Let’s start by admiting that a black man being banned for three matches for calling a dark brown Australian man a monkey is pretty peculiar. Next will be Ricky Ponting being banned for calling an English player a pommy bastard. Couldn’t John Howard, cricket tragic and implacable warrior against political correctness that he was, have spent more time trying to nobble these sillly rules rather than the ABC?
But lets be clear why the Indians are upset. It is because they have been branded racists and it is part of the folklore that racism is a white thing. This has always been rubbish, especially in recent decades, with the excessive focus on racism in Australian sport. Ugly racial attitudes flourish when they are not denounced. And make no mistake my friends that across the length and breadth Asia, anti-white racism is not only tolerated but encouraged.
Many people may forget that senior Hong Kong politicians blamed the Jew George Soros for the Asian meltdown of 1997 and the HK treasurer followed up in parliament by advising that we should not let the gweilos (whites) know what we are planning by discussing their response in parliament. I heard no public criticism of these racial slurs at the time or since.
But back to the cricket. There are several red-herring issues that the Indian team and media have raised. The main ones are the process of Harbhajans ban, bad umpiring and Australian bad-sportsmanship on the field. Lets take them in turn.
The Ban
Mike Proctor convicted Harbhajan on the testimony of three Australian players while not accepting contrary evidence from three Indian players. This is supposed to prove that he values the testimony of a white man higher than a black man.
Obviously we can not have a system where players are only convicted when they are dobbed in by their own team mates. If this were the case then there would be very few convictions indeed. In AFL, players are regularly convicted even when the victim denies there was an incident!
A system which tends to believe the complainant breaks down if charges are frivolously concocted. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the three Australian players made the whole incident up? The video footage seems to support their case, in as much as Harbhajan said something that he obviously regretted 10 seconds later. If the Australians did make the charge up, then I would hope they would be banned from all forms of cricket for life and face slander charges. But the notion they did make it up is..well fanciful.
Bad umpiring decisions.
And there were some shockers mainly from previously respected umpire Steve Bucknor, a black West Indian. The Statesman newspaper in India says that expecting fair treatment from Bucknor is like expecting Saddam to be just to the Kurds. The explicit claim then is that he is deliberately biased against India ethnicity. The evidence? According to the author of the silly Saddam simile, it is enough to look at history. The Indians do not like his decisions in the past. But wait theres more. Apparently several years ago God, I mean Tendulkar, was so annoyed by a decision that he told Bucknor to wear glasses. There you go. God has spoken.
We heard the same foul accusations against Daryl Hair for no-balling Murali and awarding a game against Pakistan for refusing to take the field. The ICC changed the rules for Murali who most people think has an unacceptable action. Hare may have handled these issues badly but he was not acting the way he did because he hates blacks. Nevertheless he was sacked and Steve Bucknor has been similarly sacrificed for short term expediency.Calling an umpire racist when you do not like his decision is itself racists, because you are focusing on the umpires race in order to explain his behaviour. Lleyton Hewitt found this out at a US open many years ago when he was playing a black opponent and having some trouble with the calls of a black linesman. Bad calls are bad calls. The race of the person making the call only occurs to people of a certain mindset. And many people in India seem to have this mindset.
Imagine, if you will, what would happen to an AFL club if they publicly abused an umpire in this manner. We are talking CEO sacking and point penalties I suspect. But the ICC are scared of the BCCI (Indian cricket board) because of the huge TV revenues involved.
Unsportsmanlike conduct
Kumble says that his team is the only one playing (and losing) cricket. This phraseology is, I presume, a deliberate reference to the body-line series 80 years ago when Australia made the same claim, verbatim, against England.
Ponting had an agreement with Kumble that they would accept catches claimed by the opposing team. Ponting did not claim a catch off Dravid which may well have been allowed. I look forward to definitive video evidence that Clark did not catch Ganguly. There was no agreement concerning frivolous appealing or walking.
I have watched plenty of this series, including one day live, and I can not for the life of me see anything out of the ordinary. Teams have always frivolously appealed and I do not believe sub-continental teams offend less often. On the contrary.
Players hardly ever walk. Symonds was definitely out in the first innings and has admitted as much after the match. Ganguly did not walk when he was caught by Clark, despite having an agreement with the Australians that the Indians would accept claimed catches an agreement which he would certainly know about as a former captain and senior player.
