The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Evil People of the Day: Sussex Square Homeowner's Association

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Evil People of the Day: Sussex Square Homeowner's Association

By Joseph Lawler on 12.4.09 @ 12:20PM

A Virginia homeowner's association is refusing to let Colonel Van Barfoot, a 90 year-old Medal of Honor winner, fly his American flag.

90 year-old Colonel Van Barfoot has until Friday to remove the flagpole from his yard.

Since this saga began, it's been played out on the radio from Washington D.C. to Boston, but many believe what is happening to this true American hero is tarnishing the image of Richmond.

Barfoot lives in the Sussex Square community in western Henrico County. He moved there in July, and was ordered to remove the flagpole from his front lawn when he flew the flag on Labor Day, and again on Veterans Day.

The homeowner's association doesn't explicitly forbid flagpoles but they must be "aesthetically appropriate".

Unbelievable. These people have no sense of proportion. Talk about the letter of the law.

Meanwhile, the Sussex Square Homeowner's Association issued a statement saying in part, "This is not about the American flag. This is about a flagpole... We are a neighborhood of patriotic Americans, many of whom have served our country in the military as Col. Barfoot has done.."

The homeowner's association also says Barfoot knew from the beginning that he wasn't supposed to have a flagpole without permission.

Oh, well, if you told him beforehand, then it's ok. Feel free to ignore anyone you told beforehand.

Unless, of course, the person you'd like to ignore, during an attack in Italy during WWII, did this:

With his platoon heavily engaged during an assault against forces well entrenched on commanding ground, 2d Lt. Barfoot (then Tech. Sgt.) moved off alone upon the enemy left flank. He crawled to the proximity of 1 machinegun nest and made a direct hit on it with a hand grenade, killing 2 and wounding 3 Germans. He continued along the German defense line to another machinegun emplacement, and with his tommygun killed 2 and captured 3 soldiers. Members of another enemy machinegun crew then abandoned their position and gave themselves up to Sgt. Barfoot. Leaving the prisoners for his support squad to pick up, he proceeded to mop up positions in the immediate area, capturing more prisoners and bringing his total count to 17. Later that day, after he had reorganized his men and consolidated the newly captured ground, the enemy launched a fierce armored counterattack directly at his platoon positions. Securing a bazooka, Sgt. Barfoot took up an exposed position directly in front of 3 advancing Mark VI tanks. From a distance of 75 yards his first shot destroyed the track of the leading tank, effectively disabling it, while the other 2 changed direction toward the flank. As the crew of the disabled tank dismounted, Sgt. Barfoot killed 3 of them with his tommygun. He continued onward into enemy terrain and destroyed a recently abandoned German fieldpiece with a demolition charge placed in the breech. While returning to his platoon position, Sgt. Barfoot, though greatly fatigued by his Herculean efforts, assisted 2 of his seriously wounded men 1,700 yards to a position of safety.

View all comments (46) | Leave a comment

Bob| 12.4.09 @ 12:37PM

So, Lawler, you are saying that if this guy wanted to put in a 200 foot flagpole with a house sized American flag, we should neglect that he failed to live up to a contract he signed when he bought the property? This is about adherence to the law -- even if the law is dumb. If you don't like the law, then fight it, don't break it. I don't like homeowner's associations for the very reason many of us think it is overkill for things like this to occur. That's why I don't live in one and can fly my flag any damn way I desire.

Living by the law is not just for some of us. If we start making exceptions for certain people, then we are teaching our kids the wrong stuff. He could have filed for a variance with the Homeowner's association, but instead, he decided that his signature on a document didn't mean anything.

Pete2| 12.4.09 @ 1:00PM

Before Old Texican gets on your sorry butt, I'm going to post a answer to your idiotic statement. The guy put up a average flag pole, not something your stupid remark is implying. You are one sorry MF'er.

Bob| 12.4.09 @ 1:15PM

As usual, Pete, you missed the point completely. Either we are a nation of laws, or we are not. If you go through a traffic light, you will get a ticket whether you are going 50mph or 10mph. He's the one who agreed to the CC&R's -- and he should live by his agreement. I have no pity for those who violate laws or contracts. What if some Muslim put up tall minarets on their property the same height as the flagpole. Would that be acceptable to you?

