I work for a State Government Administrative Agency. Some of my thoughts about politics, I come by professionally. I have met, briefed, and testified before elected officials. They are the best of people, they are the worst of people. Smart, competitive, eager, vain, greedy, altruistic, and vicious. I respect them, admire them for their sacrifices, and have no urge whatsoever to join their ranks or get in their way. I think that almost universally, they really are trying to do what they think is best for their electorate. But they are hobbled by the reality; in order to do anything, they have to be in office in the first place. And in order to get into office, they need money. Party support. Exposure. They almost always have to win a contest against someone else, and that contest will almost always be ugly. I have no wisdom, no answer to this. I just try to see beyond the mud, and vote for the person I think will do the most good (or the least harm).
What a Presidential Race this year! The part of me that can step back and be matter-of-fact is delighted with how emotional and intense it has been. I am excited for the number of Americans who really seem interested enough to participate this year. The issues are compelling. There is no incumbent running on either ticket for the first time in 14 elections (almost 60 years! go on, fact-check me, I dare you!)
I am conflicted. What should I base my decision on? I'll tell you something right off; there are a bunch of things I'm not going to base it on.
Polarization
First, go read this. Please, just glance at it. Where do you fall; do the candidates start to look similar in appeal to you, or do you think anyone voting for (the other candidate) is just crazy? I was fascinated by the VP choices this election. Both picks serve to appeal to the "party-base". Obama and McCain both had weakness in their appeal to the core of their parties.
McCain has been repeatedly bloodied in both the 2000 and the current primaries by other Republican candidates for not being conservative enough. The nomination of Palin injected his campaign with someone who is young and overtly religious. For all the criticism laid on Obama for being a celebrity, McCain went out and got his own!
Obama needed the foreign relations cred, needed to demonstrate his commitment to liberal ideals. For all the concern that has been expressed McCain's age, Obama went out and got an old warhorse of his own.
So I don't see the candidates as similar, they are certainly worlds apart on the issues. But I disagree with each candidate on lots of things, agree with each on lots. I see the choice between them as marginal, and will ultimately make my selection on which issue matters the most to me.
Demonizing the Opposition
John McCain is erratic. Barack Obama is inexperienced. His middle name is Hussein! He's the oldest nominee ever! Lions and Tigers and Bears!
Running for President is like parenting after a divorce; yes, everyone knows you think your opponent (your ex-spouse) is terrible. But the voters (your kids) are smart, and need to figure it out themselves. They need your permission to love the other one, or else you look like a paranoid bully (and make your kids feel guilty). There are a million reasons to NOT vote for either candidate, but if I hear even a single one of them uttered by their opponent (or one of the opponent's partisans), I automatically discount its weight. Tell me what your guy will do that's good; trying to scare me into voting by highlighting what's going to be awful about the other guys just makes me mad at you.
Contentless Attacks
Does it matter how many times John McCain referred to the audience as "my friends"? Does it matter how often Barrack Obama interrupts his sentences with the verbal hiccup of a barely pronounced "y'know"?
Yes, past is prologue. But does it really matter now if 20 years ago Obama had some kind of interaction with a then-radical? Does it matter the McCain as a young pilot was a bit of a hot dog? Well, actually, yes, it does. But not as much as what they are doing in the last ten years, what they are promising to do in the next. That old stuff is like the base coat for a mural, it gives an underlying tone, but focusing on the negative old-timey stuff of your opponent? That makes you guilty of both being negative, and being petty.
Yeesh.
Deliberate Obtuseness
Did you watch the debates, any of them? Have you ever seen a politician interviewed on TV? You know how the politician will receive a question, and then say respond with something that is tangential (at best) to the inquiry? That adherence to talking points, that refusal to answer the question, that insistance that, "What I've got to say is more important than what you were trying find out!" drives me BATS! But it works, the shame of if is that it works. Politics is a long game, with a score tallyed only once every two years at the election time. Everything a politician does every single comment, interview, committee hearing, everything, is angled towards that. So when they ask Sarah Palin what's the right place to use nuclear weapons, she's not going to give the answer (either she really is a crazy right-wing zealot who thinks she needs to assist the second coming by starting armageddon, in which case she'll use them the first chance she gets, or she understands the doctrine of deterrence, in which case she would only ever use them in an instance where a weapon of mass destruction was employed against the US or its interests). She'll use the question as a springboard to repeat her support of the troops, McCain's determination to protect the US, their shared conviction that we can and must win against the forces of evil.
