Today in English, we recieved an assignment to listen to and respond here to 3 speakers on NPR's "This I believe". The link to the list of speakers that I was choosing from is here. The three speakers I chose to respond to were: Temple Grandin ("Seeing in Beautiful, Precise Pictures") , Studs Turkil (Community in Action) , and Ronald Hoffman (The Tense Middle).
"Seeing in Beautiful, Precise Pictures" is written by Temple Grandin, who has autism. She designs holding pens for ranches and slaughterhouses. Because she has autism, she says that she is able to synthesize lots of information and create systems out of it. She says that she would not want to become normal because that will cause her to lose this ability. I think that this is inspiring, even though she is at some disadvantage Temple Grandin still refuses believe that she is inferior to non-autistic people. This shows determination.
"Community in Action" is written by Pulitzer prize winner Studs Turkil. He speaks about how cooperation of the community has helped everyone. He says that a community can accomplish things that are impossible for an individual.
"The Tense Middle" is by Professor Ronald Hoffman. He says that he prefers being in the middle of things, rather than at the extremes. He talks about how being in the middle gives you choices, balance, and the ability to change. He mentions that the idea that somthing is either one way or another is impractical and unnatural and that life is not as simple as the world, political forces, etc. make it out to be. I agree with him on his essay.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Relativity, by M.C. Escher
The image on the left is a famous "lithograph print" by M.C. Escher titled "Relativity". 
It's pretty clear what is interesting about this picture: The stairs going in many directions. Upon looking up some information on this image, I have found out that the stairs are on 3 different "directions" of gravity. Each of the exits to the building are on different gravity directions as well.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
"Buy a Net, Save a Life"
“Mosquitoes kill millions of people every year. They spread malaria across Africa. Devastating families, villages, even entire communities. We lose a child to the disease every 30 seconds.”
http://www.nothingbutnets.net/
Today I was introduced to a program called “Buy a Net, Save a Life”. This program is sponsored by the United Nations Foundation and numerous other organizations. “Buy a Net, Save a Life” is a program that is designed to prevent malaria, a parasitic disease spread through mosquito bites, by providing nets to families in Africa.
“For just $10 we can buy a net, distribute it to a family and educate them on its use. You can save a family. Your friends, school, church, or team can save a village. Together we can cover a continent…”
http://www.nothingbutnets.net/
Currently there is not a vaccination against malaria. There are ways to prevent it, however they involve taking booster shots and daily pills. Providing millions and millions of people with anti-malaria pills every day just won't be possible. Sleeping under a net (which won't need daily replacement, unlike the pills) can protect a person, or an entire family from the disease during the resting hours. While the drawback to this is, of course, that it only protects during part of the 24 hour day, I feel that this net program is a good one temporarily until a vaccination without contraindications can be found. Also, a net is only $10, that's 20 people using Mr. Singer's donation factor of $200 if you recall.
This program is relevant to what we are studying in English class as it connects to our two essential questions (which you can view on the sidebar):
While reflecting on the question, “What kind of world is this?” I am vacillating between the awareness that we have allowed millions of people to die every year and the notion that there are organizations working to prevent the disease.
To respond to the second question, “How should we live in it?” I feel that since the people in Africa contracting malaria do not have access to needed medical resources, and we have financial resources to help them, then we should. I don't think that we should give to the extent that Mr. Singer was saying (which is extreme that I completely disagree with) but we definately should do something to help those who are not as fortunate.
http://www.nothingbutnets.net/
Today I was introduced to a program called “Buy a Net, Save a Life”. This program is sponsored by the United Nations Foundation and numerous other organizations. “Buy a Net, Save a Life” is a program that is designed to prevent malaria, a parasitic disease spread through mosquito bites, by providing nets to families in Africa.
“For just $10 we can buy a net, distribute it to a family and educate them on its use. You can save a family. Your friends, school, church, or team can save a village. Together we can cover a continent…”
http://www.nothingbutnets.net/
Currently there is not a vaccination against malaria. There are ways to prevent it, however they involve taking booster shots and daily pills. Providing millions and millions of people with anti-malaria pills every day just won't be possible. Sleeping under a net (which won't need daily replacement, unlike the pills) can protect a person, or an entire family from the disease during the resting hours. While the drawback to this is, of course, that it only protects during part of the 24 hour day, I feel that this net program is a good one temporarily until a vaccination without contraindications can be found. Also, a net is only $10, that's 20 people using Mr. Singer's donation factor of $200 if you recall.
