On Being Labeled a Liberal
On Being Labeled a Liberal
12/18/05
An e-mail document circulating lately got in my InBox, sent by one of my friends who appears to have a certain amount of disdain for “liberals”.
I read the piece called “18 ways to be a good liberal” and found it a mean-spirited attempt to stereotype people who see the world differently from the writer of the “18 ways”. To me, it displays simmering anger over diversity. Sadly, this is the nature of our polarized society in the early 21st century.
It seems to me that the conservative movement has effectively demonized the term “liberal” to mean something that it does not and has sensitized many people into feeling that “conservative” is safe while “liberal” is a dirty word. However, I do not feel safe under this Republican regime. For instance, running deep budget deficits is anything but conservative or safe. Republicans are currently being reckless with our nation’s finances, and that certainly is not a trait that meets my definition of conservatism.
But at any rate, I approached the list with curiosity, wondering how much of it applied to me. So here I have gone down the list in order to find out.
18 Ways To Be A Good Liberal [by unknown e-mail assailant] [and by the way, I corrected the document’s glaring grammatical and punctuation errors that reflect poorly on the assailant’s educational level]
1. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.I personally am in favor of both; the former when there is absolutely no doubt as to guilt, and for the purpose of not giving the guilty party the satisfaction of being able to live to represent his or her perverse philosophy; and the latter because of deep concerns about overpopulation, poverty, domestic abuse, and family dysfunction in general, all of which are caused or compounded by having unwanted children.2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity. I believe that some businesses oppress when they are unethical; other businesses do not oppress; some governments oppress, and some enable prosperity (some do both at the same time). Certainly, the United States has structured financial laws to enable innovation, commerce, and prosperity to a great extent---even more so than, say, Japan or Russia, which are no slouches, either. Our society’s wealth attests to the success of this structuring. But we do need to be able to deal better with unethical behavior within both business and government. 3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
I think that these two things are like apples and oranges. And the writer of the “18 things” is being so shallow as to exclude mentioning what guns are actually a threat to. I think the biggest threats coming from guns are in letting them get into the hands of a third party (in particular, a youth), in letting them be ready to fire when handled by the untrained, in allowing them to be readily purchased by gang members, and in not stopping known criminals from buying them. I think it is unconscionable to allow loopholes in our laws so that anyone can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. I think that existing laws are wrong when they allow small handgun manufacturers to cater to the desires of street gangs while acting innocent of any intent. Registered gun ownership by responsible people who only want to hunt or to defend themselves against assailants, burglars, and poisonous snakes in the house is fine with me.
As to the nuclear issue, how can the U.S. be so incompetent as to allow its nuclear weapons technology to be stolen by China and North Korea? And for that matter, why is the U.S. continuing to pursue aggressive nuclear weapons deployment? We should be peace brokers and disseminators of good will, in my view. We are a far cry from that at the present time, and I would wager that we have never been like that to any great extent. If we increase our weaponry, we can expect others to do the same, especially nowadays when the leadership of our nation does not exude a facade of trust, unlike in previous times. 4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
This one seems so mindless to me that it is not worth answering to any great extent. It ignores the economics of art and tries to depict “liberals” as naïve and uneducated. Instead, ignoring art’s economics is in itself naïve and suggests poor grades in history. Money from some source is needed to sustain the artist to allow creativity to blossom. The marketplace is not enough. Federal funding, state funding, local funding, private foundations, and individuals all are needed for nurturing culture. Private funding is much larger than government funding, but government grants balance things by having different selection criteria than does the private sector. 5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's. The person writing this one clearly is ignoring science and has missed the point entirely. We are all subject to the patterns that develop in nature, cyclical or not. However, SUV’s and power plants that operate on fossil fuel are altering our planet’s climate, and this time it is not nature’s workings but instead it is the fault of humans. We have other sources of energy that we can use that would not do such harm, and the people of the United States are being negligent by not endeavoring to change over to them as rapidly as possible. Any consequences of such human-induced climate changes are our responsibility, not Mother Nature’s. The person writing Number 5 apparently began being negligent years ago when he or she failed to be attentive in science class.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
There is plenty of evidence already that gender exists as a spectrum in nature, homosexuals are born that way (which would very well qualify as being natural), and all sorts of variability exists in brain structure that will determine our inclinations in many ways including gender. I think that gender roles are to a degree learned (for instance, women may be conditioned by society to think that they could never be baseball players or to think that they must wear veils in public) but also to a great extent are natural, too, such as how little boys typically gravitate to engineering-related toys, while little girls typically gravitate towards nurturing toys, even if they are not under the influence of adults. Exceptions to these typical patterns spice things up, but this nation has not yet come to terms with recognizing how people still can do things typical of their subgroups, while at the same time dealing with the reality that talking about stereotypes is taboo.7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding. I call this one another mean-spirited low blow. This country gets an “F” in personal responsibility, and our society is to blame for that. Federal funding has little or nothing to do with it. However, our government reflects our society and enables personal irresponsibility. Personal responsibility is an individual choice that transcends governmental programs. Nonetheless, our government can be instrumental in funding research for preventing or eliminating HIV, in coordinating the effort to eradicate the disease, and in funding public awareness programs. Our government would do well if it stopped rewarding irresponsible behavior and established a program that helps foster personal responsibility (which then might persuade some people to choose to act responsibly). We have a long way to go before we ever get there.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex. This one reeks of cynicism. But more to the point: if this nation did not discount its youth so thoroughly, we would have an excellent educational system with teachers that are more than qualified to teach both subjects. In my opinion, we would be a lot better off educating our children about sex both at home and at school. Children tend to make mistakes despite getting all the right information, but it is just so much worse when they do not get any information at all. Statistically, parents are woefully inadequate at educating their children about sex. Even if parents were adequate, I think it is important that children hear the same thing from an independent party, also. 9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.