Bill| 12.4.09 @ 1:33PM

Bob, yes, the letter of the law. And in Virginia it states that it must be plainly written in the HOA's rules that flagpoles are forbidden otherwise, unless it poses a danger, the flagpole stays. And the Virginia law, known as the Patriotic Flag Law, is in line with a federal law saying the same thing. The HOA is playing a word game (What is the meaning of "is?") when it uses the "aesthetically appropriate" argument and, I am sure, will be spanked appropriately if they are stupid enough to actually go to court. So, Bob, let's follow the law. He keeps the flagpole.

Bob| 12.4.09 @ 2:00PM

That's why we have courts. If it is legal, it stays. He knew the association's position and thought it was wrong. This is the way to find out.

I refer you to this quote when Virginia's Patriotic Flag Bill was passed:

"State Sen. William Bolling, sponsor of the 'Patriotic Flag Bill,' says his bill is designed to protect citizens' First Amendment right to display flags but also allow homeowners' groups to draft reasonable limits on flagpoles."

Now what happens if his neighbor decides to put up a flagpole that is 25 feet instead of 16 feet. Is that reasonable? Again, HE KNEW ABOUT THE RESTRICTION before he did it.

Like I said before, I will never again live in a community that has associations like this.

Strnj1| 12.5.09 @ 10:27AM

Check the HOA's Lawyer's website, www.coateslaw.com.

They've already gone into damage control mode...

This is still Virginia. We've already got two Senator's and the outgoing governor speaking out in support of him and several people offering to pay the fine they're threatening him with as long as he lives, even if they win it.

The Flag stays !!

Chris Miller| 12.5.09 @ 1:04PM

I will help pay both legal costs and fines as long as he lives. Someone just tell me where the website is and who is coordinating (I hope his daughter who lives down the street). Fell free to email me at dgpas@aol.com.

As a former officer and a law abiding citizen, I undertand that there are rules. There are also exceptions. And this should be one of them.

James| 12.6.09 @ 1:26PM

The problem is what are the exceptions. do you get one for a purple heart alone? Service, or combat service? Do homeowners associations get to disallow purchase by combat veterans knowing that they get an exception?

martin j smith| 12.4.09 @ 2:04PM

Pete2--you are talking to a troll--a Moveo0n.org.George Soros,,Daily kos,,
American Progress type. Thism i9s hgis usaly styl-dismiss any view but the thing is his arrogance. It is so blatant. So do not expect much and save your frustration. Just some advice from some one who has seen Bob's previous posts.
The point made in the article which I hope someone locally looks into is the sentence that the flag must be flown in an esthetically appropriate manner. What exactly does than mean. ? If that wording is at all accurate, it sounds to be that Home Owner's Association are full of __________ considering the guy is 90 years old and a war hero.

martin j smith| 12.4.09 @ 2:06PM

oops--meant to say Bob was the troll. and my dyslexia does get the better of me at times--sorry to Pete 2 and Bob

James| 12.6.09 @ 1:31PM

Is he trolling? Rights of citizens or members of HOA are not based on combat experience. I am sympathetic to this guy but if the HOA grants something to a 90- year old combat verteran they have to grant it to everyone. I served on a HOA and one of our biggest headaches was prior exceptions that had been made.

I don't think it is trolling to point out that when you buy in a HOA you agree by informed contract to abide by the rules

Shannon| 12.4.09 @ 6:44PM

Bob- You're an idiot. Move to Berkley with the rest of the unpatriotic assholes of this country

USNFC1| 12.4.09 @ 10:24PM

Congressional Medal of Honor Winner.
He can have a flag any size he wants anywhere he wants. His homeowners association needs to adapt.
( I volunteer all my time to stand in the way of the Homeowners Ass. members ability to buy groceries or use public roads , and in my future business I hope to meet them all and deny them service and fair trade)

ShyLo| 12.5.09 @ 11:24AM

you are just anti-american, if it was for the veterans you wouldnt have the right ro do much of anything.

Siri| 2.6.10 @ 8:46AM

Just be thankful this man put his life at risk fighting for this country, ... and yes even for MORONS like you.

