There's a lot been said about the compatibility of science and religion and I think that's because people who have rejected religion see it as some kind of superstition or as something made up to help a primitive society to deal with its fears. I find this most unscientific. I speak personally but I think of religion as the science for happiness and peace. The only social science I subscribe to.
The problem with most moral laws, unlike physical laws, is there there are rarely immediate consequences. It's difficult to explain to your teenagers the importance of saving themselves for marriage without pointing out the importance of the things they already take for granted like a stable family life. It's even harder if they don't have one. You need to convince them of the glory that could be theirs all the while not being sure if they'll ever attain it. A tricky sell indeed. But that does not undermine or negate in the least the happiness of a secure home and family. Of peace at home.
The studies pitting children from single parent homes versus traditional nuclear families always end up the same. No need going over the results. They help prove the gospel is true but are usually couched in terms sociologists use.
What's true for individuals and families is true of society in general. The oft-quoted British statesman Edmund Burke made the following observation regarding society and goverment:
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves.
Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
We've forgotten a lot of this kind of writing. Alexis de Tocqueville also said
Liberty cannot be established without morality nor morality without faith.
Finally, the father of our country, George Washington, from his farewell address:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion
and morality are indispensable supports...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained
without religion.
Nobody knows why there's gravity but we're aware of how it works. Isaac Newton figured out the gravitational law, F = Gm1m2/r2 and it was a big breakthrough. Nobody ignores the physical law. Religious truth is revealed by prophets instead of scientists. But its laws are as immutable even if the consequences are not immediate. Historians disagree on the causes of the decline of the Roman Empire but Moroni never blamed the fall of the Nephites on their political system, their military, their economy or foreign invaders:
Yea, woe shall come unto you because of that pride which ye have suffered to enter your hearts, which has lifted you up beyond that which is good because of your exceedingly great riches! Yea, wo be unto you because of your wickedness and abominations! And except ye repent ye shall perish; yea, even your lands shall be taken from you, and ye shall be destroyed from off the face of the earth.
In order for any individual, family or people to succeed, they must "build on the rock" of virtue. It catches up with you if you won't.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Sunday, April 22, 2012
the machine stops
Back in high school, as part of our English curriculum, we read a number of short sci-fi stories, one of which was the amazingly prophetic The Machine Stops by E.M. Forster. Instead of living in cities, everyone lived in the machine, in rooms where they were all interconnected via Skype and they never went outside. Never. You can read it here. You can download a custom copy and see people's comments here.
I think just turning you on to this story would be good enough but I feel compelled to make at least some kind of comment. When I was a kid, the new technology was tv. My parents grew up without it and saw it come of age and I think the general feeling about tv was very good. In some sense, it was very educational and informative. Back then, you got your news from the newspaper and you could only find out what happened in the world once a day. So tv was in every way better than the newspapers or radio. As a family, we'd spend most of our evening (once my homework was done) from about 7 to 9 watching prime time. Most people did. And Saturday morning we'd watch cartoons until they went off the air. In our innocence, we never wondered if watching all that tv was good for us. And I think our parents agreed in general all the while noting we didn't go outside to play much on Saturday mornings any more.
I don't want to belabor the comparison here but pretty much the same thing happened to me as a parent. There was no internet or computer gaming when I was a kid and so when the Mozilla web browser and Commander Keen came out, we were all thrilled to enjoy their delights. Back in the 56K modem days, the internet was mostly a promise waiting to be fulfilled but it was not too many years before that promise came through. And simple side scrolling sprite-driven games blossomed into gorgeous and seductive 3D renditions of beautiful and fantastic landscapes. All the while my kids were going from toddlers to teens. I also noticed that Saturday morning (the time my kids didn't want to play outside) had extended itself as well.
What can I say? Tv and the internet and video games are all good things and there's no going back. No one wants to go back anyway. We have to learn to live with these innovations and control them. But everything makes using our time wisely harder and harder.
So I want to close with another classic work: the movie Brainstorm. I think most of what needs to be said have been said by these two works. In Brainstorm, a scientist (Christopher Walken) discovered a way to record people's experiences on something like videotape. Their sight, hearing, balance, emotional state, taste, smell--everything, the total experience. And at first everyone is delighted and it makes Christopher Walken fabulously wealthy and respected overnight. And for awhile everything's cool but as time progresses, a lot of real unhealthy things start to grow out of it. The ending is rather unusual and it does not resolve any of the issues, it just reminds us of the judgement day coming. Recommended.
