In this episode of the ProvCast, executive editor Marc LiVecche speaks with senior editor Keith Pavlischek about a variety of themes that emerge from an initial discussion of the Kyle Rittenhouse shootings in Kenosha. Topics include vigilantism versus just force, contextual factors—such as provocation—that complicate easy claims about self-defense, and the responsibilities of proper authorities to secure justice. Along the way, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and American Western films in general, makes a germane segue—and preps the way for future episodes.

Related Links:

Every Angle + Timeline of Kyle Rittenhouse Kenosha Riot Shooting

Criminal complaint outlining homicide charges against Kyle Rittenhouse appears to read like he acted in self-defense  

Rough Transcript

Mark Melton
Welcome back to the Foreign Policy ProvCast. My name is Mark Melton and today I am sharing a conversation that executive editor Marc LiVecche had with Keith Pavlischek. And in this, they talk about Kyle Rittenhouse and the shootings in Kenosha, Wisconsin. And one of the things that they wanted me to let you know was that the conversation happened earlier on September 10th. And that some of the news has changed. Some different stories have come out and videos have come out, but we still wanted to share this conversation with you because it is still pertinent. Around the same time that they were having this conversation, I also wrote up a piece talking about some of the same issues and talking about right authority, vigilante justice, and how it all relates to this. And so in the show notes, you can find links to this article and some of the other articles that they mention in this talk.

Marc LiVecche
Hello everybody, I am Marc LiVecche. Welcome to another edition of the Provcast. As I said, I’m Marc LiVecche, I am the executive editor of Providence Magazine. And currently Stockdale Research Fellow with the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. And I am here with Keith Pavlischek, who is a senior editor at Providence, who was there at the founding. And he is much else besides. Keith, who are you? What do you do?

Keith Pavlischek
Well, I’m a senior editor, I suppose, of Providence, which means that I don’t have to edit anything.

Marc LiVecche
That’s right, you just get to be senior, and you don’t have to do a thing. It’s perfect.

Keith Pavlischek
Right, right. So I guess the most relevant comment I can make to this point is I’ve done some writing and research on the theory and history of the just war tradition. And I’m interested in what we’re going to talk today, particularly questions related to the nature of justice, that relates to issues of vengeance, which also directly relates in a political sense to questions of vigilantism. And just trying to think through all these questions from a Christian realist viewpoint.

Marc LiVecche
Excellent, very good. And you’ve lived this right? I think it’s important to say, it’s noteworthy to say, you’re a retired Marine. Thank you for your service. So this is stuff that has been more than of academic interest to you.

Keith Pavlischek
Yeah, yeah. In fact, you know, as my academic background is in Christian ethics, moral theology and philosophy. And in my other life is the professional military Marine Corps officer. Putting those two together, leads me to my academic interests of late in answering these questions and teaching them. So that’s sort of what leads us to today’s discussion.

Marc LiVecche
Yeah absolutely. Our interest… our orbits had crossed a couple of times before we became friends. My first encounter with you, I think, was when I was -actually my first encounter with you, you came to Wheaton College when I was doing a master’s degree.

Keith Pavlischek
Oh yeah.

Marc LiVecche
… to talk about just war. And that’s where I first discovered, ‘wow, not all Christians are really like-minded on these issues like you and I are.

Keith Pavlischek
The provocative title was whether pacifists too can be saved.

Marc LiVecche
That’s right.

Keith Pavlischek
…. which of course, is a good send up on Luther’s-

Marc LiVecche
Absolutely, no that was perfect. My second encounter with you, though, is when I was doing my dissertation, I had decided that one of the frames I was going to give it was to say that Reinhold Niebuhr was a pacifist, and I was going to move forward from there. And if anybody’s interested in that I’ve written on it before, called it ‘The Problem of Paradox,’ you can find it on the Providence website. And it’s in my forthcoming book, with Oxford Press coming out in July.

But I wanted to see if anybody else out there said something so complete […] as Niebuhr was a pacifist, and I find this guy Keith Pavlischek, who in an excellent chapter in a book edited by Eric Patterson, says exactly that. So you feature prominently in the forthcoming book. So thank you for all that.