I am uncertain if PETA activists care about nature, but they certainly care about non-human animals. Some large corporations have demonstrated that they will treat animals intended for human consumption with impunity just for the sake of minimizing costs. The federal government and society in general would turn a blind eye toward this. Animal rights activists have caused a higher level of humane treatment of animals within the industry. However, sometimes these activists are too picky as to what they want. I imagine that the reason for this is that they largely are vegetarians and practice anthropomorphism with abandon. We should be able to expect that a reasonable person who is not a vegetarian would want animals targeted for human consumption to be treated humanely and not tortured or subjected to substantial pain. Being vegetarian is a personal choice. It is incorrect, in my opinion, to assert that humans are naturally vegetarian and have become addicted to animal flesh by exposure to it. I think it is quite the opposite. Humans are omnivores. The evidence is all around us. Humans are capable of it, and we largely do it (eat both flesh and vegetables, that is). Those who are vegetarians are that way by choice for any number of reasons, not the least of which is a tendency to project human characteristics upon every other animal, pets and livestock alike. I certainly respect their right to be that way, but reserve my right to be an omnivore. I also want my luncheon meat to have been raised with respect along the way. 10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
How perverse is this? You either have self-esteem or you do not. Neither the government nor anyone else can give it to you as a gift. 11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion Of The Christ" for financial gain only. I think that Mr. Gibson was already pretty rich and secure when he decided to branch out into producing a Christian masterpiece. I imagine (but do not know) that he has justified his profits by creating a fund to do more such works or to finance humanitarian projects. I suspect that he was not unhappy over the profits and that he took a healthy slice of them to fund his lifestyle. For financial gain only? Hardly---he had a goal, and that was to push the Christian agenda. Making a lot of money was just icing on the cake. By the way, “The Passion of the Christ” is an example of a major work of art that received no federal funding.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
This person needs to flip the coin over. He or she, using biting sarcasm against the dreaded “liberals”, appears to forget that he or she must believe that the ACLU is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the NRA is good, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution. I believe both of these organizations are important, because they represent opposing viewpoints and cause us to debate the issues before we decide what to do.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high. I think any ATM fee is too high a fee. With regard to taxes, I suspect but cannot prove that the writer of these “18 ways” would probably be the first to complain if certain governmental services were suddenly unavailable because there were no funds. I would not be the first to complain but would instead be upset about the funding cut. I believe there is a disconnect among sectors within the brains of those that think that taxes should be lower but that we should have all these programs anyway, including wars. Many of these people think that the only reason why things are so expensive is because of waste within the programs. Schools are a prime example of this. In certain states, the average amount spent per child is in the neighborhood of $4,500 per year. A nearby private school with world-class facilities has a tuition that costs 2 to 3 times that much. And then ironically there are complaints about waste in the school systems and calls for the school budgets to be trimmed even more. No, what we need is balanced budgets, accountable lawmakers and bureaucrats, and independent watchdog oversight organizations with power over those who overspend or divert money to serve their own objectives instead of the common good. And then we need to provide the tax money to fund education so that everyone has the opportunity to go to schools that are excellent and equivalent to the private schools.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.