I think just turning you on to this story would be good enough but I feel compelled to make at least some kind of comment. When I was a kid, the new technology was tv. My parents grew up without it and saw it come of age and I think the general feeling about tv was very good. In some sense, it was very educational and informative. Back then, you got your news from the newspaper and you could only find out what happened in the world once a day. So tv was in every way better than the newspapers or radio. As a family, we'd spend most of our evening (once my homework was done) from about 7 to 9 watching prime time. Most people did. And Saturday morning we'd watch cartoons until they went off the air. In our innocence, we never wondered if watching all that tv was good for us. And I think our parents agreed in general all the while noting we didn't go outside to play much on Saturday mornings any more.
I don't want to belabor the comparison here but pretty much the same thing happened to me as a parent. There was no internet or computer gaming when I was a kid and so when the Mozilla web browser and Commander Keen came out, we were all thrilled to enjoy their delights. Back in the 56K modem days, the internet was mostly a promise waiting to be fulfilled but it was not too many years before that promise came through. And simple side scrolling sprite-driven games blossomed into gorgeous and seductive 3D renditions of beautiful and fantastic landscapes. All the while my kids were going from toddlers to teens. I also noticed that Saturday morning (the time my kids didn't want to play outside) had extended itself as well.
What can I say? Tv and the internet and video games are all good things and there's no going back. No one wants to go back anyway. We have to learn to live with these innovations and control them. But everything makes using our time wisely harder and harder.
So I want to close with another classic work: the movie Brainstorm. I think most of what needs to be said have been said by these two works. In Brainstorm, a scientist (Christopher Walken) discovered a way to record people's experiences on something like videotape. Their sight, hearing, balance, emotional state, taste, smell--everything, the total experience. And at first everyone is delighted and it makes Christopher Walken fabulously wealthy and respected overnight. And for awhile everything's cool but as time progresses, a lot of real unhealthy things start to grow out of it. The ending is rather unusual and it does not resolve any of the issues, it just reminds us of the judgement day coming. Recommended.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Sitting Through Sunday School
Last Sunday, in a uncharacteristic burst of enthusiasm for scripture study, I decided I would actually do the reading for the day's Gospel Doctrine class. It was on the Allegory of the Olive Tree in Jacob 5. I reviewed the student and teacher's lesson plans which are posted online and did the readings.
I remember when I first read the allegory so long ago that I was surprised that they knew about grafting tree branches in BOM times. So I looked it up and Wikipedia said that grafting was an ancient practice, going back to 2000 BC. So I learned something new. I checked the Bible and grafting was mentioned in Romans 11. In the apostle Paul's allegory of the wild and tame olive tree. To my surprise, Jacob 5 is based on Romans 11. Funny I hadn't heard that before despite all the times we'd studied Jacob 5.
The other part of the lesson covers the first Anti-Christ, Sherem. The anti-Christs in the BOM get increasingly corrupt so being the first, Sherem is sort of a softie and recants before his ignomious death. Still his technique and sophistry is remarkable and so well suited to the times. Every great story needs great villains.
To my disappointment the link to Romans 11 was not discussed in the class and the section on Sherem was skipped entirely. Pouty face emoticon. The lesson was fine but the thought did occur to me that if I had taught the class, it would have been way different. Not necessarily better but definitely different. And it made me really wonder what's the right way of doing it and how to decide. Or if there's no right way, only different ways.
I remember what a disappointment the LDS Teacher Development class was. I know it is a generalized teaching course but it was definitely focused on evoking a positive emotional response from the class. There were no exhortations to know your material. No exhortations to invoke wonder, curiosity, love of the subject or any of the other things you would generally associate with teaching. And I know this is just me but I believe that teaching requires some entertaining. Anytime you make a presentation to a group, you should make it entertaining.