But we are here to today to continue a conversation that we started over incredible smoked meats. Keith is also a incredible cook, usually of meats that he has killed, which you know, is unique in and of itself. But we started talking about Rittenhouse and the shooting in Kenosha, and that led to a discussion of Westerns. And I won’t give the whole game away quite yet, but…

Keith Pavlischek
Western films…

Marc LiVecche
Western films, sorry.

Keith Pavlischek
Not Western films, films about the Old West.

Marc LiVecche
Correct?

Keith Pavlischek
Yeah,

Marc LiVecche
Absolutely. And the man who shot Liberty Valance in particular, but others beside. So why did Rittenhouse launch us? What was your discussion point on that?

Keith Pavlischek
Well, when the event happened in Kenosha, in a way, it wasn’t at all surprising. In fact, it was kind of surprising to me that something like this didn’t happen sooner, that somebody would come to a riot armed and people would be getting killed. And so when this happened, I was particularly interested to see whether this was a cold-blooded act of vigilantism, where somebody showed up at this riot and started, quote, scare quotes, “take the law into their own hands.” And it didn’t take long, really, in today’s world to find some very well done videos on YouTube.

Marc LiVecche
Right.

Keith Pavlischek
In fact, one of the things I found interesting was that there was some high quality synchronization and timing and videos of this on YouTube within a day or two of the shootings there, that was far superior in terms of the video and the analysis or anything you got on the media.

Marc LiVecche
That’s right because the media did do what you suggested they would do, which was to say that this was a cold-blooded series of assassinations.

Keith Pavlischek
Yeah, you know, the white supremacists came and it was a white hat, black hat situation. And I’m perfectly willing to, you know, condemn a situation in which there was that kind of vigilantism, you know. Talk about, well, what would a vigilante be? You know, somebody would go up on a rooftop with a high-powered rifle and start shooting people because the police, you know, aren’t there and you’re gonna finally get these Antifas or whatever. But it turned out that that wasn’t really what seemed to be going on by the videos.

And in the videos, you know, there’s a 17 year old kid that we had as a little murky at the very beginning of what was going on, but there seemed to be some rioters burning, you know, setting fire to a dumpster and it was put out. And we’re not really sure whether Rittenhouse pointed his weapon at somebody. Whatever.

But what we know from the beginning is that Rittenhouse is running away through a parking lot and he’s being chased. Then we see somebody who eventually turned out to be the first guy that was killed, throw something at him and then he disappears behind a car and we hear a number of shots and then we know that this guy is killed. He’s grazed in the head and shot a few other times. He ended up getting killed and then we see him coming out like he’s going to provide aid. He’s on the phone.

Marc LiVecche
Right. And do we know whether or not the speculation… and some of the early speculation was mockery, like he’s on his phone. You know, too casual.

Keith Pavlischek
And some of the other one were that he was calling 911. But it seems more recently that he actually called a friend and said, “Hey, I just shot somebody.” I think that’s the…

Marc LiVecche
And was that gloating, or was that a call for help?

Keith Pavlischek
No. I didn’t see that. I think it was more, “oh my goodness, this happened here.” But then while he’s on the phone, he begins to be chased. And then he begins to run away. And then we pick up other video where he’s running and that’s where the mob says “we’re going to get him.”

Marc LiVecche
Right.

Keith Pavlischek
Expletive deleted. And that’s when one guy charges at him, jumps over him and he shoots at him, he misses-

Marc LiVecche
Yeah he falls, right? So Rittenhouse falls.

Keith Pavlischek
Yeah, he’s on the ground. He’s on the ground and he’s actually heading towards the police line.

Marc LiVecche
Right.

Keith Pavlischek
Right? And then he trips and the first guy comes by and I think there was a couple shots and a miss. And then the next guy comes by with a -that’s the guy with a skateboard.

Marc LiVecche
Right.

Keith Pavlischek
He tries to hit him with the skateboard.

Marc LiVecche
He brought a skateboard to a gunfight.

Keith Pavlischek
He brought a skateboard… That’s the first lesson you learn you don’t bring a skateboard-

Marc LiVecche
Sean Connery said that I think in a famous film, “never bring a skateboard to a gunfight.”

Keith Pavlischek
And so he gets shot through the heart and he dies pretty much instantly. And then the final casualty was a guy that’s running up to him. He pauses, and I think this is going to be significant in the trial, the kid doesn’t shoot him.