Ponting looked upset when he was given out lbw to one that he thought he hit. In fact he did nick it so he was right to be upset and yet he did not dissent enough to be reported. Mike Proctor also let Yuvraj Singh off for dissent in the first test. Perhaps Proctor is too lenient on dissent but he is at least consistent.
And sledging? The only sledging serious enough to be reported was by Harbhajan.
The Indian fans and media get away with far too much. Does anybody remember the bottles thrown over the MCG fence by Indian fans when God, I mean Tendulkar, was given out lbw off his head? I cannot recall Aussie crowds doing the same thing. Perhaps I have selective memory. But what is sure is that if they did behave in this manner there would be a harsh response from the authorities.
Symonds was called a monkey on many occasions in India, especially by the crowd. Such would not be tolerated in Australia and the only recent such incident I recall was a few years ago where some black players were called kaffirs by some yobbos in the crowd. This is an Afrikaans word and the offenders were South Africans. This did not stop the Indian press reporting it as another example of Australian racial slurring. You see there is a market for this kind of thing in Asia.
Meanwhile, emboldened by their local media, the good folks of India are burning effigies of Ponting and Bucknor without apparent censure. You can hardly blame then when the Indian media call Ponting the fourth umpire, and Australians cry-babies for reporting the Harbhajan monkey comment.
At least that well known right wing racist rag, the Guardian, has called the Indian antics for what they are, grandstanding.
Unfortunately, the self loathing Australian press are too busy doing a mea-culpa for the crime of being boringly better than their opposition for 10 years (poms in 2005 excepted). The worst example is the idiotic Peter Roebuck, calling for Ponting to be sacked, partly based on the claim that Australians over-celebrated. It was a very close test and an amazing victory. If you think they were over-the-top, have a look at the West Indians celebrating after the tied test in Brisbane in 1960. For that matter, have a look at any soccer match after a goal is scored.
That was an effigy of Ponting? I thought it was Rodney Dangerfield, or at the very least Paul McCartney.
Thanks Chris, was mulling the issues in my head and not sure what I thought, though uneasy about a lot of the commentary. I think I’m broadly in agreement with what you’ve said.
I think Ponting’s having killed the appeal for his own catch was very sportsmanlike and showed that he was acting in the spirit of the agreement, indeed isn’t he the only player who can claim some clear act of sportsmanship like that. Did any Indian player do anything similar in that test? (or I wonder in the previous one.)
On the replay of the ball that Ponting killed the appeal on, it really did look like a catch and it’s quite hard to imagine the umpire not giving it out – certainly umpires like the ones we had.
Given that, it’s unfortunate that Ponting sticks to his story that the ball he DID appeal on forward of the wicket the next day (I think the final day), where he took the ball but it touched the ground before the movement had stopped. I expect he really thought, and thinks that he caught it, but it’s clear that he didn’t.
This is the fine print of the rule:
So he should apologise for that one, rather than dig in. I presume it was an honest mistake.
It’s also pretty clear that the Indians got a worse deal from the umpiring than the Australians. So what? That kind of thing happens in sport.
I agree, too. The Indians appear to be taking out their frustration with the umpiring on the Australians – which seems a little counterproductive.
But I especially agree with the racism analysis.
Whoa… major “great minds” moment there. I posted on the same topic today and ran with a similar theme. All in all, India were pretty unlucky during the match, but that’s just test cricket isn’t it? Peter Lalor has it right in today’s Oz methinks.
Hi there,
Your analysis of racism is far to simple. It’s not just about name calling. There are significant post-colonial aspects to defining racism. If you expect peoples who have suffered under some very oppressive rules to just forget about it then I’m afraid you are guilty of wishful thinking.
cheers
Patrick.
There are two Patrick’s with opposite views. Patrick in comment #5, I have changed your name to Patrick B.
Anyway, responding to your comment, I don’t think I analysed the racism, just drew attention to it. But I accept your basic point that there is an historical background to take into account and that racism is historically asymmetric.
But India has been independent for 60 years now and, I have always thought, was the most pro-Australian country in the region – perhaps because of our colonial and sporting ties. And let’s not forget that Australia was actually a colony, not a coloniser, and plenty of convicts suffered under much more oppressive rules than did India. In any case, there is no reason to accept unequal treatment in 2008.