But the truth is I love Gospel Doctrine. It's still my favorite part of the Sunday meeting schedule. I got my testimony by only reading and praying. The scriptures are that literal pearl of great price. I believe in them and their power. That all we need to do is teach them and that will instill a love of them. They open up that area of the mind that makes it easy for the Holy Ghost to find space.
As Mormons, we get in a lot of study time. I'm pretty sure we sit in classes way more than any other Christian denomination: besides the three hours of Sunday meetings, there's seminary, institute and the two year mission. So we ought to know the scriptures better than anybody. And I think that as a group we do. But that we're not benefiting from that group knowledge like we ought to. Lessons often end up as lots of beating of the dead horse, punctuated with stories of human interest, testimonies, poems, modern parables and allegories. And the needs of orthodoxy prevent too much personalization of the formulated lessons.
So it seems to all come down to the teacher
I'm not sure what makes a great teacher. Handling a group discussion without wandering off into crazyland helps. If there are a few people in the class who know way more than you do, you need to be able to use them effectively in a discussion. You need to know your class as well as the material. I've always liked the teachers that provoke you to thought or wonder. Teachers that present something that you never knew before. That's an art and also a lot of work.
I remember when I first read the allegory so long ago that I was surprised that they knew about grafting tree branches in BOM times. So I looked it up and Wikipedia said that grafting was an ancient practice, going back to 2000 BC. So I learned something new. I checked the Bible and grafting was mentioned in Romans 11. In the apostle Paul's allegory of the wild and tame olive tree. To my surprise, Jacob 5 is based on Romans 11. Funny I hadn't heard that before despite all the times we'd studied Jacob 5.
The other part of the lesson covers the first Anti-Christ, Sherem. The anti-Christs in the BOM get increasingly corrupt so being the first, Sherem is sort of a softie and recants before his ignomious death. Still his technique and sophistry is remarkable and so well suited to the times. Every great story needs great villains.
To my disappointment the link to Romans 11 was not discussed in the class and the section on Sherem was skipped entirely. Pouty face emoticon. The lesson was fine but the thought did occur to me that if I had taught the class, it would have been way different. Not necessarily better but definitely different. And it made me really wonder what's the right way of doing it and how to decide. Or if there's no right way, only different ways.
I remember what a disappointment the LDS Teacher Development class was. I know it is a generalized teaching course but it was definitely focused on evoking a positive emotional response from the class. There were no exhortations to know your material. No exhortations to invoke wonder, curiosity, love of the subject or any of the other things you would generally associate with teaching. And I know this is just me but I believe that teaching requires some entertaining. Anytime you make a presentation to a group, you should make it entertaining.
But the truth is I love Gospel Doctrine. It's still my favorite part of the Sunday meeting schedule. I got my testimony by only reading and praying. The scriptures are that literal pearl of great price. I believe in them and their power. That all we need to do is teach them and that will instill a love of them. They open up that area of the mind that makes it easy for the Holy Ghost to find space.
As Mormons, we get in a lot of study time. I'm pretty sure we sit in classes way more than any other Christian denomination: besides the three hours of Sunday meetings, there's seminary, institute and the two year mission. So we ought to know the scriptures better than anybody. And I think that as a group we do. But that we're not benefiting from that group knowledge like we ought to. Lessons often end up as lots of beating of the dead horse, punctuated with stories of human interest, testimonies, poems, modern parables and allegories. And the needs of orthodoxy prevent too much personalization of the formulated lessons.
So it seems to all come down to the teacher
I'm not sure what makes a great teacher. Handling a group discussion without wandering off into crazyland helps. If there are a few people in the class who know way more than you do, you need to be able to use them effectively in a discussion. You need to know your class as well as the material. I've always liked the teachers that provoke you to thought or wonder. Teachers that present something that you never knew before. That's an art and also a lot of work.
Why Welfare is Wrong
The text below I wrote many years ago. It was inspired by Ezra Taft Benson's The Proper Role of Government. It's the smallest summary I could make--I thought it was so important and the concept now so lost that a brief summary would help make it more accessible.
I remember a text book on economics explaining the rise of the welfare state in the United States as beginning in the depression era. This certainly does seem to be the case if you study the levels of government spending since then. For the first 150 years of our country, government spending was very frugal. A marked departure from that frugality begins with the FDR welfare state and government spending has taken off since then. Perhaps "taken off" is too mild of a description, it’s more like "overwhelmed the US economy."