Marc LiVecche
Yeah Rittenhouse has his muzzle, right? He’s on him.

Keith Pavlischek
His muzzle is pointed at the guy running up to him but then the guy pauses and then he makes a couple of steps toward him. And he’s shot in the arm.

Marc LiVecche
I even want to maybe nuance that a little bit more. If I remember the video, not only does he pause, but I think the muzzle lowers, and then it pops back up when the guy charges again, you know, all of which is important, because it suggests intent. And did you say that the guy was armed?

Keith Pavlischek
Well, initially when I first saw it there was talk that he was armed. But you know, there’s so much photoshopping and crazy stuff going on on the internet. And other people were saying, “No, it was a cell phone.” Well, it’s pretty much conceded now, by everybody that he was armed.

Marc LiVecche
It appears so, right. The weapon was apparently recovered and not only was he armed, but it was loaded.

Keith Pavlischek
I think it was in illegal possession. But anyway, that’s all… the characters that he shot were not, let’s say sterling characters, to say the least. So and then after that, you know, the people that decided it would be fun to chase this guy with a weapon, they run off. They’ve got the good sense. Then you got two lying in the street. And then he gets up and he slings his weapon and he walks with his hands up toward the police and the police who have received words of the shooting. Basically, he’s trying to surrender to them. And then he says, “get out of here” and they drive by him and go. Of course, a lot of people with critical argue, “how could you see this kid walking toward you with his hands up” and then he goes home.

Marc LiVecche
With a weapon.

Keith Pavlischek
Of course, he’s, you know, he slinged the weapon, he’s got his hands up. And then he basically goes home and then surrenders to Illinois, which is like 30 minutes away. And he turns himself in.

Marc LiVecche
And he’s from Illinois, which is…

Keith Pavlischek
Yeah, he’s over the border.

Marc LiVecche
Right.

Keith Pavlischek
Of course, one of the questions is, did he bring that weapon across state lines? And his lawyers are saying no, he actually came into, and he was given the weapon. So it’s an open-carry state. And so those are the side issues. But he’s probably, you know, it’s a Class A misdemeanor in Wisconsin for a 17 year old to carry a weapon.

Marc LiVecche
Oh is that right? Because he’s under 18?

Keith Pavlischek
Yeah, because he’s under 18.

Marc LiVecche
Okay. So was it legal for him to be carrying it in the open?

Keith Pavlischek
That’s what’s going to be judged. Probably… there’s exceptions, I guess. I’m not a lawyer. And there’s a fuzzy legal issues here.

Marc LiVecche
So you know, and then some of the earlier background, and all of this is you know, for me simply hearsay, this is what I’m reading: The suggestion was that he had gone to Kenosha to try to protect property. Apparently, he was out in front of a car dealership trying to protect the car dealership from the looting.

Keith Pavlischek
Yeah and there’s pictures of them wiping graffiti off a high school-

Marc LiVecche
Right and giving aid apparently to some protesters who had been tear-gassed.

Keith Pavlischek
Yeah, no there’s an interview asking him, “why are you there?”

Marc LiVecche
Right.

Keith Pavlischek
He’s explaining, “yeah I’m here to provide medical assistance, I’ve got my medical bag and I’ve got my gun here. It’s an AR-223 semi automatic rifle.”

Marc LiVecche
Right.

Keith Pavlischek
“I’ve got my gun here in order to protect myself.” That’s the broader context. And so he’s been, I mean you can read the charges online. He’s been charged with two counts of first degree homicide.

Marc LiVecche
One was reckless homicide, and the other one was more significant, first degree… And you know you’ve got a problem with a 17 year old kid with an AR being on the streets of Kenosha in the first place.

But, you know, regardless, the question then becomes, “is this self-defense or is this vigilantism?” Right? He shouldn’t have been there. He was there because there was a gap in the policing that was being done. Somebody said that the police had actually seen him at the used car dealership and didn’t send him away. But he left at one point to do something, came back and the police said “no…”

Keith Pavlischek
Oh not only that, the police are giving him bottles of water.

Marc LiVecche
Yeah, right, right.

Keith Pavlischek
…etc. So I mean, the broader question is, it wasn’t just him, but it was other private citizens showing up armed, I assume a lot of them in some case legally, to protect -at least, you know, that’s their claim- to protect these private businesses that had been abandoned, seemingly, plausibly by the police, which is what we’re seeing in a lot of ways all over the country.

