Sunday, July 25, 2010
Eternal...
We are everlasting dilettantes. Each life, in itself, forgettable, transient, inconsequential in the tapestry of history. Robert Jordan writes of the Age Lace, the Pattern of lives woven together in tiny twists, the thread of each life intertwined with the others in the fabric of history. Some threads may set the visible pattern against the dark backdrop of average, forgettable people, but they are not the only ones who make history. All of us make history. Each life lived is intrinsic to the whole, and each as forgettable as the next. Eventually, we will all be lost to time, but time does not forget us. What we do with our lives is eternal, through we become the forgotten. Aaron Allston once penned the line, “...invisible does not mean non-existent.” We must bear this burden with all our Honor and Grace, for the burden we bear is all of history. Together, we are the world, each of us carrying the weight of it on our shoulders, seeing, living, ignoring, forgetting, together weaving our threads into history itself. We may not see each thread, we may not remember them at all, but they are there. Each one, be it bright or dark, is both vital and unimportant, crucial yet forgettable, eternal and invisible. We are Everlasting Dilettantes.
Monday, April 12, 2010
The Nature of our Nation...
Of note in the Western US is a recent movement, beginning in the beautiful state of Montana, towards asserting a level of sovereignty assigned to the states themselves. I would like to draw a few parallels between the legal battle there and the fringes of my previous post on Decentralization. In effect a lawsuit, brought by Montanans against the federal government, and recently joined by several other states, is challenging whether or not the federal government has authority to regulate purely intrastate commerce. Specifically, the issue at hand is firearms produced and sold within the state, however it touches on the corners of the debate regarding the limits of power. Obviously, I have my own opinions, and see this as a step, and a legal one, in the direction of decentralization, and in fact legitimizing the states as individual entities. Also note the states that have joined in on the lawsuit, and compare them to a list I personally posted quite recently on this website...
Monday, April 5, 2010
The Decentralization of American Government, or Why I would Secede from the Union.
The United States of America is, in theory, an organized coalition comprised of 50 individual nations, working together for the combined protection of their inhabitants. If, hypothetically, a situation were to arise in which those nations felt that the established coalition, and any laws thereof, comprised an active threat to their well-being, it would be reasonable and prudent to withdraw from that union. If, in the course of time, such a decision were made, and pursued in a legal and fair minded manner, it would be the height of tyranny to deny them that right.
If we observe the actions of the United Soviet Socialist Republic, we may note that it is doubtful a peaceable and amenable divorce could be attained. Therefor, if any of the several states wee to attempt to break themselves from the union and that action were met with either unreasonable demands or military action, the union that is the United States of America would be acting in the same manner as its former foe, which has since failed as an entity. This would not be in the best interest of the inhabitants. This response would be both despotic and totalitarian in nature.
It is our right, as citizens of a free nation, to enter or to leave this Union as we see fit. I would therefor propose that the Western Alliance of States be formed, comprising the areas of Montana, Idaho, Washington, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Being the several states most similar in political and cultural values, it is most likely that these nine states would act in the best interests of their own citizens, devoid of the unreasonable levies and responsibilities forced upon us by citizenry of vastly differing viewpoints. These states could then peacefully negotiate with the remaining American States in order to maintain the defense and stability of the continent.The right of these states to levy taxes and enter into treaties is firmly established, and * These several states would, in due course, be obligated to pay a portion of the incurred national debt, as would be appropriate. National Entities within the area of the WAS, such as Yellowstone National Park and various US Army and Navy establishments, could be purchased outright through assumption of debt, or operated under other negotiated treaties.
The effective end of a peaceful dissolution would not be a death blow to the American was of life. Rather the opposite. A peaceful dissolution of the Federal Government of the United States would mean a MORE active role in international relations. Just as their withdrawal from the Soviet Union has given the various eastern European nations their own voice in the world, so would ours now be heard. Rather than the single, increasingly unrepresentative voice our nation now offers to the world, we would now be able to approach international relations with perhaps as many as 50 individual views, as 50 individual nations. Perhaps we would be united in cause, but each with our own unique view, our own unique voice, to better represent the citizenry from which the law and culture arises.