Besides wrecking the economy, public welfare is just wrong. It is morally wrong for the government to take money from people and redistribute it to those who they say are in need (i.e. more likely to vote for them). Having said that I want to emphasize that I am not against charity. Just the opposite, I believe it is the duty of every man to help out his fellow man as he is able but I am very much opposed to public welfare.
Let me put it on the very personal level. If some poor fellow comes up to me in the street and asks me for some help feeding his family and getting medical help for Tiny Tim (who is a cripple), perhaps I will be moved with compassion and want to help. I would then reach into my pocket and see if I have anything there that would help. But maybe he needs a friend or a teacher and I could be that person to make a difference in his life. Maybe my efforts to restore this guy who is down on his luck could change both our lives. But the least I could do is give him a few bucks. But let’s say I don’t have the means or interest in helping out this guy. Is it okay for me to go to you, beat a few dollars out of you and give it to him? No, it’s not. That is theft. Perhaps a well-intentioned theft but theft nonetheless.
In a welfare state, the government plays the role of the guy who beats the money out of you and gives it to the beggar. And that’s about all he does for the beggar.
Public welfare is mostly a mean of re-distributing wealth and only provides a check, not the support, mentoring, friendship and respect that might also be needed as badly. It also does nothing for the giver.
This discussion is usually included in the broader category of the proper role of government. The government takes money from us for a lot of reasons, generally for promoting the welfare of the people, so why is this different? Glad you asked!
In the U.S., the government is supposed to derive its powers from the people. At least, that was the way it was originally set up. How does this work? Let’s consider the right to self defense. Most people would consider it reasonable for a man to defend his life and property. It’s something we almost all need to do and so it’s reasonable that we hand out that responsibility to the police and military. The important thing is that we have that right as an individual and we grant it to the government. The government is not doing anything we’re not allowed to do individually. If we are poor and in need, do we have the right to rob our neighbour? Then the government shouldn’t do it on our behalf.
And that, my friends, is why welfare is wrong.
I remember a text book on economics explaining the rise of the welfare state in the United States as beginning in the depression era. This certainly does seem to be the case if you study the levels of government spending since then. For the first 150 years of our country, government spending was very frugal. A marked departure from that frugality begins with the FDR welfare state and government spending has taken off since then. Perhaps "taken off" is too mild of a description, it’s more like "overwhelmed the US economy."
Besides wrecking the economy, public welfare is just wrong. It is morally wrong for the government to take money from people and redistribute it to those who they say are in need (i.e. more likely to vote for them). Having said that I want to emphasize that I am not against charity. Just the opposite, I believe it is the duty of every man to help out his fellow man as he is able but I am very much opposed to public welfare.
Let me put it on the very personal level. If some poor fellow comes up to me in the street and asks me for some help feeding his family and getting medical help for Tiny Tim (who is a cripple), perhaps I will be moved with compassion and want to help. I would then reach into my pocket and see if I have anything there that would help. But maybe he needs a friend or a teacher and I could be that person to make a difference in his life. Maybe my efforts to restore this guy who is down on his luck could change both our lives. But the least I could do is give him a few bucks. But let’s say I don’t have the means or interest in helping out this guy. Is it okay for me to go to you, beat a few dollars out of you and give it to him? No, it’s not. That is theft. Perhaps a well-intentioned theft but theft nonetheless.
In a welfare state, the government plays the role of the guy who beats the money out of you and gives it to the beggar. And that’s about all he does for the beggar.
Public welfare is mostly a mean of re-distributing wealth and only provides a check, not the support, mentoring, friendship and respect that might also be needed as badly. It also does nothing for the giver.
This discussion is usually included in the broader category of the proper role of government. The government takes money from us for a lot of reasons, generally for promoting the welfare of the people, so why is this different? Glad you asked!
In the U.S., the government is supposed to derive its powers from the people. At least, that was the way it was originally set up. How does this work? Let’s consider the right to self defense. Most people would consider it reasonable for a man to defend his life and property. It’s something we almost all need to do and so it’s reasonable that we hand out that responsibility to the police and military. The important thing is that we have that right as an individual and we grant it to the government. The government is not doing anything we’re not allowed to do individually. If we are poor and in need, do we have the right to rob our neighbour? Then the government shouldn’t do it on our behalf.