Truth to Power| 12.4.09 @ 1:07PM

3/5 Bob is a heartless ass as well as a thoughtless troll. He'll force his view on the majority regarding gay marriage through the judges he likes (Sotomayor) but can't look the other way on a vague covenant. What a pig. The bit about kids was a nice touch. Abortion and gay marriage, good, flying your flag, bad. What a pig. 3/5 Bob is not "aesthetically appropriate" and should be removed.

Truth to Idiocy| 12.4.09 @ 1:19PM

I've never argued that gay people should be allowed to marry if it were not lawful. Furthermore, I have not argued that it was illegal to vote against Sotomayor. I've just argued that we are a nation of laws and agreements, and we should live by them. If you don't think a law or contract is right, then change it -- don't violate it. I am a veteran and proudly fly my flag on a pole. That's why I would never live anyplace that doesn't allow that.

TheBigHenry| 12.5.09 @ 7:08PM

One way to change a law is to violate it and subsequently test the law's validity in court proceedings. This is, in fact, a tried and true process for overturning bullshit laws, like the one in question.

JIM| 12.4.09 @ 1:34PM

This man fought for thr right to put his flag any where he would like it. If you don't believe me just bend over i am sure he would show you. Troll boy. I bet at 90 he could put a hurting on you, jerk....

Bob| 12.4.09 @ 2:03PM

Jerk, I fought for my country in Vietnam and enlisted. I'm proud of my service even when people spit at my uniform. Did you serve your country or were you a coward?

siri| 2.6.10 @ 8:56AM

Bob... I don't believe you were in service, And I don't believe you fought for this country. I think you're a jerk. And BTW, if you did wear a uniform, ( most likely, one from Mcdonalds), I'm sure they were spitting at YOU.

Jim Hlavac| 12.4.09 @ 2:10PM

It was said at first here: "This is about adherence to the law -- even if the law is dumb. If you don't like the law, then fight it, don't break it."
How exactly does one fight dumb laws if not breaking them? By pleading like peasants to those who would made the dumb laws for some flexibility and rational thought from the very dumb ones? Talk about hope for change! And after they say "too bad" do we then consider the Senator Conrad method of "if you don't like it -- go somewhere else."?
Um, well, then, I'm guess no one in our founding fathers should have run up our flag on our flagpole, because the then King of Great Britain made dumb laws about such treason and his parliament would not listen to reason on the subject. Why, we'd be Brits yet!
Not to mention, that often to have legal standing in a lawsuit to question dumb laws the law in question must be broken, in order for the case to be made that the law is dumb. If you adhered to the law, then a court would say, "see, you have no standing to be aggrieved, you followed the law."
Break it to change it is called "civil disobedience." Lucky that we have such rights to break a law to change it!
It's what many an American did to stop dumb laws. Rosa Parks and ML King come to mind.
Now, in light of the swing of the argument to gay marriage -- this I point out: until just very recently it was illegal for gay men to even meet to discuss, nor send mail to communicate about the dumb laws against us. To the point of raids on bar and home, arrest and incarceration, even electro-shock therapy to cure us of our evil delusion that we are people with rights, -- and without a certain moment of civil disobedience at the Stonewall Inn in 1969 we'd still be pleading with many who read this magazine for any modicum of certain inalienable rights. Why, we'd be fighting till we'd be dead.
But I suppose, under the logic of "adherence to the law" we could also say to the Jews of Berlin, as they were being ferried off to the gas chambers, "ah, don't break the law if you don't like, fight it by ... " what? asking Der Fuhrer for a reprieve of enforcement while he diligently reassessed his dumb law?
Next time Bob or any here are speeding down a freeway posted at 60 or 65 mph, do reset your cruise control from the 70 to 75 mph you are driving so as not to run afoul of dumb laws daily.

Bob| 12.4.09 @ 2:22PM

So, Jim, did I say to you that civil disobedience was not acceptable? If you willfully disobey the law (and sometimes you should), then you must be prepared for the consequences. You don't get a free ride. I like to drive fast and do break speeding laws. If I get a ticket, so be it.

The proper analogy to Germany is that you knew they were killing Jews, but decided to move there anyway instead of fighting for the allies.