*Edit- I felt compelled, after some discussion with my father-in-law, to amend this post to a degree. I would note that my Constitutional studies are limited in scope and are mostly freelance, but after reading the Constitution, I felt the need to strike a line and amend it. Article I Section 10 of the United States Constitution does, in fact, prohibit the states from entering into treaties. My intent was to show that states can, indeed, enter into agreements, such as the Western Student Exchange program, the Western States Hunting Alliance, and similar. As I have not properly researched the applicable laws, or their place as relates to the federal government, I have stricken this reference entirely.
If we observe the actions of the United Soviet Socialist Republic, we may note that it is doubtful a peaceable and amenable divorce could be attained. Therefor, if any of the several states wee to attempt to break themselves from the union and that action were met with either unreasonable demands or military action, the union that is the United States of America would be acting in the same manner as its former foe, which has since failed as an entity. This would not be in the best interest of the inhabitants. This response would be both despotic and totalitarian in nature.
It is our right, as citizens of a free nation, to enter or to leave this Union as we see fit. I would therefor propose that the Western Alliance of States be formed, comprising the areas of Montana, Idaho, Washington, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Being the several states most similar in political and cultural values, it is most likely that these nine states would act in the best interests of their own citizens, devoid of the unreasonable levies and responsibilities forced upon us by citizenry of vastly differing viewpoints. These states could then peacefully negotiate with the remaining American States in order to maintain the defense and stability of the continent.
The effective end of a peaceful dissolution would not be a death blow to the American was of life. Rather the opposite. A peaceful dissolution of the Federal Government of the United States would mean a MORE active role in international relations. Just as their withdrawal from the Soviet Union has given the various eastern European nations their own voice in the world, so would ours now be heard. Rather than the single, increasingly unrepresentative voice our nation now offers to the world, we would now be able to approach international relations with perhaps as many as 50 individual views, as 50 individual nations. Perhaps we would be united in cause, but each with our own unique view, our own unique voice, to better represent the citizenry from which the law and culture arises.
*Edit- I felt compelled, after some discussion with my father-in-law, to amend this post to a degree. I would note that my Constitutional studies are limited in scope and are mostly freelance, but after reading the Constitution, I felt the need to strike a line and amend it. Article I Section 10 of the United States Constitution does, in fact, prohibit the states from entering into treaties. My intent was to show that states can, indeed, enter into agreements, such as the Western Student Exchange program, the Western States Hunting Alliance, and similar. As I have not properly researched the applicable laws, or their place as relates to the federal government, I have stricken this reference entirely.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
When is a Post not a Post?
WHEN ITS THIS ONE! Seriously... okay, not seriously. I haven't posted anything in a while, but in my defense I was first away from home for several months, working out of state, then getting married, then honeymooning in Aruba to recover from the wedding, then at home recovering from Aruba. So this is to let people know, assuming that anybody wants to know, that the Wolfman will soon emerge again from his den and begin flooding the 'net with his confused, amused, and nominally useful ramblings. Yes, of course I realize I just referred to myself by my own nickname, and in the third person. I thought it was humorous. Stay tuned and soon ye shall receive!
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Clarifications
Clarifications
In the interest of firmly and honestly establishing my positions, I am going to publish some Frequently Asked Questions. These are questions which have posed to me by friends, family, coworkers, and many others, and I am sure many others have wondered without asking.
Are you paranoid? Yes. I am unabashed on this point. I fully believe that not only are the people in the world who are capable of despicable violence, but there are people who intend to commit acts of violence, for whatever reason. These people are reported regularly in the news, worldwide. I am a living person with direct contact with other living people, therefore there is a possibility I will come into contact with these people. I make my preparation with an eye toward surviving that contact. This means I prepare for the possibility that someone may intend harm to me or my loved ones. These preparation are indicative of what is known socially as paranoia.
Are you a gun nut? Yes. Guns are a widely varying class of objects in which I find enjoyment, in both form and function. Many people enjoy similar objects, such as painting, carvings, ceramic figurines, silver spoons, coins, stamps, etc. I enjoy firearms. I also enjoy their value as a tool. This has multiple contexts as well, in that there is value in different firearms for different uses. My hunting rifles have definite value in regard to the pursuit of game. Other arms, such as handguns, have legitimate uses in defense and security. Since my personal belief system involves taking responsibility for my own safety and that of the people I love, I also keep defensive tools at hand. Additionally, I greatly enjoy shooting. This serves two functions, the first being the pursuit of happiness, the second being practice, in order to maintain proficiency. These habits are examples of what is socially understood as gun nut behavior.