Again, apples and oranges. All these people are important in their own individual ways. And does the writer of the “18 ways” want to be selective about history, too? Surely, all of these people have their dark sides, and this includes George Washington as well. When will the history books tell the whole story?
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.I believe we will stop having racism when we all individually embrace everyone else as equals despite our differences. From the standpoint of government’s role in education, I believe quotas, etc., are not the answer. Instead, the provision of mandatory education available to everyone, uniformly high school quality, strong advocacy by teachers that we respect one another, effective but non-abusive discipline standards, and tangible consequences for not taking personal responsibility are important functions of government. These would likely result in fewer governmental services’ being necessary after about 20 years with such a system in place. I am not holding my breath waiting for the day when we implement these changes, however.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge. I believe there are several European nations that are much more socialistic than is the United States, and their systems work well to a large extent. However, no matter what the system is, it really does help to have people in government who are well-meaning, who make decisions that serve the greater good, and who are very ethical. In general, our elected officials do not meet these descriptions all of the time. 17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal. I believe that the person who wrote this one is all mixed up. Homosexual parades on the street are protected by the Constitution, and Christmas parades on the street are protected by the Constitution. If this person meant that Christmas displays at the public courthouse should be protected by the Constitution to the exclusion of other displays, would that same person think that it is all right that an Islamic display should also be protected at the courthouse, if only the Islamic display is allowed and not a Christian one also? Assuming any such displays are allowed at the courthouse at all (and I favor that they not be), should a homosexual display be allowed at the courthouse and not a heterosexual one? Certainly not. Public places are for all of the public. Christians do not have world rights over everyone else, despite the fact that many Christians profess to be the Chosen People and would use this belief to strong-arm everyone else---strong-arm in a charitable, Christian way, of course.
18. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
Not at all. I think the message only reflects a culture of intolerance, egocentricity, and narcissism which is widespread throughout our nation, especially nowadays.
There. Let me see, how did I do? Certainly I do not have much in common philosophically with the writer of the “18 things”. Whether or not that makes me a “liberal” by anyone’s definition is debatable. Besides, the points I advocate largely fit in the area of personal responsibility, accountability, honesty, and serving the greater good. Attaching a label to anyone in order to try to belittle that person is that last thing I would like to see. I prefer to take the high road. I think that is where I should leave this subject to “rest in peace”.
© 2005, srman07
12/18/05
An e-mail document circulating lately got in my InBox, sent by one of my friends who appears to have a certain amount of disdain for “liberals”.
I read the piece called “18 ways to be a good liberal” and found it a mean-spirited attempt to stereotype people who see the world differently from the writer of the “18 ways”. To me, it displays simmering anger over diversity. Sadly, this is the nature of our polarized society in the early 21st century.
It seems to me that the conservative movement has effectively demonized the term “liberal” to mean something that it does not and has sensitized many people into feeling that “conservative” is safe while “liberal” is a dirty word. However, I do not feel safe under this Republican regime. For instance, running deep budget deficits is anything but conservative or safe. Republicans are currently being reckless with our nation’s finances, and that certainly is not a trait that meets my definition of conservatism.
But at any rate, I approached the list with curiosity, wondering how much of it applied to me. So here I have gone down the list in order to find out.
18 Ways To Be A Good Liberal [by unknown e-mail assailant] [and by the way, I corrected the document’s glaring grammatical and punctuation errors that reflect poorly on the assailant’s educational level]
1. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.I personally am in favor of both; the former when there is absolutely no doubt as to guilt, and for the purpose of not giving the guilty party the satisfaction of being able to live to represent his or her perverse philosophy; and the latter because of deep concerns about overpopulation, poverty, domestic abuse, and family dysfunction in general, all of which are caused or compounded by having unwanted children.2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity. I believe that some businesses oppress when they are unethical; other businesses do not oppress; some governments oppress, and some enable prosperity (some do both at the same time). Certainly, the United States has structured financial laws to enable innovation, commerce, and prosperity to a great extent---even more so than, say, Japan or Russia, which are no slouches, either. Our society’s wealth attests to the success of this structuring. But we do need to be able to deal better with unethical behavior within both business and government. 3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
I think that these two things are like apples and oranges. And the writer of the “18 things” is being so shallow as to exclude mentioning what guns are actually a threat to. I think the biggest threats coming from guns are in letting them get into the hands of a third party (in particular, a youth), in letting them be ready to fire when handled by the untrained, in allowing them to be readily purchased by gang members, and in not stopping known criminals from buying them. I think it is unconscionable to allow loopholes in our laws so that anyone can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. I think that existing laws are wrong when they allow small handgun manufacturers to cater to the desires of street gangs while acting innocent of any intent. Registered gun ownership by responsible people who only want to hunt or to defend themselves against assailants, burglars, and poisonous snakes in the house is fine with me.