This program is relevant to what we are studying in English class as it connects to our two essential questions (which you can view on the sidebar):
While reflecting on the question, “What kind of world is this?” I am vacillating between the awareness that we have allowed millions of people to die every year and the notion that there are organizations working to prevent the disease.
To respond to the second question, “How should we live in it?” I feel that since the people in Africa contracting malaria do not have access to needed medical resources, and we have financial resources to help them, then we should. I don't think that we should give to the extent that Mr. Singer was saying (which is extreme that I completely disagree with) but we definately should do something to help those who are not as fortunate.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Continued Response, Questions, and A Water Buffalo movie
Yesterday in English class we continued discussion on the essay by Peter Singer, which I responded to in my earlier post. We discussed how Peter Singer used the elements of critical thinking to create his essay. Later we were asked to write down questions that we thought this essay stimulated. Just for reference, here is a link to the essay:
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/19990905.htm
The questions, as a reader, the essay The Singer Solution to World Poverty stimulated for me were:
1. "Is it right to ignore the problems of others while helping ourselves?"
2. "If you indirectly start, or allow, a chain of events to occur which lead to death, are you just as bad as a murderer?"
3. "What is a 'morally decent' life? Is the only way to live a 'morally decent' life to donate all of your extra money to the poor? If you don't donate, does that necessarily make you a terrible, terrible person?"
4a. "If one works or has worked very hard to earn a large income, is it right to force them to belittle their hard work? Has effort now become something to be criticized?"
4b. "If someone is born into a financially secure family, is it right to criticize them for it?"
5. "Is it possible to help the poor without financially bringing ourselves down to their level?"
*********************
For homework we were asked to watch an 8-minute movie and respond to it, comparing it to Peter Singer's essay. Here is a link to this movie:
http://www.thompsonjazz.com/movies/waterbuffalo/flash-hi.htm
My response:
Basic Comparisons-
Robert Thomson lives in China. The movie shows us how he donated a water buffalo to a poor Chinese family.
Peter Singer lives in America. His article shows, explains, and advises us on how we should solve world poverty.
Non-basic Comparisons-
Some noteworthy info is that according to the movie, a water buffalo would only cost $200 dollars and we see from the movie how much that would help a poor family of farmers. Unfortunately most families cannot afford a water buffalo, since $200 is around the amount of money that they earn in one year.
This ($200) is the same amount of money that Peter Singer said would save a single homeless child. The difference here is that Peter Singer is talking about giving money through an organization, which may lead to only 60-70% of donations actually going to the cause, maybe enough to save 1 child. Robert Thomson on the other hand donated the money directly, purchasing that which would be most helpful and donating it to a family who needed it most. A whole family! I think that the video really shows how much a donation can make a difference.
A further difference is that by donating directly Mr. Thomson was able to choose who received the gift, choosing the family that needed it the most. By donating through an organization, you probably are not sure who the money is going to go to. What if it goes to someone who doesn't deserve it?
But I don't think all this about donating directly is that relevant to us. For us it may just not be possible to do what Mr. Thomson did in his video. We would be forced to donate through an organization. So lets move on:
Something that Mr. Thomson's movie did that Mr. Singer's essay didn't was that the movie gave no implications that not donating money is comparable to murder. The movie did not give any implications that the purpose of hard-earned, or inherited, wealth is to be given away. In other words, the movie made no attempt to remove the "you earn what you work for" aspect of the more financially secure people. The essay, on the other hand, had all of that.
What I have said above has to do with the overall feeling-reaction relationship of both media. The essay on one hand accuses, accuses, accuses and then demands (See my response). It has an attitude of "donate or else you are a terrible person", and as such my and I would expect others' reactions to it were not so favorable. From reading this essay I felt almost no compelling force to donate any money to anyone at all. It instead spawns my questions 3, 4, and 5 which are written at the top of this post, and my unfavorable response.