And that, my friends, is why welfare is wrong.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Songs From A Room
A long, long time ago, way back in 1969, my favourite Canadian poet released his second album Songs From A Room. I'm a big fan of Leonard Cohen's music. I've collected his works from since I was in high school and am still tormenting family members by playing his music over and over and over. And over and over and over.
On that album, there's a song called Tonight Will be Fine and here's a verse from it:
I choose the rooms that I live in with care
The windows are small and the walls almost bare.
There's only one bed and only one chair
And I listen all night for your step on the stair.
After that he goes on and on about how lovesick and crazy for this girl he is but, hey, he was a young man back then, what else are you going to sing about? I wanted to point out his description of a well decorated room: stripped to the essentials. It does my heart good to hear I am not alone on this. My wife always wants to put up pictures and frilly things over the curtains. I've seen the dreaded knickknack shelves full of collectible figurines. And I know everyone has their own style and it's not wrong. But I want to point out that one of the smartest men who ever lived agrees with me:
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." --Albert Einstein
He probably was talking about some physics problem and not how to best layout your bedroom, but he was so smart, it might just have been one of the great underlying principles of the universe, you never know.
I recently re-equipped Brian's bedroom for my own use now that he's in Utah for the next two years. There's a bed and a chair. We got the chair from Staples just last week. Along with the new desk and dresser, the room is a work of art. Small window and nothing on the walls but paint, just like the song says. After it was all done, I sat back and thought how wonderful it looked. So beautiful in its simplicity. A work of art even. That's when I thought of the song.
On the desk is a keyboard, mouse and a 24 inch screen. And nothing else. The stark simplicity seems to call out for me to sit down and do something. Fill this hard drive full of your photos, your stories, your programs and software. Write some software! Oddly enough, it made me think back to Leonard Cohen again. From his first book The Favourite Game. I don't have a copy anymore and it's not on Amazon for the Kindle so the quote is missing. But he talks about getting ready for the school year and the annual trip to the store to stock up on school supplies. He writes about all the notebooks so empty and aching to be filled with the business of living. About all the pencils and erasers who have not yet been put into service and are unfulfilled in their purpose.
Take a moment and enjoy Leonard's latest song from his new (now platinum!) album Old Ideas: Going Home
Sunday, April 1, 2012
The Double Nickel
Back in the 80's, in a symbolic effort to "conserve energy", President Jimmy Carter lowered the top speed limit on all federal highways to 55. It was an unpopular move and overtime it was undone but for a long time "55", the double nickel, was our national top speed everywhere in America.
My father, commenting on his own mortality, said he was fine with the double nickel. Once he'd raised his family and accomplished most of what he wanted professionally, he was ready for the reaper. And 55 is about the time that happens for most guys who marry in their twenties and have kids within a couple of years.
I'm still within plus or minus 3 mph of that top speed limit and I have to admit, I really understand what my father was trying to say. It's a transitional time for both me and My Darling Wife (MDW). The house is almost empty and our child rearing days, so exciting and full of activity and promise, are quickly concluding. So what's ahead? For me, work until I retire, grow old and die? For MDW, perhaps she'll re-enter the work force or just take an early retirement. I think she's still trying to decide. My Mom never went back to work but she was quite a homebody and found lots to do to keep herself busy at home.
At times like this it's great to have somebody to turn to. My Dad for example. He told me that thing about the double nickel many years after he'd turned 55. Well into his seventies. For a long time, he'd worked as the sales manager for a mining equipment manufacturer. In the last ten years of his working career, they moved him to a new manufacturing facility and made him the General Manager. Nice. After a stint there, he came back to his old job as the new General Manager and retired as the top executive. So he accomplished a lot in those last years after he'd hit 55. Even after retirement he had some secret plans and clever tricks to keep working and he started his own business. He ran it for three years before selling out to his partners and finally retiring for real.