Banality doesn't win the election, but the banal repetition of talking points doesn't lose the election. That's why you get so much contentless response. Up until the last few months, I was pretty happy with both McCain and Obama, felt that they generally did a good job really answering questions asked of them. But now it's close, no one wants to say the thing, use the phrase that turns into the gaffe that sinks the ship.
So, when I consider what I've heard, read, and seen these last few months, I think the McCain campaign is probably the worse in offending me. But he's behind in the polls, and conventioinal wisdom has always been to fight ugly when you are behind. Because, sad but true, fighting ugly narrows the cap. No matter how offended I get by it, there are people in American that respond. *sigh*
The "issues" for me this time;
Military in the Middle East
I think there were a hundred sound policy and strategic reasons to invade Iraq. None of them involved Al-Qaeda. Weapons of Mass Destruction was a part of it (I think the whole world bought Saddam's bluff; he didn't have them, but he sure wanted everyone to think he did), but certainly not the whole reason. It saddens, infuriates me to think of the collective good will that the Bush Administration frittered in their single-minded and poorly planned war in Iraq. But we are there now. We need a President that will do the right thing. Not withdraw willy nilly (which is not what Obama has promised). Not stay there forver (which is not what McCain has promised). Of the two, I think McCain has a better idea of what "success" means.
Definition of Family
I really believe that marriage is the union of man and woman, and it is through marriage that families are created. I feel I operate under a specific direction to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society. My certainty of these things puts me at odds with the powerful feelings of others, and my desire that all people should benefit from the freedom to self-direct their lives has created a great deal of angst in me as a result. But while I wish all people happiness, and the joy of self-fulfillment, I feel I must act on my personal belief and direction. The change/erosion of what constitutes marriage, of what makes a family has become a political plank. The Republicans are on the side I believe is correct.
Diplomacy
I think John McCain 8 years ago was an outstanding example of someone who could find common ground, could inspire unity. I think he was gone to great lengths to either change or hide that capacity in the last 8 months. I worry about the increasing isolation caused by America's unilateral behavior, and think the next President needs to mend our relationship with the World. No question, right now, Obama looks like a better fit.
Personal Liberty
No question, "we" have less now than we did before 9/11. In that regard, McCain represents the status quo, heightened scrutiny, and a lowered bar for that scrutiny. I think we are more secure (if more scrutinized) as a result. It is tempting for me to *shrug* and say so what, it's not like I'm going to do anything worth scrutinizing. But I am student of the Constitution, and benefit from its robust effect on society. I worship how I may, politic what I may. Those things matter. So I worry about the erosion of freedom. While I am not wholly sure which is the more moral direction to go, I think people shouldn't be so afraid of the government. Obama by a slim margin.
The Economy
*shrug* I'm not shrugging because I don't care. I'm just baffled. I liked McCain's idea to have the government re-broker loans facing foreclosure. But I thought the Hope Now Program
http://www.hopenow.com/
already did something similar. I am trying to educate myself, trying to understand what is wrong, and what would make the world a stabler, better place. Null.
The Environment
I believe the world has changed in the last 200 years. While I acknowledge those strident conservative voices who insist the change is due to normal cyclic variations, and is not the result of mankind, I think they are wrong (or at least, are not entirely correct). I think we have had a negative effect on the planet. Drilling on the continental shelf isn't the answer, and I wish McCain would spend more time talking about Nuclear Power and less time on domestic oil. I think the candidates themselves are a tie on the issue, but believe that McCain would be hobbled by the Party, and the Republican Party definitely loses in my opinion. Obama in a walk.
I think voting for the ticket you like better, even if that emotion is based purely on an instinctive resonance, is perfectly legitimate.
Voting for the candidate that will provide greater comedy for the next 4 years, while irresponsible, is also perfectly legitimate. Who does Jon Stewart mock with greater comedic effect?
I hope the Bradley Effect is gone forever, never to again make a return appearance.