The movie has a different attitude. It really shows us how much a donation can help. It makes no implication that hard work is something to be criticized. It explicitly shows us the results of donation, rather than hiding behind over exaggerated examples and crafty assumptions based on those examples. The movie lets us see the reactions of the impoverished family up close, as opposed to the "okay, this person is saved the end" of the essay. It has an attitude of "this is how much a donation of what is a relatively small amount of money to us wealthy Americans can make a huge difference in the lives of the impoverished, so please donate so that others who are not as fortunate as yourselves may be saved". In nearly every aspect, I had a favorable reaction to this movie. Unlike the essay, I really did feel something compelling me to go and donate money right on the spot (even though I lack the means to do so).
Another difference between the two is the matter of "how many". The essay was practically built around the idea of "Saving everyone". It is the idea of "there is always someone you can save with the money that you would have spent elsewhere, thus you should not buy anything or else you consider you own luxury over life". The movie on the other hand, only briefly mentioned the problem of how one family is only a drop in the ocean ("Almost everyone can use a water buffalo"). I think that the idea of "one family is better off now, but there are still more out there" is a more effective idea than "you must bend over backwards to help everyone" as a means to motivate people to donate money. One should do their best, but I think there is a line between willingly doing their best and being forced to do more than it. I think past that line it in a sense is no longer giving.
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/19990905.htm
The questions, as a reader, the essay The Singer Solution to World Poverty stimulated for me were:
1. "Is it right to ignore the problems of others while helping ourselves?"
2. "If you indirectly start, or allow, a chain of events to occur which lead to death, are you just as bad as a murderer?"
3. "What is a 'morally decent' life? Is the only way to live a 'morally decent' life to donate all of your extra money to the poor? If you don't donate, does that necessarily make you a terrible, terrible person?"
4a. "If one works or has worked very hard to earn a large income, is it right to force them to belittle their hard work? Has effort now become something to be criticized?"
4b. "If someone is born into a financially secure family, is it right to criticize them for it?"
5. "Is it possible to help the poor without financially bringing ourselves down to their level?"
*********************
For homework we were asked to watch an 8-minute movie and respond to it, comparing it to Peter Singer's essay. Here is a link to this movie:
http://www.thompsonjazz.com/movies/waterbuffalo/flash-hi.htm
My response:
Basic Comparisons-
Robert Thomson lives in China. The movie shows us how he donated a water buffalo to a poor Chinese family.
Peter Singer lives in America. His article shows, explains, and advises us on how we should solve world poverty.
Non-basic Comparisons-
Some noteworthy info is that according to the movie, a water buffalo would only cost $200 dollars and we see from the movie how much that would help a poor family of farmers. Unfortunately most families cannot afford a water buffalo, since $200 is around the amount of money that they earn in one year.
This ($200) is the same amount of money that Peter Singer said would save a single homeless child. The difference here is that Peter Singer is talking about giving money through an organization, which may lead to only 60-70% of donations actually going to the cause, maybe enough to save 1 child. Robert Thomson on the other hand donated the money directly, purchasing that which would be most helpful and donating it to a family who needed it most. A whole family! I think that the video really shows how much a donation can make a difference.
A further difference is that by donating directly Mr. Thomson was able to choose who received the gift, choosing the family that needed it the most. By donating through an organization, you probably are not sure who the money is going to go to. What if it goes to someone who doesn't deserve it?
But I don't think all this about donating directly is that relevant to us. For us it may just not be possible to do what Mr. Thomson did in his video. We would be forced to donate through an organization. So lets move on:
Something that Mr. Thomson's movie did that Mr. Singer's essay didn't was that the movie gave no implications that not donating money is comparable to murder. The movie did not give any implications that the purpose of hard-earned, or inherited, wealth is to be given away. In other words, the movie made no attempt to remove the "you earn what you work for" aspect of the more financially secure people. The essay, on the other hand, had all of that.
What I have said above has to do with the overall feeling-reaction relationship of both media. The essay on one hand accuses, accuses, accuses and then demands (See my response). It has an attitude of "donate or else you are a terrible person", and as such my and I would expect others' reactions to it were not so favorable. From reading this essay I felt almost no compelling force to donate any money to anyone at all. It instead spawns my questions 3, 4, and 5 which are written at the top of this post, and my unfavorable response.