Jim Hlavac| 12.4.09 @ 2:41PM

Hey Bob, well, so you speed and break the law -- have you changed it? No. You took the ticket on the dumb law so that tomorrow you might again be ticketed by the same dumb law. Yep, change it is -- not.
As for Jews in Germany analogy, no Bob, the Jews had been in Germany for centuries, they did not move anywhere, the dumb laws came to them. They did not fight, they adhered to the dumb laws, they died. Those who pleaded to the dumkopfs who made the law were gassed, for it was, after all, the law. And running away from the law which would gas you was itself a crime. I can see now Old Mr Rosenbaum going into the German courts of 1938 and saying "this law is dumb, it should be changed." And then being taken out and shot for the temerity.
And, Plessy and Dred Scott were classic cases of appealing to the reason of those who made dumb laws, and the dumb laws won, until Rosa Parks and many many others came along decades later and said, "ah, the hell with pleading, let's just break the law." Or we'd still have those two illustrious decisions on our law books.
And Bob, you did indeed say civil disobedience is unacceptable, though did not use those words. Instead you said: "fight the laws, don't break them." And not breaking them is not civil disobedience at all. Again, how do you fight? What, get folks elected? Ah, so gay folks raided and incarcerated, and having their meetings broken up, would have had a grand old time fighting the laws against them. In fact, Bob, gay men, by law, had no moral standing to challenge the dumb law. Gay men were considered so immoral, so repugnant that to question the laws against them was itself unlawful. Fight who with what? They were in the odd catch 22 that they were prohibited from fighting the laws they wanted to fight. And society came down hard on them if they stuck a limp wrist through the door of justice to ask for a reconsideration. So civil disobedience it was. In fact, it was the only way out of the mess.
So, Bob, yes, you are against civil disobedience, you are for "going somewhere else." You Bob, in a slavish adherence to "law" as if it is handed down by God himself and not made by man, are in for a shock if our Congress decides that this website should be shut down, and pass such a law, for by your own reasoning you should go to the offenders of moral right to plead for a law they have no intention of passing. Fight on Bob, from another country, I suppose, where no dumb people make any dumb laws. Meanwhile, I'll be at the barricades of moral justice, which trumps law every time, no matter how hard it is nor how long it takes.

MarkButter in SoCal| 12.4.09 @ 2:49PM

You folks are missing the point here. By effectively outlawing "flag poles" no flag is legal. It was a cleverly designed law.

A very simple test of "reasonbleness" would be to look at the local COC of City Hall. Common sense says that their flag pole would be considered reasonable, or i not, one that would be smaller.

But as I said, this is really about the flag. If a guy put up a 16' pole and flew the flag and it was legal, then it is until someone put up a confederate flag and then the "pole" would be considered illegal. It's all about the flag.

Bob| 12.4.09 @ 2:56PM

Actually, Mark, you have it backwards. If the pole is acceptable for the American flag, then it must be acceptable for all flags. The only difference is that no one here (maybe) would defend it if it were the Confederate flag.

Catherine| 12.11.09 @ 1:13AM

I would defend the right to fly the Confederate (assume you mean the CSA Battle) Flag.

But then, I do genealogy and study history as written by those who lived it, one of whom was my gg-grandfather.

Tim| 12.4.09 @ 2:50PM

It is the HOA who is disobeying both state and federal laws here, not the individual who has a perfect right to display a flag. Both state and federal statutes allow only for 'proper' display of the flag, which most would interpret as displaying the flag from a vertical staff. I can't imagine another way that would be deemed proper.

Bob| 12.4.09 @ 2:52PM

So, Jim, you wouldn't even try to change the law first? I guess since you believe abortion is wrong, you are fine with killing abortion doctors. Right? And what if someone believes that this is a Christian country and all others should leave? That's probably fine with you as well. We both believe in moral justice. The question is who's morality????? (Unless you are one of those idiots who believes the Bible verbatim. I'm sure you don't eat pork or mix milk with meat.)

