. I’m very glad to be part of the team.

FTG: Whats it like working guys like Forest Griffin?

Drysdale: Forest is one of the most athletic guys I’ve ever met. He’s really underrated on the ground. His jiu-jitsu is much better than people think. He’s one of those guys thats just really talented. He’s just born for the sport. He’s one of those guys that if he decided to practice jiu-jitsu he’d push to the highest level in no time. His jiu-jitsu is very MMA oriented. Training with him wakes me up a little bit like, “oh wow this doesn’t work…this works really well.” Its great to be able to train with those guys and share experience with them. Forest is a great guy.

FTG: How long have you been planning to open your own gym?

Drysdale: I thought about it when if first moved here. Someone gave me the idea. I was like, “ya know, I’m so busy training jiu-jitsu and MMA, I don’t wanna commit myself to anything. I just wanna train.” Then so many people kept telling me over and over to open up my own gym. I didn’t wanna teach class all day so I committed myself to one class a day so I can train still. We’ve had the gym open for about three months now. Its really cool.

FTG: How many students do you have now?

Drysdale: Were getting close to 100. I’m surprised I wasn’t expecting so many students so fast, especially with the economy. We got new people coming every day. We’re planning to have 500 students in the next 2 years.

FTG: Are you going to have to expand?

Drysdale: We’re already thinking about expanding. We’re looking into other buildings and possibly at the end of the year, building in another location.

FTG: How’s your MMA improved since you’ve been training at Xtreme Couture?

Drysdale: It’s a good experience. I’ve got to train a lot and teach a lot. I roll every day still. Its like a second home. Some of the guys have a wrestling background so my wrestlings improved a lot. I feel far more confident in my striking. I train with my boxing coach three or four times a week. Its getting better every day. I’m excited about MMA. I should be fighting soon.

FTG: When does your All Start Camp start?

Drysdale: Its starts Monday, March 16. We have some guys coming from Brazil and some MMA guys. Its a 10 day camp, two classes a day. We’re covering transport and hotel. Its gonna be a great experience. We got some intense core jiu-jitsu coming up. Anyone who’s interested, its open to the public, doesn’t matter what background you have or team you represent. You just come and roll with some of the best grapplers in the world.

FTG: Who will be teaching at the camp?

Drysdale: About 30 people from out of town. Joe Stevenson, Kevin Randleman, Frank Mir, Phil Baroni, Martin Kamppmen anyone looking for some training.

FTG: You’ve had one MMA fight so far. How did that go?

Drysdale: I had it in October of last year. It was an amateur fight. I won with an armbar within 2 minutes of the first round. I’m looking for a second fight soon. Its just a matter of when and where. Its just a matter of doing it. Its actually not that easy to find an organization to fight for, but it should be soon.

FTG: I heard you may be having a fight in Japan?

Drysdale: I would like that. I think the Japanese crowd is more grappling oriented than the US or UK crowd, just because they come from a Judo tradition, where in the US or UK its a boxing tradition. Anyhow, being a grappler, it certainly helps if you have the crowd on your side and they appreciate and understand what you do. So I’ve looked in that direction, but whatever comes up. I’d be more than happy to fight in the US. I’m open to any opportunity that comes up.

FTG: Are there any prospects right now?

Drysdale: I’m talking to 2 or 3 different organizations now. Its just a matter of when and where. I Should be in at least one fight before June and possibly two. It just depends on who I’m gonna sign with.

FTG: Do you plan on continuing to compete in jiu-jitsu?

Drysdale: Abu Dhabi. I’ll be competing in Abu Dhabi, I like the tournament, I like the rules, I like the organization. They treat the guys professionally, ya know? If I’m gonna train like a professional, I have to get paid like a professional. I can’t be doing jiu-jitsu for free anymore. As much as I love the sport, I feel like I’ve done what I wanted to do and there’s nowhere else for me to go. You reach a point where you can’t grow anymore in that sport. So you have to move on. MMA its always something I’ve wanted to do in my mind. So I was gonna do it anyway. I don’t see myself going back to jiu-jitsu, maybe one day just for fun, but not likely. You can’t train for both things. they’re different. You cant focus on jiu-jitsu and an MMA career. People who do that haven’t been successful in either. I’m just focusing on MMA right now.

FTG: How did you train for your MMA fight?

Drysdale: I had a boxing coach, and trained jiu-jitsu at my school with my students and some of the best grapplers in Vegas come over to my gym and we train and I do all my sparring at Xtreme Couture. That’s about it man. I do two training session a day. Thats my life. Busy. Teaching once a day, training twice a day, thats it. Now I’m just looking for a fight.