Are you a Republican? No. My social and political views are too diverse to allow myself to be defined by such a narrow scope. Like any political party, it is comprised of individuals with varying beliefs. The closest statement to the truth would be that my political views more often coincide with the Republican party that with the Democratic Party. I maintain my own thinking apparatus and cast my vote as I see appropriate, without regard to Party instructions.
Are you a separatist? This is a much murkier subject. At the present time I do not believe we would be best served by leaving the Union. That situation could change in the future, given the circumstances. I believe it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness (also, it is much more efficient, and quieter). Imagine that the nation is a large, unlit room, full of people, each holding a candle to light (rather than curse the darkness). If a situation were to arise in which a large portion of the population in that room were busying themselves by blowing out said candles, I feel it would be beneficial to protect the candles from them, possibly removing them from the room, or, if there were more candle blowers than candle lighters, to find a different room. That the candle blowers would then be left in the dark would, at that point, cease to be my problem. When I see the majority portion of the US encouraging each other to live in the dark, I am taking my candle elsewhere.
Are you anti-government? No. Organized government is a social construct, the purpose of which is to maintain the society that created it. The organized government of THIS nation is a written contract, ratified by citizens, in which the basis of power is the approval of the populace. This is, I believe, the finest and least threatening form of government. HOWEVER, there is still opportunity for corruption and usurpation. The original drafters knew this to be the case and stalled certain safeguards within the language of our binding social contract which specifically limited power and distributed it between the various branches of government. The current danger from the government (directly, as it were), as I see it, is the presence of individuals within the government system who are willing to subvert and usurp the rule of law, in spite of the safeguards, and engage is actions, whether with good or ill intentions, that are disingenuous and threatening to the people of the United States. In subverting the language and the rule of law, they set precedent for future usurpers to build upon, thereby effectively, if not literally or legislatively, removing the safeguards, and warping the established system into a form unrecognizable to the original drafters. Some of this already seems to have taken place. What I oppose are those laws and constructs which subvert the original intent of our government. This, by common response, falls under the heading of Constitutionalism rather than anti-government which, by virtue of its definition, would be Anarchism.
Do you really think the Revolution is coming? Yes. Exactly what, where, how or when is immaterial. There is a likelihood that our civilization will fail and we will undergo a period of unrest. My preparations are undertaken to ensure that I, and as many as I can bring with me, will survive this period of unrest. In that situation, my accumulated survivalist, separatist, and generally post-apocalyptic skills will be key. If the revolution does not appear within my lifetime, then at the least I will have maintained those skills and imparted them to the future generations. The maintenance of those skills will then be THEIR burden. If I did a good job, though, when the revolution DOES come, and it WILL, whether in days, years, decades or generations, my descendents WILL BE PREPARED.
So there you have it. A few commonly asked questions, a few reasonable short answers, and hopefully you all better understand me. Rest assured that I am a paranoid, defensibly minded and distrustful rugged individualist. If you visit my home, you will be greeted by a large and vocal dog (quite nice once you get to know him, although that's not apparent at first) and given a quick security briefing, including the location of weapons and which are immediately ready for service as well as the most common or dangerous threats in the recent past. Sure a lot of people may think its weird. But if, some day, the shit really does hit the fan, won't you be glad to know someone who is prepared for it?
In the interest of firmly and honestly establishing my positions, I am going to publish some Frequently Asked Questions. These are questions which have posed to me by friends, family, coworkers, and many others, and I am sure many others have wondered without asking.
Are you paranoid? Yes. I am unabashed on this point. I fully believe that not only are the people in the world who are capable of despicable violence, but there are people who intend to commit acts of violence, for whatever reason. These people are reported regularly in the news, worldwide. I am a living person with direct contact with other living people, therefore there is a possibility I will come into contact with these people. I make my preparation with an eye toward surviving that contact. This means I prepare for the possibility that someone may intend harm to me or my loved ones. These preparation are indicative of what is known socially as paranoia.