But I remain conflicted, even after writing it all down. Part of me wishes we did things the way they did in the old days and, that candidates ran without VP choices, with the second place winner assuming the role of Vice President. It seems to me that Obama and McCain would make a pretty effective team. But that's just silly. So, reality check; if our military efforts overseas and the definition of the family are most important to me, then I'm voting for McCain. If they aren't, then I'm voting for Obama.
I contemplate my trip to the elementary school in 24 days, and have a feeling I will be praying for direction on the way there. Right up until the time I cast my vote.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
John, I think you nailed the partisan issue. I read the article that you recommended. It is easy to root for the home team, much more difficult to scrutinize each candidate on their individual merits. I have historically voted along the Republican party line, and I have identified myself with the Republican camp mainly because of their conservative and religious stance. I strongly believe that leaders of nations can be guided by divine influence, and my guiding principle in every election that I've voted in has been which candidate will be most open to that influence. In this election I belive it is Obama.
I enjoyed reading through your blog right up to the time I got to this post.
John, now that Obama and the democratic super-majority have shown themselves to be the party of global tax payer funded abortion on demand, to have doubled down on Bush's irresponsible spending, attempting to chill free speech, and generally declaring all out war on America's divinely inspired founding principles; I have to ask if you still believe that bringing up Obama's past associations is "petty". Do you believe that making reference to Obama's own words about his hostility toward the Constitution's original meaning is "partisan".
In short do you still believe the lies that he and the media told to get elected?
We are losing our liberty and it has NOTHING to do with your stated fear of the patriot act. Our freedom is being destroyed by the idea that it is moral for the government to forcibly confiscate the property of some, only to give it to others. If it would be immoral for you to do it, it is immoral for government to do it. Coercion is not charity and never will be.
and Roger, as for inspiration, I am quite sure that Obama is open to influences, but I am equally sure that those influences are in no way "divine".
To Anonymous: What is your solution?
The ONLY solution is to return to the path of individual liberty. Eliminate Federal funding of anything that isn't explicitly allowed in the enumerated powers.
As I said, the idea that the government can, or should, be used to effect ANY KIND of wealth transfer immediately introduces the seeds of democracy's downfall.
The fundamental problem on the practical level is one of focused benefits and distributed costs. Groups and individuals who are the beneficiaries of those targeted benefits will be HIGHLY motivated and organized to ensure that they never end, while those who bear the costs, because of they are highly distributed cannot possibly be as effectively organized, and in most cases won't even be aware of the costs except in the extreme aggregate.
It gets even worse when you consider the kind of inter-generational theft that's been going on. What right do we have to literally enslave our children in the name of bailing out our economy? Leaving aside the efficacy of such bailouts which I view as highly dubious.
Meanwhile the politicians are more than happy to purchase their power and influence with other people's money.
On a more fundamental moral level, there is an impulse to think that "society should provide a safety net...", but while the impulse may be noble the results are predictably tragic to both individuals and society.
Charity is an INDIVIDUAL responsibility. It cannot ever be delegated to "society". Giving someone else's money or resources away through means of coercion IS NOT charity, and it is not now nor has it ever been a good or righteous thing to do.
Don't forget that fundamentally government is force. What gives you (or anyone else) the right to force me (or anyone else) to give my means to meet the ends that you view as worthwhile? The answer is that the concept is immoral to the core and no good thing can ever come of it.
Back to the solution, you will notice that the enumerated powers of Congress are all very distributed benefits i.e. the "general welfare" or "common good" as opposed to focused wealth transfers to targeted groups/individuals.
Perhaps if charity were more abundant in our society, government would not seek to fill the need for it. The answer in my opinion is a return to virtue. Unfortunately, history has shown that this rarely happens without some sort of calamity or "act of God" to turn things around.
I don't mean to be rude, but that is total baloney! No matter how little real charity is practiced, the government has NO business filling the gap. Besides, there is pretty strong evidence that it really works just the opposite. The more government "steps in" the less charity is actually practiced. It's a vicious cycle.
You are correct in saying that too little charity is practiced, and that has always been, and will probably always be the case in the aggregate. But no matter society's ills, the government can ONLY make things worse when it endeavors to move beyond truly distributed benefits.
Okay, I guess I am a solution oriented person. What else can I do as an American citizen besides being more charitable myself and voting my conscience in elections?