Peter Roebuck is crazy, calling for Pontings head, although I do think that a little humility and grace would be good from the Australians. I am sick of the ugly Aussies, and would like a little bit more modesty about their achievements.
From what I see, the video evidence suggests there was an exchange and that is about all. You cant see/hear what was said, and the ICC hasnt enlightened us on how any conclusions were made by keeping the hearing closed and not releasing Proctors report. That is certainly going to make Indian fans (and the BCCI) aggrieved — the idea of Proctor accepting the word of a white man over a black man is not a big step* — though that is not to say they are dealing with their distress very well.
The BCCI should have just said that they were going to appeal the decision, as is their right, and got on with things. Threatening to cancel the tour unless Bhajji is cleared completely undermines any process of appeal. The BCCI are fast turning this into a thing about their disregard for the institutions and process of the game.
*Not one that I agree with, but I can still see how they get there.
Sorry someone else in a response used the term analysis. Anyway I was thinking more broadly in terms of coloniser/colonised relationships. Generally speaking it has been a black suffering at the hands of a white coloniser. With regard to Australia, I think that many countries throw us into the coloniser bucket as we are predominantly white and do have some form when it comes to developing our own segregationist policies.
Having said the ICC would appear to be run by some primary school boys who are trying to decide how best to get the big kid in the class to play with them. Can’t blame the Indians for trying it on.
cheers
Patrick.
Good write-up, Chris.
But we only had a Whitlam to rue and never a Ghandi, so score one to us I guess ;)
Chris’s opening line – that it’s somehow strange or ridiculous for one coloured person to racially abuse another, because they both look dark to Chris – is facile, silly and ignorant. Does he see the crowd monkey taunts in India the same way?.
There is something institutionally sick in the Australian cricket team. Perhaps they have no decent role models. They are horrible winners and horrible losers. Pushing the BCCI guy around the stage a couple of years ago betrayed what can only be described as racism. They wouldn’t have done it to a white person – simple as that.
Thank God Howard is no longer around. He would have bought into it for sure, the temptation would have been too great.
I don’t really see where you’re coming from Pedro. Racial abuse is always silly because it is not a substantive criticism. If the person you abuse has similar shade skin to yours then it is even more ridiculous.
Do you really think, for instance, that an Australian calling a West Indian a nigger is the same as a West Indian calling an English player a pommy bastard? So I do indeed see Harbarjan’s comments as less serious and think a 3-match ban is excessive. I also just love watching the guy bowl and get Ponting out all the time.
I do not know what “pushing the BCCI guy around the stage a couple of years ago” refers to. Really. Please elaborate in moderate tones. Nor do I know what is “institutionally sick in the Australian cricket team”. If you said this about the Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs I could understand. But saying our cricket team is sick is just one of those standard left wing statements that are flung around without any evidence.
Chris, sorry you missed it. Here on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjSJ3qoLJ8k The guy they’re behaving horribly to is the head of the BCCI. Imagine if he was Australian or English.
There is something wrong with the Aussie cricket team: they behave horribly. No elaboration is needed. (You know what I’m talking about, whether you agree with it or not.) It’s not ‘left-wing’ to say so, in fact it might be a conservative point of view: people should behave with manners and respect to other people, in the great tradition of cricket.
Not sure whether you’re saying calling someone a nigger is no worse than calling someone a pom. I think it obviously is worse, and if that’s what you’re saying, then I agree.
But you imply that an Indian calling a person of African descent a ‘monkey’ is trivial because the Indian is also dark or something like that. That is what is ignorant, it is seen through a prism of them both being dark.
Pedro was referring to an incident after the last Champion’s Trophy in which Damian Martyn shoved a BCCI official. Assorted Indians and the hate-Aussie crowd turned it into a major international incident.
Sure, it was slightly impolite from Damian Martyn, but reaaaaallllly. As usual in these cases, I’m tipping the critics haven’t even seen it.
Judge for yourselves.
Tony, I don’t know who the head of Australian cricket is, but imagine it was the Indian team doing the equivalent. It is, in fact, almost impossible to imagine. But imagine the outcry.