Marc LiVecche
Yep.

Keith Pavlischek
You and I chatted earlier, but what we’re seeing, for instance, in Portland where the local sheriffs -county sheriffs surrounding Portland- have refused to provide aid in Portland because they’re not allowed to use the tools that are required to enforce the law and besides they’re calling in the state police once again in order to provide security and safety within Portland, which means that the state police get pulled out of their jurisdictions.

Marc LiVecche
So you have these, you have a state of disorder bordering on or even spilling into anarchy. And there is a desire for order and for the rule of law, which brings us straight into John Ford.

Keith Pavlischek
Right. And particularly The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

Marc LiVecche
Right, so give us a… and there are going to be spoilers here, if you have not seen it.

Keith Pavlischek
Shame on you.

Marc LiVecche
Yeah, shame on you. So you know, you had this coming. But great movies. You can give all the details away and they still stand up to a first viewing. Nothing will be lost in this. But there are spoilers ahead. If you want to pause and go watch it, fine. Come back. Pause completed, Keith, why The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance?

Keith Pavlischek
Well, it comes back to the question of how fine a line or how firm a line is there between justice and vengeance?

Marc LiVecche
Right.

Keith Pavlischek
Or justice that is preserved by lawful authority -law and order- and vigilantism. And, you know, we civilized people want to make a strong distinction. And we want to say that we don’t take vengeance when our neighbors or even our relatives are victims, but we want to leave it to the law. And we believe that for among other things because vengeance leads to blood feuds and anybody who’s ever been in the Baltics, or rather the Balkans, or served in the Middle East, in tribal societies in which vengeance rather than a principle of the rule of law, that’s what we want to hold to. Right?

Marc LiVecche
That’s right.

Keith Pavlischek
That’s instinctive. But then the question comes, well, what if you’re not in a condition of the rule of law?

Marc LiVecche
Right.

Keith Pavlischek
Or what if you’re in one of those boundary conditions, right? And that’s where it becomes, that’s where that bright line becomes really fine. And that’s exactly it seems to me, what John Ford is getting at in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

Marc LiVecche
So which is exemplified perfectly by the opening scene, not the opening-opening scene but the opening scene where it reflects backwards.

Keith Pavlischek
Sure, so when the outlaw who is a vicious, vicious lead played by Lee Marvin -who’s a former Marine, by the way- he holds up the stagecoach coming into this town called Shinbone. He’s outside and he robs him and he begins to take a beautiful brooch off of a woman. And the Jimmy Stewart character Ransome Stoddard stands up for her and “well what kind of people are you?” And Lee Marvin smacks him around a little bit, teaching him that, you know, “you’re real brave here, pal.” But then he really takes a beating when he finds out that in that coach is Ransom Stoddard’s law books.

Marc LiVecche
Right.

Keith Pavlischek
Right? He’s gonna bring lawyerly justice and we’ll soon learn later, not only that, he’s a symbol, not just of law and order but civilization. And this is where he gets brutally beaten by Liberty Valance and left for dead really. Yeah and he rips up the lawbooks.

Marc LiVecche
-rips up the lawbooks which is symbolically crucial.

Keith Pavlischek
Yeah and then the next scene we see we’re in town and we see a cart coming in. And it’s John Wayne and John Wayne is Tom Doniphon, and he’s bringing him in. And so the opening scene is set up in a way that will give you a little cognitive dissonance. Right?

Marc LiVecche
Absolutely but it should be familiar.

Keith Pavlischek
For any Christian it should sound familiar. It’s like who finds the beaten up traveler on the road?

Marc LiVecche
Absolutely.

Keith Pavlischek
Right?

Marc LiVecche
Right.

Keith Pavlischek
And so we’re getting a picture of a good samaritan here

Marc LiVecche
Right. And if you doubt this, right? Pay attention. He’s waylaid on the side of the road. Doniphon comes along, puts him on his cart, takes him into town to an inn. Pays for him to be taken care of-

Keith Pavlischek
And the innkeepers are Swedish immigrants and so he pays for it. So you can’t miss it. Except what we learn is Tom Doniphon is not just sort of like, he’s not a Quaker.