Your question reminds me of a great book "The Vision of the Anointed" by Thomas Sowell. In it he makes the case that there are no political "solutions", but merely trade offs. Politicians love to talk about "solutions" but never like to talk about costs.
There will always be tragic circumstances and bad luck. There will also always be irresponsible people who insist on making poor choices. The unfortunate can be helped through charity, the irresponsible are typically only encouraged by it.
Your comment leads me to believe that you enjoy talking more that taking action.
Define taking action please.
I live my life and try to raise my children according to my principles (self reliance, and faith in God are the major ones). This includes practicing real charity (as in I donate my own money and time to causes I support as opposed to trying to force others to do so).
But I if you define taking action as agitating for politicians to solve problems that they have no Constitutional authority to involve themselves in and at which they are bound to fail; well then I guess you're right I do think talking is better than action.
Instead I try to educate others around me as to the moral superiority of liberty and to the incredible blessings of liberty that we are throwing away for less than a mess of porridge. At least Esau got a meal out of the deal and didn't sell his children into slavery for it.
This, I guess, is what you dismissively refer to as "talk".
There is no virtue in "taking action" if the action is wrong. Sure things should be changed, but unless the changes are made in accordance with true principles, the change will necessarily be worse than useless. The HopeNChange express is implementing things that are counterproductive and in some cases outright evil.
So no I don't give much credence to mindless phrases like "taking action" or "change".
Oh, and sorry about the anonymous posts. It had been so long since I'd posted anything at my blog that I had forgotten even my username...
I guess I should have identified myself somehow, but I didn't really think of it until today. John was one of my best missionary companions. I still laugh when I think of those days way back in 1987-88. And despite how mistaken he might be about this, I still love him.
So, Roger, I just got around to browsing your blog and noticed that you are LDS as well. May I suggest that you go back and look at what people like David O. McCay, Marion G. Romney, J. Ruben Clark, Ezra Taft Benson, and many more had to say about socialism. It's true that in more recent times, our leaders have not spoken out forcefully on the issue, but the principles have not changed. They all said straight out that socialism was a creation of the adversary and that they were distressed to find that so much of socialism was being implemented in Europe and the U.S. And yes, just in case you are wondering, some of those statements were made at the direction of the Prophet and spoken in their roles as Apostles.
Latter Day Saints had better wake up and warn their neighbors.
Interesting. Thank you for your comments.
I've been following with interest the dialog, and have simply not had time to say anything. Which, it turns out, is fine, because the two of you are doing a great job at maintaining the dialog!
Roger, this is Don Peterson, my 4th missionary companion. We served together for one transfer in Springville, Arkansas.
Don, this is Roger, my brother-in-law. He's married to my wife's sister. At some point, I hope to make time to more thoroughly consider your questions. Thanks for writing!
Yep it's me...
I hope I didn't offend anyone, or sound unhinged. But I am angry at what is happening, and passionate about the fundamental principles involved.
So, Roger, when you say "interesting" is that interesting as in "This guy is a total loon and I'd just better end the conversation before I catch whatever he's got." Or is it interesting as in "Wow this conversation has completely changed my whole world view." Or is it somewhere in between?
Of course, I'd think it was great if it's the latter, but I suspect it's closer to the former...
"Real freedom is won through self-government, not through self-expression." -Ron L. Smith
“Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom. -Friedrich August von Hayek
Roger, I wasn’t going to reply since it seems evident that you aren’t all that interested in having a real discussion, but I’m driven by hope that this might just be a teaching moment… So, once more into the breach…
Self government is much more than the right to vote. At its heart is INDIVIDUAL choice and accountability. You apparently chose to support a candidate whose primary political agenda is about destroying agency and engendering dependency to the extent possible, murdering the innocent in the name of “choice”, and protecting the guilty in the name of “justice”. You may not want to hear that, but the truth hurts sometimes.
You say that you have typically sided with Republicans because of their “conservative and religious stance.” Yet you apparently supported a candidate whose views and policies are antithetical to the principles of true religion and conservative philosophy and were known beforehand to be such. This tells me that either you have been deceived by the lies that Obama and his friends in the media have perpetuated, or have not truly understood those principles as they apply in the realm of politics, or likely both.