During his retirement years, we'd visit every now and then and I noticed that the mean old bastard I'd grown up with had softened considerably. I don't know if years of being a father finally softened him, if it was his immense old age, or if being a grandfather was such a sweet, carefree gig, he could finally afford being a sweet old guy. Whenever I think about it, I usually conclude that he was really always that way and if I wasn't so busy being an ungrateful brat as a kid, I would have been able to appreciate him better. I hate those sort of self-accusing epiphanies but in all fairness, I think it a real possibility.
When MDW and I first married, we started our family almost immediately. Most couples wait a couple of years but we didn't. I always told her that eventually we'd have our empty nest years and we could be sweethearts without a care in the world then. The good news is I think that's actually working. We spent most of yesterday trying to build this new desk we got from Staples. It came in about 150 pieces and had an instruction book with 36 pages of illustrations on putting the dang thing together. It took most of the morning and afternoon but it gave the two of us something to do together and it was pretty fun. I still like her pretty well it seems. We just like each other, even when doing stupid things like assembling office furniture.
I think there's a difference between old love and new love. New love is exciting, exhilarating even. Old love is more like a Mother's hug: reassuring and comforting. New love is like music from a dramatic scene in a movie that rises and swells. Old love more like a pleasant melody that plays softly throughout the day. The new love that had been so full of promise has fulfilled all its promises and you have all those years of accomplishment and adventure together to look back on.
Another saying my Dad always told me was that life begins at 50. Even though he's dead and gone, his example and wisdom are still helping me through my days. Thanks, Dad! You old bastard!
My father, commenting on his own mortality, said he was fine with the double nickel. Once he'd raised his family and accomplished most of what he wanted professionally, he was ready for the reaper. And 55 is about the time that happens for most guys who marry in their twenties and have kids within a couple of years.
I'm still within plus or minus 3 mph of that top speed limit and I have to admit, I really understand what my father was trying to say. It's a transitional time for both me and My Darling Wife (MDW). The house is almost empty and our child rearing days, so exciting and full of activity and promise, are quickly concluding. So what's ahead? For me, work until I retire, grow old and die? For MDW, perhaps she'll re-enter the work force or just take an early retirement. I think she's still trying to decide. My Mom never went back to work but she was quite a homebody and found lots to do to keep herself busy at home.
At times like this it's great to have somebody to turn to. My Dad for example. He told me that thing about the double nickel many years after he'd turned 55. Well into his seventies. For a long time, he'd worked as the sales manager for a mining equipment manufacturer. In the last ten years of his working career, they moved him to a new manufacturing facility and made him the General Manager. Nice. After a stint there, he came back to his old job as the new General Manager and retired as the top executive. So he accomplished a lot in those last years after he'd hit 55. Even after retirement he had some secret plans and clever tricks to keep working and he started his own business. He ran it for three years before selling out to his partners and finally retiring for real.
During his retirement years, we'd visit every now and then and I noticed that the mean old bastard I'd grown up with had softened considerably. I don't know if years of being a father finally softened him, if it was his immense old age, or if being a grandfather was such a sweet, carefree gig, he could finally afford being a sweet old guy. Whenever I think about it, I usually conclude that he was really always that way and if I wasn't so busy being an ungrateful brat as a kid, I would have been able to appreciate him better. I hate those sort of self-accusing epiphanies but in all fairness, I think it a real possibility.
When MDW and I first married, we started our family almost immediately. Most couples wait a couple of years but we didn't. I always told her that eventually we'd have our empty nest years and we could be sweethearts without a care in the world then. The good news is I think that's actually working. We spent most of yesterday trying to build this new desk we got from Staples. It came in about 150 pieces and had an instruction book with 36 pages of illustrations on putting the dang thing together. It took most of the morning and afternoon but it gave the two of us something to do together and it was pretty fun. I still like her pretty well it seems. We just like each other, even when doing stupid things like assembling office furniture.
I think there's a difference between old love and new love. New love is exciting, exhilarating even. Old love is more like a Mother's hug: reassuring and comforting. New love is like music from a dramatic scene in a movie that rises and swells. Old love more like a pleasant melody that plays softly throughout the day. The new love that had been so full of promise has fulfilled all its promises and you have all those years of accomplishment and adventure together to look back on.
Another saying my Dad always told me was that life begins at 50. Even though he's dead and gone, his example and wisdom are still helping me through my days. Thanks, Dad! You old bastard!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)