The movie has a different attitude. It really shows us how much a donation can help. It makes no implication that hard work is something to be criticized. It explicitly shows us the results of donation, rather than hiding behind over exaggerated examples and crafty assumptions based on those examples. The movie lets us see the reactions of the impoverished family up close, as opposed to the "okay, this person is saved the end" of the essay. It has an attitude of "this is how much a donation of what is a relatively small amount of money to us wealthy Americans can make a huge difference in the lives of the impoverished, so please donate so that others who are not as fortunate as yourselves may be saved". In nearly every aspect, I had a favorable reaction to this movie. Unlike the essay, I really did feel something compelling me to go and donate money right on the spot (even though I lack the means to do so).
Another difference between the two is the matter of "how many". The essay was practically built around the idea of "Saving everyone". It is the idea of "there is always someone you can save with the money that you would have spent elsewhere, thus you should not buy anything or else you consider you own luxury over life". The movie on the other hand, only briefly mentioned the problem of how one family is only a drop in the ocean ("Almost everyone can use a water buffalo"). I think that the idea of "one family is better off now, but there are still more out there" is a more effective idea than "you must bend over backwards to help everyone" as a means to motivate people to donate money. One should do their best, but I think there is a line between willingly doing their best and being forced to do more than it. I think past that line it in a sense is no longer giving.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
A response to an essay "The Singer Solution to World Poverty"
Hello, I’m going to be discussing an essay that we received in English class today: “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, by Peter Singer. The name pretty much explains what it is about. The general idea is that we (“we” meaning people who are financially secure) can prevent poverty by only keeping enough money to pay for our basic necessities and giving all the rest to those who are not as fortunate. All in all, it’s quite interesting. (I’m trying to not give any opinions on it in this paragraph)
Here’s a link to it:
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/19990905.htm
Ok, now for those opinions!
My response:
First of all, what do you wish to hear? If you wish to hear me unanimously supporting Mr. Singer’s essay, I’m terribly sorry.
Like I said above, Peter Singer is saying that can prevent poverty by not spending money on “extras” and giving the rest to the poor. Of course his way of advising us…or should I say forcing it on to us…is more like “If you don’t give money to the poor, then you are a 3vi1e murderer who would like to watch children die on railroad tracks!!!” My imitation is a large exaggeration of course, but after reading this article, can anyone honestly say that they didn’t feel that my little exaggeration was at least a remote gist of what Mr. Singer is saying? Here’s one example of this implication, from this example I think it is pretty obvious that the article is at least half accusation-based:
“If the upshot of the American's failure to donate the money is that one more kid dies on the streets of a Brazilian city, then it is, in some sense, just as bad as selling the kid to the organ peddlers. But one doesn't need to embrace my utilitarian ethic to see that, at the very least, there is a troubling incongruity in being so quick to condemn Dora for taking the child to the organ peddlers while, at the same time, not regarding the American consumer's behavior as raising a serious moral issue. (Singer, 1)
This isn’t the only example (nor the first, I believe) of how Singer is accusing his readers of being equivalent to murderers. He does it again in several other places, with different examples. I think his position on the issue discussed would be much more agreeable if he wasn’t accusing all his readers of being cold. I mean seriously, how does Mr. Singer expect people to behave after hearing such accusations? Human nature says that people probably won’t cooperate. Mr. Singer might say something about how it’s human moral, not nature. But he just finished telling us that if we don’t donate everything that we don’t need, then we are not moral people. In any case, I don’t think an attitude of accusation works for a persuasive essay.
Another thing that I have noticed is that Mr. Singer makes points based on assumptions. For example, he talks about how Dora was not like Bob in that Bob did not, I quote, “mislead the child or initiate the chain of events imperiling him.” unlike Dora. HOWEVER, this itself is based off of an assumption back in the second paragraph:
“Her neighbor spoils the fun, however, by telling her that the boy was too old to be adopted —he will be killed and his organs sold for transplantation. Perhaps Dora knew this all along, but after her neighbor's plain speaking, she spends a troubled night. In the morning Dora resolves to take the boy back.” (Singer, 1)
I’ve never seen this movie so I don’t have much to go by besides this essay, but just going by this essay it doesn’t look to me like there is evidence of Dora’s knowledge of what was actually going on. So I don't think that slapping Dora with the "cruel person" verdict is the right thing to do in the first place.