I find that many people know and accept the correct principles when they are divorced from their political implications and imperatives, but shy away from those logical implications because they defy convention to an extent that they are not willing to embrace. I long ago gave up any illusions that small violations of those eternal principles are ok, as long as they are done in the name of some “greater good.” This is based on both an ideological embrace of those principles, and a practical realization that those violations do not ever produce the promised results.
I have come to the realization that the principles upon which these two political philosophies (true liberalism and statism) are based are completely incompatible and that there is no room for compromise. One must loose and one must win. One is based on true principles which were enshrined in our Constitution by inspired men; the other is nothing more than the adversary’s plan brought to earth by evil and conspiring men and foisted on the ignorant by appealing to their jealousy and greed. One requires constant vigilance, education, and virtue on the part of citizens; the other requires nothing more than, well…nothing…and seems to be the default condition of mankind on the earth. One is based on bedrock principles; the other is based on nothing more than childish selfishness and jealousy. One is based on voluntary cooperation and intercourse between men for their mutual benefit; the other is based on compulsion, theft, and greed. One recognizes the primacy of individual rights and preserves them inviolate; the other divides into groups and assigns privileges, or punishments, based on group membership and the fashion of the day. One is based on the rule of law (which requires a proper grasp of “natural” or divine law); the other is based on mob (majority) rule, or the rule of man. One leads men to freedom and prosperity; the other leads to slavery, misery, and death.
For those who do not understand and embrace these true principles as they apply to the political realm, political considerations are reduced to a set of preferences that are internally inconsistent. Often those preferences are based on nothing more than narrow self interest, or how their support for any given policy affects their self image. “I’m a good person if I support X because it shows that I care” etc… There is little stomach for a fight to preserve liberty, and stand against that which is ultimately evil. These people must be educated and brought to understand their error.
Then there are those who understand and embrace the false principles and who wage constant war against life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, actively promoting evil and encouraging others to give up their God-given liberty. These must be fought and defeated, period.
So, with that said, permit me to pose a number of pointed (if admittedly leading) questions.
Do you support the kind of power grab represented by Obama and his Democrat super-majority by demonizing and retroactively punishing--via the tax code--people for accepting bonuses they are contractually entitled to? Threatening to release names and addresses of those involved if they don't pay the money back... I will add that Obama and the Democrats knew well ahead of time that this was going to happen, and in fact included a clause that specifically allowed it to happen in the "Stimulus bill". One can only conclude that they meant for this to happen so that they could gin up misplaced anger. This whole episode is one of the most despicable acts of political theater and thuggery I've ever had the misfortune of witnessing.
Do you support Obama’s efforts to foment thoughtless anger at said bonuses into a further power grab that would see the compensation for all executives be subject to congressional "oversight"?
Do you support the government takeover of the auto industry? Obama has now used the acceptance of “bailout” funds as a way to force the GM CEO out, and is now dictating specific terms of the turnaround plans for both GM and Chrysler. What in the world has Obama ever done that would qualify him to make these kinds of decisions? Even if he were qualified, what gives him the right to do this? Certainly not the Constitution!
Do you support the implementation of the euphemistically named "Fairness Doctrine" which is nothing more than an attempt to muzzle their only effective critics in talk radio?
Do you support the effort to grant newspapers (a Democrat house organ in the main) tax exempt status?
Do you support your tax dollars being used to fund the world-wide murder of innocents under the guise of foreign aid?
Do you agree that partial birth abortions should be legal, and further that any infant so “audacious” (Obama seems to like that word) as to fail in his duty to die when the doctor (ghoul in a smock) sticks the scissors into the back of his head, should be denied treatment and just left to die in the trash?
Do you support the elimination of secret ballots in union elections? This is the deceptively named “Employee Fee Choice Act”, popularly named “Card Check.”
Do you support the registration and confiscation of firearms?
Do you support the back-door gun control measures aimed at making ammunition and guns prohibitively expensive to manufacture?
Do you support massive subsidies to Acorn and other radical groups who are currently under indictment in at least six states for vote fraud?
Do you support forcing doctors and nurses to provide abortions regardless of any and all moral objections they may have?
Are you bothered by Obama’s appointment of numerous tax-cheats, and dozens of lobbyists to his cabinet after running on a promise to NOT have lobbyists in his cabinet?
Do you support giving nearly a billion dollars away to a terrorist group (Hamas) who has sworn the destruction of both the Great and Little Satan’s (the U.S. and Israel)?