Are you a gun nut? Yes. Guns are a widely varying class of objects in which I find enjoyment, in both form and function. Many people enjoy similar objects, such as painting, carvings, ceramic figurines, silver spoons, coins, stamps, etc. I enjoy firearms. I also enjoy their value as a tool. This has multiple contexts as well, in that there is value in different firearms for different uses. My hunting rifles have definite value in regard to the pursuit of game. Other arms, such as handguns, have legitimate uses in defense and security. Since my personal belief system involves taking responsibility for my own safety and that of the people I love, I also keep defensive tools at hand. Additionally, I greatly enjoy shooting. This serves two functions, the first being the pursuit of happiness, the second being practice, in order to maintain proficiency. These habits are examples of what is socially understood as gun nut behavior.
Are you a Republican? No. My social and political views are too diverse to allow myself to be defined by such a narrow scope. Like any political party, it is comprised of individuals with varying beliefs. The closest statement to the truth would be that my political views more often coincide with the Republican party that with the Democratic Party. I maintain my own thinking apparatus and cast my vote as I see appropriate, without regard to Party instructions.
Are you a separatist? This is a much murkier subject. At the present time I do not believe we would be best served by leaving the Union. That situation could change in the future, given the circumstances. I believe it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness (also, it is much more efficient, and quieter). Imagine that the nation is a large, unlit room, full of people, each holding a candle to light (rather than curse the darkness). If a situation were to arise in which a large portion of the population in that room were busying themselves by blowing out said candles, I feel it would be beneficial to protect the candles from them, possibly removing them from the room, or, if there were more candle blowers than candle lighters, to find a different room. That the candle blowers would then be left in the dark would, at that point, cease to be my problem. When I see the majority portion of the US encouraging each other to live in the dark, I am taking my candle elsewhere.
Are you anti-government? No. Organized government is a social construct, the purpose of which is to maintain the society that created it. The organized government of THIS nation is a written contract, ratified by citizens, in which the basis of power is the approval of the populace. This is, I believe, the finest and least threatening form of government. HOWEVER, there is still opportunity for corruption and usurpation. The original drafters knew this to be the case and stalled certain safeguards within the language of our binding social contract which specifically limited power and distributed it between the various branches of government. The current danger from the government (directly, as it were), as I see it, is the presence of individuals within the government system who are willing to subvert and usurp the rule of law, in spite of the safeguards, and engage is actions, whether with good or ill intentions, that are disingenuous and threatening to the people of the United States. In subverting the language and the rule of law, they set precedent for future usurpers to build upon, thereby effectively, if not literally or legislatively, removing the safeguards, and warping the established system into a form unrecognizable to the original drafters. Some of this already seems to have taken place. What I oppose are those laws and constructs which subvert the original intent of our government. This, by common response, falls under the heading of Constitutionalism rather than anti-government which, by virtue of its definition, would be Anarchism.
Do you really think the Revolution is coming? Yes. Exactly what, where, how or when is immaterial. There is a likelihood that our civilization will fail and we will undergo a period of unrest. My preparations are undertaken to ensure that I, and as many as I can bring with me, will survive this period of unrest. In that situation, my accumulated survivalist, separatist, and generally post-apocalyptic skills will be key. If the revolution does not appear within my lifetime, then at the least I will have maintained those skills and imparted them to the future generations. The maintenance of those skills will then be THEIR burden. If I did a good job, though, when the revolution DOES come, and it WILL, whether in days, years, decades or generations, my descendents WILL BE PREPARED.
So there you have it. A few commonly asked questions, a few reasonable short answers, and hopefully you all better understand me. Rest assured that I am a paranoid, defensibly minded and distrustful rugged individualist. If you visit my home, you will be greeted by a large and vocal dog (quite nice once you get to know him, although that's not apparent at first) and given a quick security briefing, including the location of weapons and which are immediately ready for service as well as the most common or dangerous threats in the recent past. Sure a lot of people may think its weird. But if, some day, the shit really does hit the fan, won't you be glad to know someone who is prepared for it?
Friday, February 19, 2010
Why Michael Douglas is a badass...
Ok, so this might come as a surprise for a lot of you, but Michael Douglas has played some seriously badass roles. "Romancing the Stone" comes to mind.
Ok, ok, so he plays a rebel that gets tamed (slightly) by a hotty in trouble while simultaneously teaching her a little bit of badass. That's a well worked story line in Hollywood. But he did a good job of it.