Marc LiVecche
Right. He’s not Hauerwas’s vision of a good Samaritan.

Keith Pavlischek
No, no, no, he’s the baddest dude. There’s one great line is that Liberty Valance is -not the baddest dude- but ‘he’s the toughest man south of the picket wire,’ which is the river. And he said, “except for me” in that John Wayne. And John Wayne is a gunfighter, you know? He’s a rancher who lives outside of town, which itself is not insignificant in John Ford’s universe. And so the way it all unfolds is Tom Doniphan mocks, ends up mocking Stoddard’s reliance on the law.

Marc LiVecche
Right.

Keith Pavlischek
Right? And there’s a great scene with the sheriff. Remember, it’s like when they initially began discussing and the sheriff says “Liberty… arrest Liberty Valance? I don’t have any jurisdiction. Yeah, I don’t have any jurisdiction.” But then the next day, he got his lawbooks out and he goes “well you do have jurisdiction.” And the sheriff says “what?” He says, “go arrest him.” He said, “arrest who?” Says, “Liberty Valance!”

He says and the sheriff who’s a buffoon and is a kind of buffoonish character, says “I don’t think so” because he’s not either, he’s just not capable of doing it. He’s just like so many sheriffs in the Westerns: he’s either incompetent or corrupt and it’s gonna require somebody else to provide the civilizing influence. And of course, there’s the great scene with the first confrontation. I think we chatted about this a little bit.

The first confrontation is in the inn. Liberty Valance comes in and he throws the paying customers out, and he sees, he makes fun of Stoddard who’s serving as the waitress, right? And he trips him and the steak falls down. Of course, that’s Liberty…. that’s Tom Doniphon’s steak. And we’re about to have a shootout right there in the inn between Liberty Valance and Tom Doniphon.

Marc LiVecche
Because Doniphon tells him, “pick up my steak.”

Keith Pavlischek
Doniphon tells Liberty Valance, “pick up my steak” and one of his sidekicks goes to pick it up -Liberty Valance’s sidekick. He kicks him in the head and says, “I told you Liberty.” And what happens is they’re about to drawdown right there and it would not have ended well for Liberty Valance. But Stoddard says, “Hey, you guys are gun crazy. What are you nuts?” And he picks up the steak and he diffuses the situation-

Marc LiVecche
And the credits roll and we learn that you know what, just turning the other cheek that’s what you gotta do.

Keith Pavlischek
Yeah, but Stoddard comes away with a lesson, and then here Ford is right in your face. He says, “yeah, law books really scared him off.” And Stoddard finally says, “like, okay, I get it. It was the gun.” And yeah.

Marc LiVecche
Right. Because all Stoddard does in that scene is kicks the can down the road. So Liberty lives.

Keith Pavlischek
Liberty lives to wreak more havoc on the press, on the town. But you know, without giving away the whole thing, it turns it, well, I don’t know how much time we have to go on. But what Ford is doing here in this film is saying very clearly that under conditions of disorder, there will be these rough and ready characters who aren’t the law. It’s not the law, right? And they’re not cultured and there’s all kinds of symbolism in that movie that shows how Stoddard is the true picture of civilization of education and culture, and law.

Marc LiVecche
You would tell people to pay attention to the dialogue about the Desert Rose, the Cultured Rose.

Keith Pavlischek
Right, right.

Marc LiVecche
Right, Doniphon being a Desert Rose, Stoddard the Cultured Rose.

Keith Pavlischek
Right, right. And so eventually we see that Liberty Valance gets killed. Should I really give it away?

Marc LiVecche
Maybe you could just say a gun becomes necessary.

Keith Pavlischek
A gun does become… even Stoddard recognizes a gun becomes necessary, but he’s not competent in the gun. And that’s the other issue. It’s like it’s one thing to say that law needs to be backed by force, but it needs to be backed by competent force.

Marc LiVecche
Right competent force here, competent and credible force, right. So we need men of, I mean in strict just word terms the word ‘violence’ is wrong here, but we need men of violence to be able to make a place for civilization and a place for law to flourish.

Keith Pavlischek
And this is… But see, this is the irony of it, including the classic statement at the end, you know, when “this is the West and when fact becomes legend, print the legend.” You’ve got to see the film to kind of understand what’s going on there. The other thing with Ford is he doesn’t, he really pulls the strings on the ambiguity of that man who’s on the edge of the law because we know from the beginning of the film, that Tom Doniphon dies impoverished, he dies people stealing his boots.