As to the nuclear issue, how can the U.S. be so incompetent as to allow its nuclear weapons technology to be stolen by China and North Korea? And for that matter, why is the U.S. continuing to pursue aggressive nuclear weapons deployment? We should be peace brokers and disseminators of good will, in my view. We are a far cry from that at the present time, and I would wager that we have never been like that to any great extent. If we increase our weaponry, we can expect others to do the same, especially nowadays when the leadership of our nation does not exude a facade of trust, unlike in previous times. 4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
This one seems so mindless to me that it is not worth answering to any great extent. It ignores the economics of art and tries to depict “liberals” as naïve and uneducated. Instead, ignoring art’s economics is in itself naïve and suggests poor grades in history. Money from some source is needed to sustain the artist to allow creativity to blossom. The marketplace is not enough. Federal funding, state funding, local funding, private foundations, and individuals all are needed for nurturing culture. Private funding is much larger than government funding, but government grants balance things by having different selection criteria than does the private sector. 5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's. The person writing this one clearly is ignoring science and has missed the point entirely. We are all subject to the patterns that develop in nature, cyclical or not. However, SUV’s and power plants that operate on fossil fuel are altering our planet’s climate, and this time it is not nature’s workings but instead it is the fault of humans. We have other sources of energy that we can use that would not do such harm, and the people of the United States are being negligent by not endeavoring to change over to them as rapidly as possible. Any consequences of such human-induced climate changes are our responsibility, not Mother Nature’s. The person writing Number 5 apparently began being negligent years ago when he or she failed to be attentive in science class.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
There is plenty of evidence already that gender exists as a spectrum in nature, homosexuals are born that way (which would very well qualify as being natural), and all sorts of variability exists in brain structure that will determine our inclinations in many ways including gender. I think that gender roles are to a degree learned (for instance, women may be conditioned by society to think that they could never be baseball players or to think that they must wear veils in public) but also to a great extent are natural, too, such as how little boys typically gravitate to engineering-related toys, while little girls typically gravitate towards nurturing toys, even if they are not under the influence of adults. Exceptions to these typical patterns spice things up, but this nation has not yet come to terms with recognizing how people still can do things typical of their subgroups, while at the same time dealing with the reality that talking about stereotypes is taboo.7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding. I call this one another mean-spirited low blow. This country gets an “F” in personal responsibility, and our society is to blame for that. Federal funding has little or nothing to do with it. However, our government reflects our society and enables personal irresponsibility. Personal responsibility is an individual choice that transcends governmental programs. Nonetheless, our government can be instrumental in funding research for preventing or eliminating HIV, in coordinating the effort to eradicate the disease, and in funding public awareness programs. Our government would do well if it stopped rewarding irresponsible behavior and established a program that helps foster personal responsibility (which then might persuade some people to choose to act responsibly). We have a long way to go before we ever get there.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex. This one reeks of cynicism. But more to the point: if this nation did not discount its youth so thoroughly, we would have an excellent educational system with teachers that are more than qualified to teach both subjects. In my opinion, we would be a lot better off educating our children about sex both at home and at school. Children tend to make mistakes despite getting all the right information, but it is just so much worse when they do not get any information at all. Statistically, parents are woefully inadequate at educating their children about sex. Even if parents were adequate, I think it is important that children hear the same thing from an independent party, also. 9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.