Well Pedro, I am not saying it is trivial, but not worth a three match ban for a first offense. I looked at the video. “Pushing the BCCI guy around the stage” is not how I would describe it, but it was pretty impolite I agree. But you have no evidence that Martyn would have behaved differently to an MCC representative. You’re saying that Martyn is a racist now when he may have just been over-excited. In just the same way, the Indians claim that Bucknor is anti-Indian without any evidence. That is what I call, really impolite, or even slanderous. If an Indian player had done it to James Sutherland, I cannot see there being much of an outcry. You asked me to imagine it and I have. I imagine a comment at the time and a chuckle – but then again Aussies love to see authority brought down a peg.
Regarding
I have to dissent. Elaboration is needed. And it is not enough to take one or two incidents from the past five years. You have to show how they act substantially different from say the Kiwi’s ot South Africans. Maybe they do, but I think “horrible” is a wild exaggeration.
You were wrong Tony that Pedro had not seen the video. He linked to it before you!
I didn’t call Martyn racist, I said he wouldn’t push, say, Malcolm Speed around like that, nor would Ponting gesture like that. They presumably lumped him with the guy who carries their bags in the hotel. But I have no proof of this.
The Aussies are known as the world’s most accomplished sledgers. That’s another way of saying they push the envelope. I call it behaving horribly.
Anyway, I assert that they have never behaved like that when taking a trophy off a white person. Show me where they have.
I am afraid you did call Martyn a racist Pedro:
Not as simple as that at all. It is an unsubstantiated assertion and very unfair.
Oops. Sorry, I did call him racist. I’ll backtrack on later assertion and stand by the first one. He is racist, but the real problem is institutional; they’re told that such behaviour is ok.
Sorry, I didn’t mean Pedro hadn’t seen the video (even though I didn’t notice he’d linked it).
It was more a general comment that it’s amazing how often people who jump in to criticise something haven’t seen that something.
“Tony, I dont know who the head of Australian cricket is, but imagine it was the Indian team doing the equivalent.”
The CEO of Cricket Australia is James Sutherland, Pedro. Based on current form, if an Indian player did that to him, Sutherland would:
Apologise to the player, team and BCCI for thoughtlessly getting in his way;
stand himself down and fine himself severely whilst waiving all rights of appeal;
set his pants on fire while riding backwards on a donkey and then thrash the entire Australian Cricket Team to Peter Roebuck’s satisfaction – which could take quite a while.
Actually, Roebuck put in (for my money) a much better performance today, attributing blame more or less equally to the Indians, and making the unmissable point that the umpires weren’t Australian. But his ‘apology’ re wild dogs was pretty off-beat!
Make all players wear mike receivers and suspend anyone who abuses an opposing player. That ought to stop all this nonsense on the field.
Good idea Joe,
I think it was Ranatunga who years ago, when they turned the mikes down in test cricket, suggested that they should turn all the mikes up. Ian Chapell says that any chat directed towards the batsman should be entirely banned.
[…] Chris Lloyd on Troppo has no doubts. But lets be clear why the Indians are upset. It is because they have been branded racists and it is part of the folklore that racism is a white thing. This has always been rubbish, especially in recent decades, with the excessive focus on racism in Australian sport. Ugly racial attitudes flourish when they are not denounced. And make no mistake my friends that across the length and breadth Asia, anti-white racism is not only tolerated but encouraged. […]
“Actually, Roebuck put in (for my money) a much better performance today, attributing blame more or less equally to the Indians”
That may have had something to with his belated realisation that yesterday’s effort was hysterical nonsense. The “balance” had a whiff of evening after, panicked contrivance about it……Still, he’s the toast of the sub-continent and will probably be able to name his price for partnering Asha Bhosle in a Bollywood music video hit.
One easy answer is simply to outlaw abuse of any kind.
We should at the least be given reasons why Mr Proctor believed the Australians and disbelieved the Indians, Tendukar in particular.
Tendulkar was so enraged by the decision he essentially egged the BBCI on in this matter
Must say I’m surprised at the emotionalism and jingo-ism on this supposedly, ahem, “academic” sort of site. My country right or wrong.
The rest of the cricketing world (plus a few former Aust cricketers) thinks the Aussies’ on-field behaviour is crook. That doesn’t make it true, but there is something going on – apart from the obvious sour grapes.
When the Windies were undisputed champions a couple of decades ago there weren’t the same complaints. In fact they were popular everywhere.
Ponting and crew are a bunch of dickheads, I’m afraid. And as I said earlier, it’s institutional, someone’s fault further up.