Marc LiVecche
He dies alone.

Keith Pavlischek
He dies alone. He’s never a part of the community. And what’s that remind you of? Of course, if you’re familiar with the epic, great Ford film, The Searchers; Ethan, you know, he’s not a very attractive character, but he ends up saving Debbie the little girl, and domesticity is closed to him. Right? And so-

Marc LiVecche
It’s an amazing framing scene.

Keith Pavlischek
-framing scene where he’s outside the family and civilization. And so to bring it back to this whole thing, we can only afford that very bright distinction between all the cultural civilizing influences under conditions of order and stability in the first place. And when that breaks down, well, you know, what do you get? You get good people, it said, up in Kenosha. It’s a big bunch of hunters who would never think about, you know, pulling their rifles out for any other reason, then go hunting. They’re sitting around, reports sitting around in their living rooms up at night, with their hunting rifles loaded. So what happens when you’re in that kind of a situation of disorder? And we should not be surprised when you know, dumb 17-year-old kids-

Marc LiVecche
Right.

Keith Pavlischek
-you know, strap an AR-15 across their chest and go up- go up in into the gunfight. And you wonder all along, where are the grownups? Both in terms of parenting and also where it’s like you want to say “where” I don’t want to say “where the police are?” because that’s deceptive a little bit; “where are the political authorities empowering the police enough to…?” How could you not know that there were going to be riots given everything else that’s going on?

Marc LiVecche
That’s right.

Keith Pavlischek
And sending in -if you have to nationalize, if you have to call in the State Guard, if you have to call in the state police in order to get in there to provide security.

Marc LiVecche
That’s right. I mean, it’s a tenant within the just war tradition, right, that citizens withhold private force for public good, because public force will be used for public good. But when that duty, civic duty, is abdicated, what do you expect? What are people supposed to do under conditions of anarchy, then?

Keith Pavlischek
Yeah. So I thought about… the other thing it brought to my mind is that you know, back in the 90s, when I was first started looking at just war, the [Rodney Dangerfield] jus ad bellum criteria was, you know, it’s like, [the one getting respect] was the legitimate authority. And so these stupid conversations about “well, this action is unjust because it doesn’t meet the requirements of some statute.” But that’s not what they’re talking about. Legitimate authority is under the assumption that legitimate authority is established. And again, in the West, when either you’re really out on the frontier, right, in which you’ve got, like in The Searchers, you’ve got a semi-war going on with Comanche, right? And you don’t… the nearest authority is deputized rangers miles and miles away, well then who’s going to provide security?

Marc LiVecche
Yeah that’s right. Yeah. I mean, in just war terms, the right authority is that person over whom there is no one greater charged with the care of the responsibility for the care of the political community. And if that person is absent, then it’s you and your hunting rifle.

Keith Pavlischek
And that’s what the Westerns and -we could go like The Searchers and Tombstone which I love- we could do a talk of how these guys are… although the […] of course were the sheriff’s they weren’t, they didn’t want to be and Doc Holiday is certainly not the most attractive. He’s a great character in that movie but he’s not, he’s a bit of an outlaw himself, right? But it takes the Doc Holidays to come to the rescue here. And so Westerns explore that I think in a unique way. Not a soul way. You get, I’ve also thought how The Walking Dead -I don’t know if you-

Marc LiVecche
Oh sure. It’s Walking Dead. I think the Marvel films, the superhero films, especially Logan.

Keith Pavlischek
Oh yeah, Logan.

Marc LiVecche
Right? Logan, which is a Western, but all of those we’ll have to save for Episode Two, Keith. We are well out of time. We should stop now but any closing statement on all of this to wrap it up?

Keith Pavlischek
Oh, well, I haven’t thought about the statement.

Marc LiVecche
I put you on the spot.

Keith Pavlischek
No, I would encourage everybody to watch The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and The Searchers and just push real hard on that question of ‘what is the difference between law and order? And what are we to think of questions of force in conditions of disorder?’

Marc LiVecche
Fantastic. Keith Pavlischek, thank you very much.

Keith Pavlischek
You’re welcome.