FTG: Did you come out of it with any insight into yourself? Your own game? Things you need to work on?

Drysdale: Ya know, one of the reasons I wanted to get a fight was I wanted to see how I behaved in the ring and see if I liked it. Before the fight I’ve never been in a ring before. I’ve never been in a ring where your opponent wants to punch you in the face. I’ve been in jiu-jitsu a million times, but its different. I wanted to make sure I was ready. If you’ve never been in a fight you really don’t know how your gonna react when you get in there. I liked it man, I had fun in there. I was a little anxious before like everyone else. But once I was in there I was like, “I’m gonna win this fight, there’s no way this guys gonna beat me, there’s no way out of this. And once I was in there I was like this is it man, this is what I’m made for, I’m not made for anything but this. I’m a fighter and I’m gonna do it for the rest of my life.” Once I was in there I was 100% sure of that. So I was happy. I was happy in the ring, I’ve never felt so good. I knew MMA was gonna be the next step in my life. I was 100% convinced of that and when you’re really convinced of something you always manage to pull it off. So I was glad that I won that first match. now its just a matter of getting a second one.

FTG: When did you start training with Joe Stevenson?

Drysdale: I’ve trained with him for 9 or 10 months but I don’t train with him as consistently as I do with Frank. I see him about twice a month. His boxing coach called me and was interested in having me over. Joe was looking for a new jiu-jitsu coach. He asked me if I wanted to train with Joe. I knew who he was. He was super cool, I liked him right away. I like to work with people I get along with and Joe is one of those guys. He’s a great great friend of mine and a good fighter, he’s a good hearted person. I was very happy to work with him.

FTG: Do you have any thoughts about his fight with Sanchez?

Drysdale: Actually, its funny because everything we worked with him was based on Diego’s shooting and take downs. The funny thing was it was the first time Diego actually tried to strike with someone. All Diego’s other fights he was shooting like a madman. It was shoot, shoot, shoot, and then ground and pound. This was the first time he actually tried to strike. So we were a little thrown off. We were expecting a different Diego. I disagreed with the way the judges scored it. I think it could have gone either way. But the way the judges scored it, I was a little surprised. I didn’t think it was a 30-27 match. I think that, especially the 3 round, Diego was totally backing away and Joe Stevenson was chasing him across the cage. I don’t think the judges took that into consideration, but it was a close fight. It could have gone either way. The way they scored I think it was kinda crazy. Diego did not dominate that fight, that was clear.

FTG: What was it like watching Mir beat Nogueira?

Drysdale: I was excited. I felt psyched. The only reason I wasn’t happier, is that he didn’t tap Nogueira and I think he could have. Thats how much we worked on Frank’s game. The one time he took him down, I was like, “Okay this is it, he’s gonna beat the crap out of him here.” I asked Frank, “Why didn’t you engage him when you took him down.” and he was like, “Well I was doing so well on my feet I didn’t wanna take any chances on the ground.” And thats reasonable. Ya know, if you’re winning a fight striking, why would you risk going to the ground? It doesn’t make any sense. I was happy. Very few people believed he could do it, he had a ton of injuries before that fight and he trained so hard. His training camp was seven months long. I was just so happy to be part of it. Nogueira is a guy I’ve looked up to. He’s always been an inspiration for me, but I was so happy when Frank beat him. He really deserved that win. He needed it. Frank is an outstanding fighter. Whenever people think he’s gonna lose, he pulls it off. Whenever he’s the underdog, he performs his best. I hope he keeps that going. Everyones saying, “Brocks gonna smash Frank this time.” You know what happened last time. I think Frank’s gonna tap him again.

FTG: It was obvious he had been working on his striking.

Drysdale: Oh yea, his striking has improved so much. Even Nogueira said in an interview, he was pretty humble about it, and said he totally underestimated Frank’s stand up abilities. He expected to fight the same Frank that fought Brandon Verra and the Frank that walked in there was a completely different guy. He was an improved version of himself. And the next Frank that fights Brock is gonna be an even better Frank. He’s an incredibly smart guy and he’s gonna keep improving. He’s gonna get better and better. He’s one of the top heavyweights in the world. No question about it.

FTG: Anything else you’d like to share?

Drysdale: I just want to invite people over, if you’re in Vegas and you wanna check out the gym, find out more at www.RobertDrysdale.net. If you wanna check out the camp it starts Monday. Everyone’s welcome. Thats it. If anyone is ever in Vegas, you’re more than welcome to come by and check the gym out and train a little bit. I wanna say hello to everyone out there.