Now as to his advice on giving all excess money to the poor, I would agree except for the “all” part. Yes, it is very good to give some money to the poor. However if he is going to tell people to give that much of their income, I hope that he is willing to do the same. I wonder what kind of computer he has anyway? That’s not my point in this paragraph however. This is: he is saying that the average person spends $30,000 a year on necessities. Basically he wants everyone, no matter what work ethic, to have the same amount of money. In other words, the same amount of stuff. But when you think about it, the money must come from somewhere. What if you are a company and the only way that you make money is if people buy your products? But oops! No one is buying because they spend all of it on the poor! Now your poor yourself since all the money that you would have made is going elsewhere…So, how does this stop poverty exactly?
Now there is one way that this could work…I believe it is called communism? And I think that we know that this looks good on paper and theory and all, but in practice it’s not so good.
Well, that concludes my discussion on this essay. You know, maybe I'm approaching it at the wrong angle. Maybe I should analize the contents of the essay more. But in this case, there were so many disctractions in the form of accusations and forced points that I felt that it detracted from the meaning of the essay, and thus my interpretation of it.
Here’s a link to it:
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/19990905.htm
Ok, now for those opinions!
My response:
First of all, what do you wish to hear? If you wish to hear me unanimously supporting Mr. Singer’s essay, I’m terribly sorry.
Like I said above, Peter Singer is saying that can prevent poverty by not spending money on “extras” and giving the rest to the poor. Of course his way of advising us…or should I say forcing it on to us…is more like “If you don’t give money to the poor, then you are a 3vi1e murderer who would like to watch children die on railroad tracks!!!” My imitation is a large exaggeration of course, but after reading this article, can anyone honestly say that they didn’t feel that my little exaggeration was at least a remote gist of what Mr. Singer is saying? Here’s one example of this implication, from this example I think it is pretty obvious that the article is at least half accusation-based:
“If the upshot of the American's failure to donate the money is that one more kid dies on the streets of a Brazilian city, then it is, in some sense, just as bad as selling the kid to the organ peddlers. But one doesn't need to embrace my utilitarian ethic to see that, at the very least, there is a troubling incongruity in being so quick to condemn Dora for taking the child to the organ peddlers while, at the same time, not regarding the American consumer's behavior as raising a serious moral issue. (Singer, 1)
This isn’t the only example (nor the first, I believe) of how Singer is accusing his readers of being equivalent to murderers. He does it again in several other places, with different examples. I think his position on the issue discussed would be much more agreeable if he wasn’t accusing all his readers of being cold. I mean seriously, how does Mr. Singer expect people to behave after hearing such accusations? Human nature says that people probably won’t cooperate. Mr. Singer might say something about how it’s human moral, not nature. But he just finished telling us that if we don’t donate everything that we don’t need, then we are not moral people. In any case, I don’t think an attitude of accusation works for a persuasive essay.
Another thing that I have noticed is that Mr. Singer makes points based on assumptions. For example, he talks about how Dora was not like Bob in that Bob did not, I quote, “mislead the child or initiate the chain of events imperiling him.” unlike Dora. HOWEVER, this itself is based off of an assumption back in the second paragraph:
“Her neighbor spoils the fun, however, by telling her that the boy was too old to be adopted —he will be killed and his organs sold for transplantation. Perhaps Dora knew this all along, but after her neighbor's plain speaking, she spends a troubled night. In the morning Dora resolves to take the boy back.” (Singer, 1)
I’ve never seen this movie so I don’t have much to go by besides this essay, but just going by this essay it doesn’t look to me like there is evidence of Dora’s knowledge of what was actually going on. So I don't think that slapping Dora with the "cruel person" verdict is the right thing to do in the first place.
Now as to his advice on giving all excess money to the poor, I would agree except for the “all” part. Yes, it is very good to give some money to the poor. However if he is going to tell people to give that much of their income, I hope that he is willing to do the same. I wonder what kind of computer he has anyway? That’s not my point in this paragraph however. This is: he is saying that the average person spends $30,000 a year on necessities. Basically he wants everyone, no matter what work ethic, to have the same amount of money. In other words, the same amount of stuff. But when you think about it, the money must come from somewhere. What if you are a company and the only way that you make money is if people buy your products? But oops! No one is buying because they spend all of it on the poor! Now your poor yourself since all the money that you would have made is going elsewhere…So, how does this stop poverty exactly?