Do you support forcing private insurance companies to cover the cost of service related disabilities incurred by our military men and women in order to save about half of what we just gave to Hamas?
Do you support eliminating tax deductions for charitable donations? This goes back to your earlier assertion that the government wouldn’t have to do so much if there were more charity. This is the government intentionally working to dry up charitable donations so that they will have more of an excuse to intrude where they shouldn’t be in the first place.
Do you really believe that our problems with too much debt and spending can be fixed by running up more debt in three years than has been incurred in the ENTIRE history of the country?
Every one of these policies has either already been implemented or is currently proposed and moving through Congress with the support of Obama, and I could list many more.
So, which of these policies do you think were "divinely inspired"? Which of these conform to the ideal of teaching “…correct principles and let them govern themselves.”?
Maybe you were one of the many for whom Hope-n-Change meant nothing deeper than “gee, I’ll feel good about myself and we’ll all be able to pat ourselves on the back for electing a black man”?
Or possibly you are caught up in the cult of personality that the media has built up around this guy?
I honestly don’t know the answers to these questions because you haven’t provided any kind of rational argument FOR anything other than you think Obama is more “open to [Divine] influence”. Every response has either been a rather shallow question that betrays a fundamental (or intentional) misapprehension or a glib dismissal.
Look, I don’t want to insult you, but I do mean to challenge you. I welcome thoughtful and challenging debate, but I do not appreciate your patronizing me with meaningless bumper-sticker slogans.
Don,
Did you vote for John McCain? If so, why?
Roger
Yes I did, because he was the best of two bad choices. He is inconsistent in standing for correct principles, Obama is absolutely consistent in supporting evil.
I did seriously consider not voting for either because, like both Bush's, McCain's inconsistencies would have a tendency to reflect negatively on what they CLAIM to represent; namely conservatism.
Well, I have to admit that I did make a mistake voting for Obama, but I was upset at the Republican party for rejecting a more qualified candidate soley because of his religion. I knew that I had made a mistake the minute I noticed who he was selecting as members of his cabinet. For some reason, I didn't realize that I wasn't voting for just a man, but for a party that would in a very large measure influence that man. Believe it or not I share most if not all of your beliefs. I just wish you had been there to help me decide who to vote for before I went to the polling booth.
Oh, one more important point. I didn't believe McCain had a chance of winning the election, and I knew that the state in which I was voting would elect Obama, so as a latter-day saint, I felt it was my duty to begin praying for and supporting who I felt sure was to become the next president. My intuition was correct, but as much as I would like a united states of america that stood firmly behind it's political leaders, you have helped me to see that it would be impossible for such a condition to exist as long as our leaders are choosing evil.
Roger,
Thanks for the responses. I KNOW you share "many if not all" of my beliefs and views, as any faithful Latter Day Saint would. That's the only reason I bothered with my long-winded answers. The problem is that we don't always recognize the practical implications of those beliefs.
Sometimes we find ourselves in a no-win situation, then it's our job to put our shoulders to the wheel and teach others to value eternal principles and defend them regardless of their popularity.
I have for the first time in my life become politically active by attending several of the "Tea Party" rallies where I live. I've started talking more openly about my beliefs and how they shape my politics.
There is no magic bullet that will fix this mess, just a lot of hard work by a lot of good hearted people who no longer believe the lies...
I've taught my children these principles and have worked to make them aware of the dangers posed by statists.
I truly believe that the Elders of Israel must shake off the apathy that has covered us like a blanket. I have also come to the conclusion that we can't sit around waiting for "orders" out of Salt Lake. We've been taught the correct principles, the rest is up to us as individuals. I don't believe that the Lord will save our liberty if we don't value it. And IF he saves it, it will be through the actions of individuals.
We must stand up and be counted and we must not shun the fight and rally others to the cause if we are going to reclaim our precious liberty. We have stood idly by for too long while evil men have had their way, hoping to provide some shelter in the sanctity of our homes. This, I believe, is not enough. The evil that has taken control of the government has as it's ultimate target our families. If they are allowed to continue, there will be no shelter available in which to hide.
I believe that anyone who thinks that there is room for compromise is gravely mistaken. It is a time for choosing.
Post a Comment