Jim Hlavac| 12.4.09 @ 3:17PM

Well, now Bob, such leaps of logic. Stopping someone else from adhering to a law they agree with, or killing someone from following a law you don't agree with, is "taking the law into your own hands." It has nothing to do with your own belief, but what you believe others should believe. I could care less if you want to speed to create the legal justification for a fight against the speeding law, but I sure would mind if you reached over and stepped on my gas pedal to make your point and use me as your protagonist in your belief system.
Abortion is between a woman, her man if any, her God and her doctor. I'm not sure there is an answer to this, our stickiest of wickets. Since I'm a gay man, never doing much to a rise to the potential, I stay out of the abortion debate except to note that killing a fetus is not much better than killing the doctor who does it. There I'd fight it, but not break another law -- not to kill, to ensure it. But it is far too personal for those involved for me, a gay man, to indulge in. I can only work on the fights and law breaking I have time for.
However, breaking a law yourself to create the legal justification of your own lawsuit about a flagpole is something else again. And I didn't bring up abortion, so you have no earthly way to determine, as you state in your post, whether or not I "believe" anything about abortion.
As for the Christian Country bit -- it is I who would advocate the civil disobedience against such a law, such as tithing to a christian church, and it is you who state: "fight the law, don't break it." Me? I would eat the money before handing it over to a church.
As for "whose morality." Well, Bob, if you feel a law is unjust you can fight it or disobey it as you wish-- but you have no moral standing to tell me I have to fight it or disobey it because of your belief. Ask - yes, tell - no.
Finally, "unless you are one of those idiots" -- well, Bob, no, I'm not -- but surely attacks on someone who believes the Bible Literally, or if they believe that Aliens land at Roswell ain't my style. I could care less if they think grass is pink and the sky green. It is anyone's moral right to be a raving idiot, right Bob? But you don't have the moral right to make me believe in your idiocy. Nor do I have the right to make you believe in mine.
It comes down to "don't tread on me" Bob, and that is where we part ways. For you would have us plead with the king in a fight, and I would just join a civilly disobedient revolution.
I think, Bob, you should look into logic, before putting thoughts in my brain, words in my mouth and beliefs in my heart.

KC| 12.4.09 @ 2:59PM

Ahem.

At 90 years of age, I am certain that an MOH recipient deserves the leniency appropriate in any set of (piddly) homeowners assoc. rules. Rememeber your sense of perspective, people.

What sense of perspective am I talking about? Mine goes like this: if you are a Homeowners Assoc. exec./,member or whatever, and you have a WW II veteran in your assoc., immediately go and dig him a new flagpole display, and raise a POST sized flag in his honor. And, I mean that for the clerk typist of this man's unit. What this man deserves cannot be met by anyone there.

BTW, his citation, if stated here correctly, says he went up against 3 Tiger tanks - possibly the most intimidating thing available anywhere - ever. I think he is hard to intimidate, but I would still be kind and respectful.

On second thought, I decided that instead of what I told you to do before, just give yourself a swift kick in the ass for even opening your mouth about anything to do with this hero's business.

Out.

Amor de Cosmos| 12.4.09 @ 5:15PM

KC: In my book, a living MoH winner can pretty much hang whatever sized American flag he wants. Were he in my neighborhood, I would get our homeowner's association to erect a flagpole for the guy.

Chris Miller| 12.5.09 @ 1:12PM

You are absolutely right. Were I in his neighborhood I would be setting up a company of citizens to physically prevent the poles removal.

He has earned the right to put that flag wherever he wants on any size pole he wants.

A different Tim| 12.4.09 @ 3:10PM

The HOA should fight tooth and nail for 18 months and then quit.

Catherine| 12.11.09 @ 1:15AM

Don't you mean half a tooth and nail for 18 months?

david farmer| 12.4.09 @ 6:11PM

Suppose that instead of being built by an elderly patriot, this flagpole had been erected by a fifty-something draft dodger. And further suppose that instead of erecting a flagpole, he had painted his fascia purple (see an nice example at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascia_(architecture)). Would this make any difference? No. Colonel Barfoot can manage the aesthetic details of an otherwise safe structure not because of his age, wealth, personality, or military service, but because his house is his private property!

HOA boards in a covenant-controlled community often claim that homeowners have voluntarily agreed to a set of restrictions and should abide by them without complaint. This is incorrect in two ways. First, the HOA is not a private club which one is free to join or not. It's a quasi-governmental body people "join" as a byproduct of obtaining a necessity of life, shelter. Second, the amount of non-covenant housing is limited by government interference with free markets. Zoning frequently prevents owners of land from creating new residential neighborhoods. Municipalities often require the creation of an HOA a part of their micro-management of subdivision approval.

So what is usually presented as a voluntary consumer choice is actually forced participation in an ongoing regulatory scheme rigged from the beginning to empower committees who want to substitute their aesthetic preferences for yours.