Now there is one way that this could work…I believe it is called communism? And I think that we know that this looks good on paper and theory and all, but in practice it’s not so good.
Well, that concludes my discussion on this essay. You know, maybe I'm approaching it at the wrong angle. Maybe I should analize the contents of the essay more. But in this case, there were so many disctractions in the form of accusations and forced points that I felt that it detracted from the meaning of the essay, and thus my interpretation of it.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
First post!
Ok, this is my first post...what can I say...
Hi, I'm Alex W. My English class is doing this "blogging" project where we respond to various things in our blogs. We will discuss the two essential questions:
"What kind of world is this?"
"How should we live in it?"
*****************************************
This is my blog (of course) "The Clocktower". So why did I choose this name?
There are two reasons:
1. You use a clock to keep track of time. You use a blog to keep track of...the assorted thoughts in your head. And having "The Clock" as a name just sounded bad so I added the tower part.
2. Well, I was playing Castlevania earlier so...
Oh, and I also wear a watch every day but that's not really a reason.
__________________________________________________
Right, so I'm a sophomore.
I play the violin, and have played for 12 years.
My favorite subjects are science...and english (must exalt the english gods, all hail!).
I like seals!! Arf!!! (Umm...heh, sorry about that)
In my spare time I like to read (historical books are my favorites), run, and play video games (especially Castlevania).
You might want to attack me for saying this, but I dislike (not quite hate) television! (Holds up flame shield and gets ready for the onslaught)
And as you can tell I like to press the "enter" key after every sentence (Oh, and to put things in parenthesis too)
I am very different on paper than in real life actually. I don't talk much for one thing.
Anyways, I don't feel like talking about me anymore *hears sighs of relief in the background*.
Maybe I'll talk about that more later.
_______________________________________
So...this is a commonplace book. I'll be writing down anything that is common and anything that is about place...just kidding. I quote a quote:
"Since the eighteenth century, many writers and students have kept a notebook in which they copied out passages from their reading which caught their attention in one way or another: passages which were well-written, passages which were humorous or thought-provoking, passages which managed to capture an essential point which they wanted to remember or have on record." (Shauble)
So, this is where things like that go.
And to end this entry, here's a quote:
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
Hi, I'm Alex W. My English class is doing this "blogging" project where we respond to various things in our blogs. We will discuss the two essential questions:
"What kind of world is this?"
"How should we live in it?"
*****************************************
This is my blog (of course) "The Clocktower". So why did I choose this name?
There are two reasons:
1. You use a clock to keep track of time. You use a blog to keep track of...the assorted thoughts in your head. And having "The Clock" as a name just sounded bad so I added the tower part.
2. Well, I was playing Castlevania earlier so...
Oh, and I also wear a watch every day but that's not really a reason.
__________________________________________________
Right, so I'm a sophomore.
I play the violin, and have played for 12 years.
My favorite subjects are science...and english (must exalt the english gods, all hail!).
I like seals!! Arf!!! (Umm...heh, sorry about that)
In my spare time I like to read (historical books are my favorites), run, and play video games (especially Castlevania).
You might want to attack me for saying this, but I dislike (not quite hate) television! (Holds up flame shield and gets ready for the onslaught)
And as you can tell I like to press the "enter" key after every sentence (Oh, and to put things in parenthesis too)
I am very different on paper than in real life actually. I don't talk much for one thing.
Anyways, I don't feel like talking about me anymore *hears sighs of relief in the background*.
Maybe I'll talk about that more later.
_______________________________________
So...this is a commonplace book. I'll be writing down anything that is common and anything that is about place...just kidding. I quote a quote:
"Since the eighteenth century, many writers and students have kept a notebook in which they copied out passages from their reading which caught their attention in one way or another: passages which were well-written, passages which were humorous or thought-provoking, passages which managed to capture an essential point which they wanted to remember or have on record." (Shauble)
So, this is where things like that go.
And to end this entry, here's a quote:
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