“My country right or wrong” Pedro? I though my post and the ensuing discussion is more about India being wrong than Australia being right. You still cannot provide evidence for what it is that the Aussies do that is so wrong. You’re entire argument is that “the rest of the cricketing world..thinks..(we are) crook.”
I think the point about racism being universal and not just the domain of whites has been missed.
Must say Im surprised at the emotionalism and jingo-ism on this supposedly, ahem, academic sort of site. My country right or wrong.”
I think you have Troppo confused with the “Your Say” section of the Times of India website, Pedro. FWIW, I think the Second Test would have been concluded more equitably as a draw given the cringe-worthy umpiring – which certainly cost India more dearly. Should Harbhajan have received a 3 match ban? It looked excessive to me. But that’s Cricket. I also think that both teams engaged in behaviour that wouldn’t have been acceptable at the Regimental tournament in the Civil Lines at Pankot in the 1890’s but we’ve moved on – not always for the better. I dont believe that there is anything uniquely corrosive or destructive about the way Australia plays the game; I do think that there is room for improvement and I think the discussion about this has canvassed a full range of quite nuanced views. On the other hand, there has been no objective analysis or nuanced discussion about any of this in India.
Cricket is a national obsession in India intimately identified with national honour and a defining feature of national identity, particular in respect of relationships with the Old Commonwealth.
The centre of power and influence in Cricket has shifted to India over the last decade and theyre exercising it not unexpectedly – in their national interest . Thus, Indian crowds cant be guilty of racist behaviour, monkey isnt a racist term of abuse, Indian players cant be accused of bad behaviour because it would offend national self-perceptions to concede that it was so.
Things will move on but the saga has been instructive.
I am afraid I must disagree with Geoff.
Firstly the umpiring cost India a win not a draw. Australia would have been lucky to get 200.
Secondly merely compare the reaction of Ponting getting out, after first been given not out wheen he was out, to Dravid when he was given out whe he patently wasn’t.
I might add that both the close in fieldsman and the wicketkeeper would have known it did not hit the bat.
However that is not the point. The point which was never said is why was the word taken of the Ausssie cricketers against that of the Indian cricketers?
“The point which was never said is why was the word taken of the Asussie cricketers against that of the Indian cricketers.”
Presumably because theirs was the more credible case. It’s a matter of record that the BCCI refused to admit that Symonds was being abused in this way by Indian crowds – let alone do anything about it – during Australia’s recent tour until the Mumbai crowd was filmed doing it. The Australian team claim that Harbhajan abused Symonds with the same epithet in Mumbai. If so, the Sydney incident was the second time. Since then we’ve had extraordinary subcontinental blather about how calling people of African descent “monkeys” has no racist intent etc, etc and for the reasons I’ve already outlined in my previous comment, it would be incredibly difficult for Indian players to breach perceived team solidarity in this context.
“Why was the word taken of the Aussie cricketers against that of the Indian cricketers?” I think I addressed this in the post BBCLB. It is for the same reason that rapists can be convicted on the testimony of the victim alone. The Indian team are unlikely to dob in their own player. So the ruling authorities will accept any credible accusation of racial abuse.
If you want a system where members of the offending team need to support the charge then you will have to live with the consequences. And the consequences would be that racial abuse will increase greatly. I can promise you that very few Australian team members – perhaps Gilchrist excepted – would testify against a team member.
BTW BBCLB: I agree that Dravid’s reaction was better than Pontings. In fact, I think Dravid is a better sport generally than Ponting. But Gilchrist is probably a better sport that either of them. There is still no evidence that the Australians are particularly badly behaved. It is all Eastern urban myth, supported by self loathing middle class Aussies.
Again, the accusation is that Mike Proctor is a racist who believes whites ahead of blacks. If I were Mike Proctor, or Damien Martyn or Steve Bucknor, I would sue for defamation – including some of the commenters on this blog. This is a public forum. You might get off with a fair public comment defense. But I reckon that the Indian newspaper who likened Bucknor to Saddam would have to pay major damages under Australian law. Perhaps Ken or others can speak with more authority. Wouldn’t you think the BCCI would come out and at least support Bucknor’s integrity, while not endorsing his performance? But these guys are too busy mis-managing the game and flexing their muscles to do the right thing.