I am uncertain if PETA activists care about nature, but they certainly care about non-human animals. Some large corporations have demonstrated that they will treat animals intended for human consumption with impunity just for the sake of minimizing costs. The federal government and society in general would turn a blind eye toward this. Animal rights activists have caused a higher level of humane treatment of animals within the industry. However, sometimes these activists are too picky as to what they want. I imagine that the reason for this is that they largely are vegetarians and practice anthropomorphism with abandon. We should be able to expect that a reasonable person who is not a vegetarian would want animals targeted for human consumption to be treated humanely and not tortured or subjected to substantial pain. Being vegetarian is a personal choice. It is incorrect, in my opinion, to assert that humans are naturally vegetarian and have become addicted to animal flesh by exposure to it. I think it is quite the opposite. Humans are omnivores. The evidence is all around us. Humans are capable of it, and we largely do it (eat both flesh and vegetables, that is). Those who are vegetarians are that way by choice for any number of reasons, not the least of which is a tendency to project human characteristics upon every other animal, pets and livestock alike. I certainly respect their right to be that way, but reserve my right to be an omnivore. I also want my luncheon meat to have been raised with respect along the way. 10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
How perverse is this? You either have self-esteem or you do not. Neither the government nor anyone else can give it to you as a gift. 11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion Of The Christ" for financial gain only. I think that Mr. Gibson was already pretty rich and secure when he decided to branch out into producing a Christian masterpiece. I imagine (but do not know) that he has justified his profits by creating a fund to do more such works or to finance humanitarian projects. I suspect that he was not unhappy over the profits and that he took a healthy slice of them to fund his lifestyle. For financial gain only? Hardly---he had a goal, and that was to push the Christian agenda. Making a lot of money was just icing on the cake. By the way, “The Passion of the Christ” is an example of a major work of art that received no federal funding.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
This person needs to flip the coin over. He or she, using biting sarcasm against the dreaded “liberals”, appears to forget that he or she must believe that the ACLU is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the NRA is good, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution. I believe both of these organizations are important, because they represent opposing viewpoints and cause us to debate the issues before we decide what to do.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high. I think any ATM fee is too high a fee. With regard to taxes, I suspect but cannot prove that the writer of these “18 ways” would probably be the first to complain if certain governmental services were suddenly unavailable because there were no funds. I would not be the first to complain but would instead be upset about the funding cut. I believe there is a disconnect among sectors within the brains of those that think that taxes should be lower but that we should have all these programs anyway, including wars. Many of these people think that the only reason why things are so expensive is because of waste within the programs. Schools are a prime example of this. In certain states, the average amount spent per child is in the neighborhood of $4,500 per year. A nearby private school with world-class facilities has a tuition that costs 2 to 3 times that much. And then ironically there are complaints about waste in the school systems and calls for the school budgets to be trimmed even more. No, what we need is balanced budgets, accountable lawmakers and bureaucrats, and independent watchdog oversight organizations with power over those who overspend or divert money to serve their own objectives instead of the common good. And then we need to provide the tax money to fund education so that everyone has the opportunity to go to schools that are excellent and equivalent to the private schools.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.
Again, apples and oranges. All these people are important in their own individual ways. And does the writer of the “18 ways” want to be selective about history, too? Surely, all of these people have their dark sides, and this includes George Washington as well. When will the history books tell the whole story?
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.I believe we will stop having racism when we all individually embrace everyone else as equals despite our differences. From the standpoint of government’s role in education, I believe quotas, etc., are not the answer. Instead, the provision of mandatory education available to everyone, uniformly high school quality, strong advocacy by teachers that we respect one another, effective but non-abusive discipline standards, and tangible consequences for not taking personal responsibility are important functions of government. These would likely result in fewer governmental services’ being necessary after about 20 years with such a system in place. I am not holding my breath waiting for the day when we implement these changes, however.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge. I believe there are several European nations that are much more socialistic than is the United States, and their systems work well to a large extent. However, no matter what the system is, it really does help to have people in government who are well-meaning, who make decisions that serve the greater good, and who are very ethical. In general, our elected officials do not meet these descriptions all of the time. 17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal. I believe that the person who wrote this one is all mixed up. Homosexual parades on the street are protected by the Constitution, and Christmas parades on the street are protected by the Constitution. If this person meant that Christmas displays at the public courthouse should be protected by the Constitution to the exclusion of other displays, would that same person think that it is all right that an Islamic display should also be protected at the courthouse, if only the Islamic display is allowed and not a Christian one also? Assuming any such displays are allowed at the courthouse at all (and I favor that they not be), should a homosexual display be allowed at the courthouse and not a heterosexual one? Certainly not. Public places are for all of the public. Christians do not have world rights over everyone else, despite the fact that many Christians profess to be the Chosen People and would use this belief to strong-arm everyone else---strong-arm in a charitable, Christian way, of course.
18. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
Not at all. I think the message only reflects a culture of intolerance, egocentricity, and narcissism which is widespread throughout our nation, especially nowadays.
There. Let me see, how did I do? Certainly I do not have much in common philosophically with the writer of the “18 things”. Whether or not that makes me a “liberal” by anyone’s definition is debatable. Besides, the points I advocate largely fit in the area of personal responsibility, accountability, honesty, and serving the greater good. Attaching a label to anyone in order to try to belittle that person is that last thing I would like to see. I prefer to take the high road. I think that is where I should leave this subject to “rest in peace”.
© 2005, srman07
posted by srman07 at 8:00 AM
<< Home