Where did we get the idea that matters once thought the prerogative of individuals are really community decisions made by governmental bodies to engineer the greatest good for the greatest number? The Colonel is right to expect that since it's his house he is FREE to make safe, quiet use of it as he sees fit, lawyers and busy-bodies be damned.

david farmer| 12.4.09 @ 9:00PM

The link above is going to the wrong place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascia_(architecture)

for Fascia (architecture)

not

Fascia - the soft tissue component of the connective tissue system

Rob| 12.5.09 @ 2:07AM

As a lawyer, I would point out that this is a contract issue, not an issue of adherance to the "law", in a regulatory sense. And as a contract issue, the HOA can ONLY enforce the contract through a court of law. I daresay that court, the HOA, and the United States of America itself would not likely exist today without men like Mr. Barfoot. So yes Sir, fly as big a flag as you like, as high as you like, as long as you live. And God Bless you.

david farmer| 12.5.09 @ 12:31PM

Do you agree this language permits an HOA to enforce covenants without the approval of a court?

"The Executive Board may remove the noncomplying improvement from the property and assess the costs of removal against the owner."

http://www.indianpeaks15.com/docs/CCRs.pdf

Diogenes of NJ| 12.5.09 @ 2:03PM

They may.
They may not.
They may die trying.
Have a nice day.

K88| 12.6.09 @ 1:36PM

Rob, somehow I doubt you are a attorney or at least one who knows the case law in this area.

Our homeowners association has removed walls, structures and even lawn furniture with no use of the courts --and assessed removal to the owner with no problems.

K88| 12.6.09 @ 1:36PM

Rob, somehow I doubt you are a attorney or at least one who knows the case law in this area.

Our homeowners association has removed walls, structures and even lawn furniture with no use of the courts --and assessed removal to the owner with no problems.

Pamela M. Smith| 12.10.09 @ 7:09AM

The man is trying to pay tribute to our Country and the men and women who served and sacrificed their lives.
The Man is 90 years old, show some respect! What this association has done to this man, was wrong on so many levels.
RIP PO2 Robert Stethem.
Just 10 minutes after TWA Flight 847 took off from Athens on June 14, 1985, two men with guns stormed the cockpit. The pilot radioed that one had explosives, saying, “He has pulled a hand grenade pin, and he is ready to blow up the aircraft if he has to. We must, I repeat, we must land at Beirut.”

After brutally attacking several of those on board, the hijackers — Hezbollah terrorists — discovered that one passenger was enlisted in the U.S. Navy: Robert Dean Stethem, 23, a steelworker and diver.

Stethem, too, was severely beaten, then shot and killed — his body shoved out of the plane to the tarmac below. He was buried with full honors at Arlington National Cemetery as his parents, Richard and Patricia, grieved.

Catherine| 12.11.09 @ 1:25AM

Every WWII veteran I have spoken with who lived through battles has always minimized their own efforts, but shared the stories of their lost buddies whom they fought along side. With every raising and lowering, Col. Barfoot pays tribute to his men, no longer here to fly their flags.

For anyone to say that such is not "aesthetically appropriate" is a DISGRACE. For anyone to split hairs over the flag pole, HOA covenant restrictions, contract law, etc., is a DISGRACE.

Col. Barfoot is a hero. HE gets to decide. When anyone else has done for his country what Col. Barfoot has done - and is doing, I might listen. The man is 90-years old. I am certain that honoring our Flag each day keeps him going. For anyone not to support this Medal of Honor winner and keep him from worrying about his Flag or his country is a DISGRACE.

All you small-minded people who don't get this, go to your cockroach hotel and decide. If you wish, go and get your court order, if you can. In the meantime, LEAVE COL. BARFOOT ALONE!

pamela| 4.12.10 @ 12:28AM

This is about adherence to the law -- even if the law is dumb. If you don't like the law, then fight it, don't break it. I don't like homeowner's associations for the very reason many of us think it is overkill for things like this to occur. That's why I don't live in one and can fly my flag any damn way I desire.
California Insurance Quote

Nancy| 6.27.11 @ 11:00AM

What a bunch of cowards live in this community!!! Every other home owner should be putting up flag poles in their yards to stand up for the rights of this hero. My uncles was a war hero and a fine american like this man. Shame on all of you...