However, the movie I'm currently considering is "The Ghost and the Darkness." Ostensibly a Val Kilmer flick, to those of us that are generally too young to really remember Michael Douglas, although even Val Kilmer is stretching a bit for some of us, but this is the (partially) true story of a bridge that needed built in Africa. Two lions are terrorizing the camp, killing workers and generally raising havoc for the British Empire, circa late 19th century.
Of note is how much I give a s*&t about the British Empire. We were part of its construction, and elected to better ourselves (at the time, I'm not really sure how we are faring currently).
However, Val Kilmer plays an Irish engineer (at one point, in the movie at least, he quips "I'm beyond conversion. My mother is a Roman Catholic and my father is a Protestant.") in charge of designing and building a bridge in East Africa. Given that he has trouble subduing the rampaging lions, a professional hunter is recruited, named Remington (as far as I know, no relation to the Illion, NY, Remingtons, although I could be wrong), played by Michael Douglas.
At one point in the movie, he is leaving a campfire, occupied by Patterson (Val Kilmer's engineer), Samuel (the lead guy that keeps the crew together, not sure who plays him), and the resident doctor (also don't know who plays him, though he looks familiar). Remington is going to join his friends, the Masai (a fascinating people) around a different bonfire, in a ritual dance. As he is leaving, the following exchange takes place:
Remington: I'm gonna join them now, and maybe convince each other that we're brave...
Doctor: I wouldn't think bravery was problem for you.
Remington: You hope each time, that it won't be... but you never really know...
I think, in any situation, that is one of the most genuinely true lines in Hollywood history, in ANY situation. The delivery, however, cements Michael Douglas in the Badass realm. Hands down.
Ok, ok, so he plays a rebel that gets tamed (slightly) by a hotty in trouble while simultaneously teaching her a little bit of badass. That's a well worked story line in Hollywood. But he did a good job of it.
However, the movie I'm currently considering is "The Ghost and the Darkness." Ostensibly a Val Kilmer flick, to those of us that are generally too young to really remember Michael Douglas, although even Val Kilmer is stretching a bit for some of us, but this is the (partially) true story of a bridge that needed built in Africa. Two lions are terrorizing the camp, killing workers and generally raising havoc for the British Empire, circa late 19th century.
Of note is how much I give a s*&t about the British Empire. We were part of its construction, and elected to better ourselves (at the time, I'm not really sure how we are faring currently).
However, Val Kilmer plays an Irish engineer (at one point, in the movie at least, he quips "I'm beyond conversion. My mother is a Roman Catholic and my father is a Protestant.") in charge of designing and building a bridge in East Africa. Given that he has trouble subduing the rampaging lions, a professional hunter is recruited, named Remington (as far as I know, no relation to the Illion, NY, Remingtons, although I could be wrong), played by Michael Douglas.
At one point in the movie, he is leaving a campfire, occupied by Patterson (Val Kilmer's engineer), Samuel (the lead guy that keeps the crew together, not sure who plays him), and the resident doctor (also don't know who plays him, though he looks familiar). Remington is going to join his friends, the Masai (a fascinating people) around a different bonfire, in a ritual dance. As he is leaving, the following exchange takes place:
Remington: I'm gonna join them now, and maybe convince each other that we're brave...
Doctor: I wouldn't think bravery was problem for you.
Remington: You hope each time, that it won't be... but you never really know...
I think, in any situation, that is one of the most genuinely true lines in Hollywood history, in ANY situation. The delivery, however, cements Michael Douglas in the Badass realm. Hands down.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
A Treatise on the Differing Views of Humanity
I do not, as a habit, provide a large amount of links to other bloggers on this site, preferring to make this outlet mainly a source of my own views and activities, but I think I must refer people to a post by Kevin Baker at the Smallest Minority. This is a very (VERY) long post, but I feel it is worthwhile, and references some writings that illuminate the variety of mindsets involved in our current political environment. In its essence it deals with a fundamental question: Are humans, inherently good or evil?