As little regard as I have for whatever Peter Faris has to say on such issues, his piece in yesterday’s Oz was right on the money for mine. The game has rules and standards of conduct which go back more than 100 years, however once you bring money into any sporting equation, rules and standards seem to go pretty much by the board. Money inspires these attitudes of “win-at-any-cost”, which further spawns quasi-legal assaults on players and administrators alike. When you break down the whole issue and remove the money from the sporting aspect, cricket or indeed any sport, is only a game. It needs to be addressed as such.
Both sides are at fault, with Australian Cricket authorities tacitly condoning the ‘kill-or-be-killed’ attitude that came into play with Alan Border’s captaincy, and Indian Cricket authorities, or indeed any other cricketing nation, have had to adopt similar tactics to compete at anywhere the same level. This has led to name-calling and insult championships, rather than sporting challenges. Cricket has become much more of a psychological contest than a sporting challenge, with the standards of conduct and game rules very much a secondary concern. The sport’s administrators need to make the rules and codes much higher issues of import, enforce them rigidly and cease playing patty-cake with money-inspired fits of pique. From what I’ve read, the rules of the game were initially brought into play, but then money reared it’s head. If India wanted to take their bat & ball and piss off, I’d suggest Cricket Oz and the ICC should have said, ‘Go for it!’
I thought Bucknor had a case when I read that Saddam comparison, too. Especially coupled with the Kurdish genocide analogy in the next par. He’s too much of a nice bloke to do anything about it, I suspect, but the law is in his corner – even in India. Its law has a similar common-law basis to ours.
Peter Faris found the idea of an Indian behaving in a racist way to someone of African descent funny, or peculiar, or nonsensical, because they both look dark to him. Chris did too.
Why do the Aussies jump up and down like that? What sort of person does that when they’re excited? Maybe they are monkeys after all.
It’s only middle class Aussies in denial who pretend there’s nothing wrong with the Australian team.
“Its only middle class Aussies in denial who pretend theres nothing wrong with the Australian team.”
Again, who is “pretending” that “there’s nothing wrong” with the Australian team?
You (Geoff) for one, dear boy.
Btw, Sutherland turned out to be a craven, in denial jingoist too.
Gimme a break.
Geoff, if your line about monkeys being honorable gods etal was taken the Harbarnator would have said that he did not.
Moreover he doesn’t strike me nor has history shown he is stupid.
He was warned by Tendulkar he was being provoked. and then he goes and says monkey.
Sorry, it is a fairy story.
Gilchrist is as bad as the rest. He clearly goes up in appeals when he knows better than anybody that the ball hasn’t hit the bat. Now think why the wicketkeeper would do that.
Chris, why do you think Aussies are very keen on anything said on the field stays on the field. Do you remember the comments directed at Graeme Smith when he ventured to say some of the comments directed at him. Of course they were never meant and just in the keeping of the game.
The very first time this came up was after direct provocation by Australian players towards the Harbanator who ironically simply adopted the ‘Aussie’ way and retaliated with words of his own.
How he was to know at the time monkey could not be said but fu… c. could is beyond me.
It yet again shows up double standards. No abuse at all should be allowed. I have no sympathy whatssoever to people who dish it out and then somehow find only some words objectionable.
Pedro – take a look at India’s post-victory celebrations at the recent T20 championship. It’ll be on YouTube somewhere for sure. Then come back and tell us whether you think that Australia’s antics after the Second Test were out of the ordinary. Indian cricket supporters elsewhere have accused the Australians of deliberately mimicking, and thereby mocking, India’s mode of celebration. Also, try to count how many Indian players shook the final Pakistani batting pair’s hands before the customary team handshake ceremony.
The fact is that the anti-Australian hysteria is generally coming from middle-class Australians who don’t watch cricket that doesn’t involve the Australia side, or journalists who write stories for such people.
Oh n-no no no no.
You guys are remnants of Howard’s Australia, trying to clutch onto the chippy, deluded, head in sand we’re-the-best-in-the-world-mate-and-can-do-no-wrong schtik he stood for.
Your man has gone, the landscape is vastly improved without him. Let go of the past.
When we do something good, we should celebrate. When we f*ck up, we should admit to that too. It’s not healthy to deny these things.
And who is that idiot jumping up and down here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjSJ3qoLJ8k