I think I have made it clear to those who know me best that I feel the latter is more likely. Through the course of human history, from the earliest known writings to the events of today and tomorrow, it is clear to me that mankind, while sophisticated beyond the scope of most animal activity, is still bound to viscerally and biologically animal responses. In other words, the good or noble results and impulses of our species are the result of conditioning, NOT the result of an inherent nature towards goodness or nobility. There are others in the world who truly, deeply believe that mankind is good and noble, and that the social injustices of the world can be vanquished, letting us all enjoy our goodwill towards each other without the need for violence or oppression. I cannot partake of their view, nor seek to destroy their hope that we all might someday get along. Their hope, their self-sacrificing commitment, and their will to improve the plight of humanity is what has led us to all the good things in society. I must believe the Jesus was one of these people, likewise many of the prophets, the founder of the Red Cross, and many others. My fiance and her family are included in this view. I will be the first to say that this response is NOT EVIL. It can never be evil to hope and it can never be evil to try to help people. Love is kind, it is not quick to anger. HOWEVER, every hope must be balanced by action, and protected against those that feel this hope threatens their own position. I would love to believe that all of mankind is inherently good, but as an Eagle Scout, I always find myself wanting to Be Prepared. To do otherwise would be to abandon my duty to humanity, that nothing evil should happen without me opposing it, that no disaster might arise that I do not have a least some cursory preparations to survive it, and bring as many as I can through it with me. As Rudyard Kipling phrased it, the Sons of Martha must work tirelessly to assure that the Sons of Mary have that good part, which they have chosen.
The end result is, take the time and read the post Kevin has put up. It was written from a very conservative viewpoint, but he does at least attempt not to be dismissive or 'knee-jerk.' It is quite instructive, and even illuminatory, and quotes some interesting movies. And so, here, I will add a quote I think is apt. It comes from the more recent Transformers: Rise of the Fallen. When Optimus Prime is questioned whether their presence does more harm or good, and whether they would leave peacefully if that decision was made, his response is, "Yes, if that is your decision. But first, what happens if we leave, and you're wrong." I'll leave us all to ponder that question. Those of us that feel mankind can learn to be fair and good, and utopia is achievable, pray every day, in their own way, to be proven right. The rest of us, that feel mankind will never overcome the violence that we were born of, well, we pray every day that we might be proven wrong.
I think I have made it clear to those who know me best that I feel the latter is more likely. Through the course of human history, from the earliest known writings to the events of today and tomorrow, it is clear to me that mankind, while sophisticated beyond the scope of most animal activity, is still bound to viscerally and biologically animal responses. In other words, the good or noble results and impulses of our species are the result of conditioning, NOT the result of an inherent nature towards goodness or nobility. There are others in the world who truly, deeply believe that mankind is good and noble, and that the social injustices of the world can be vanquished, letting us all enjoy our goodwill towards each other without the need for violence or oppression. I cannot partake of their view, nor seek to destroy their hope that we all might someday get along. Their hope, their self-sacrificing commitment, and their will to improve the plight of humanity is what has led us to all the good things in society. I must believe the Jesus was one of these people, likewise many of the prophets, the founder of the Red Cross, and many others. My fiance and her family are included in this view. I will be the first to say that this response is NOT EVIL. It can never be evil to hope and it can never be evil to try to help people. Love is kind, it is not quick to anger. HOWEVER, every hope must be balanced by action, and protected against those that feel this hope threatens their own position. I would love to believe that all of mankind is inherently good, but as an Eagle Scout, I always find myself wanting to Be Prepared. To do otherwise would be to abandon my duty to humanity, that nothing evil should happen without me opposing it, that no disaster might arise that I do not have a least some cursory preparations to survive it, and bring as many as I can through it with me. As Rudyard Kipling phrased it, the Sons of Martha must work tirelessly to assure that the Sons of Mary have that good part, which they have chosen.
The end result is, take the time and read the post Kevin has put up. It was written from a very conservative viewpoint, but he does at least attempt not to be dismissive or 'knee-jerk.' It is quite instructive, and even illuminatory, and quotes some interesting movies. And so, here, I will add a quote I think is apt. It comes from the more recent Transformers: Rise of the Fallen. When Optimus Prime is questioned whether their presence does more harm or good, and whether they would leave peacefully if that decision was made, his response is, "Yes, if that is your decision. But first, what happens if we leave, and you're wrong." I'll leave us all to ponder that question. Those of us that feel mankind can learn to be fair and good, and utopia is achievable, pray every day, in their own way, to be proven right. The rest of us, that feel mankind will never overcome the violence that we were born of, well, we pray every day that we might be proven wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)