http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/gop-politicians-defend-39-duck-dynasty-39-star-184932178--abc-news-politics.html
So, Phil from "Duck Dynasty" stated his personal beliefs to a national magazine. Should the magazine have censored his comments, as they were possibly hurtful and damaging to his career? Did it benefit the magazine to ask questions that led him to make comments that were seen as crude and destructive? Who is responsible for his words? In this society, a free society, with freedom of speech and freedom of the press, Phil solely is responsible for his comments. What he says in an interview to the press is his responsibility. Once it is out of his mouth, the magazine has a duty to its own profits to print what might catch attention, regardless of the consequences to Phil and his own income source. No one would disagree with that.
Phil is entitled to his opinion. If this is how he feels, no one thinks they can truly change his heart. But, as a public figure, his words have power. When he makes a comment like what he did, comparing homosexuality to bestiality and multiple partners, his words carry more weight. If he said this in his church, a bar with his friends, or in his own home (without cameras rolling) he has every right to speak his mind. Unfortunately, when his thoughts become public, he is responsible for them. Again, no one attempted to censor him. No one has tried to block the publication of his words. What he said is inflammatory because we are in a time of change, and the nation is trying to find a way forward. The past is easy to go back to, because we know where we came from.
This issue is being framed as an attack on religion and on free speech, both protected in the Constitution. The only problem with this line of attack is that the Constitution was designed to protect individuals (through incorporation) and states (originally the purpose of the Bill of Rights) from federal intrusion in these areas. As an individual I am allowed to say what I choose without the government acting against me. I cannot, however, criticize another man without the threat of him acting against me. If I criticize my boss, he has the right to punish me. As a student, freedom of speech is limited somewhat. Students cannot cuss or disparage other students. There are numerous examples of freedom of speech carried out. But, it can only be protection from a public (government entity) punishing an individual or group. The government is not stepping in to restrict the thoughts or words of either Phil or other conservatives that may find comfort in his words. The government has remained silent on this. While private organizations (A + E is a private company) have spoken out about their disagreement with his words, GQ, A+E, GLAD, and the NAACP are all private organizations, and have as much right to publicly criticize his views, both public comments and religious views, as he does to criticize others. Ultimately the buyers money will decide who is right in this. It is not the choice of a few to misuse the Constitution to their own personal benefit.
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana governor, has expressed his dissatisfaction with the controversy by comparing it to Miley Cyrus. No one has censored Miley Cyrus, he argues, but they have a religious man like Phil. Miley Cyrus does not have a long term contract with a television company. She (I assume) has a contract with a recording company. That company found her performance at the VMAs beneficial financially to themselves. There was a lot of public outcry both from the mainstream media, the left and the right about Miley Cyrus' performance. But, record sales stayed high. In the case of Phil, there was outcry from many sources for his comments. The company that holds his contract (A+E) felt they wanted to distance themselves from this controversy. They chose to suspend his contract, and they had the contractual right to do so. If Miley were still working for Disney, presumably they would do the same. Miley was just working for a company that allowed greater latitude. That is the difference. This is and never was an issue of the First Amendment, and freedoms from government intrusion. It is the freedom of companies to choose what is in their own self interest. Please don't muddy the waters.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Friday, November 8, 2013
Like a breath of fresh air. . .
Having worked in both public and private schools, I can see their is so much more than just the basic argument of cost that is so often made. Private school tuition for a high school is approximately $8000 in the area. The prices go up, but rarely lower than that. Public schools report spending approximately $12,000 per student. So why does it cost so much more at a public school? Are private schools just that much better? Let's break down some of the variables that account for the differences. This is completely anecdotal, but I hope to show how the simplistic arguments can be deconstructed.
--- Typically, private school teachers are paid less than public school teachers. They trade uniforms, conformity, and the ability to kick out students that don't conform (a little discussed secret) out of the school. The pay tends to be a 20 to 30% difference. That is a huge tradeoff. To help offset it, often there is a discount for the children of teachers to go to the school.
--- Private schools tend to ask a lot of their teachers, giving extra assignments (extra teaching loads), coaching duties, and different assignments. The compensation will not be equal to a public school teacher, but the sense of commitment will be used to guilt. In public schools, a union restricts the work hours, work load, and assignments.
--- Public schools service everyone. EVERYONE. Documented or undocumented. All students in a district are served. Whether you have money or don't, public schools provide opportunities. Whether you have special needs or you are an over achiever, public schools serve you. Private schools are able to pick students, refuse others, and can ask any student to leave. Offenses leading to expulsion may be drugs, fighting, language, disrespect, or just non-compliance. It doesn't take a lot to be removed from a private school. Public schools don't have that luxury. They must handle every student, regardless of the home situation, the stressors, the choices families make. Bruised, angry children, from broken homes, lashing out at a system that they feel has failed them are beside students from picture perfect homes. Both deserve an education, and only public education commits fully to caring for them.
--- Special education has never been a priority for private schools. The cost is too high, and the law has not mandated them to do anything. Public schools, on the other hand, have a legal obligation. Special education teachers are often overloaded, and work diligently to care for those most vulnerable in our society. But, because of their special situation, they often act as a second teacher in a classroom, or deal with fewer students. Often, public schools bring in aides to help out students with extra needs. All of this drives up the cost of education, and is unique to the public sector. A private student with a Individualized Education Plan is by law required to be transported to a public school by the public school for anything that the private school can not offer.
--- Public schools have social workers, Student Resource Officers, and numerous people to help bridge the growing gap between the haves and the have nots in society, and the children caught in the middle. This is just good business, but again, drives up the price.
--- Technology is better in public schools, usually, and the variety of programs offered (at a loss) is much greater. Technology classes, real world skills, vocational technologies, etc. are offered at public schools, but are not at private schools. Most private schools call themselves college prep, and have no courses in vocational technologies. The cost is too high. But, not all of our students are college bound. Some have skills and interests that aren't college specific.
Enough of a rant. Understand that my descriptions were large, and wide. They won't fit every situation, but they are for the most part accurate. Both school systems have a purpose. But the argument is not as simple as private does it better. They do a lot of fundraising, a lot of cherry picking, and a lot of demanding. Teaching has never been about the money for teachers. Don't reduce education down to a simple argument over money. It is so much more complex.
--- Typically, private school teachers are paid less than public school teachers. They trade uniforms, conformity, and the ability to kick out students that don't conform (a little discussed secret) out of the school. The pay tends to be a 20 to 30% difference. That is a huge tradeoff. To help offset it, often there is a discount for the children of teachers to go to the school.
--- Private schools tend to ask a lot of their teachers, giving extra assignments (extra teaching loads), coaching duties, and different assignments. The compensation will not be equal to a public school teacher, but the sense of commitment will be used to guilt. In public schools, a union restricts the work hours, work load, and assignments.
--- Public schools service everyone. EVERYONE. Documented or undocumented. All students in a district are served. Whether you have money or don't, public schools provide opportunities. Whether you have special needs or you are an over achiever, public schools serve you. Private schools are able to pick students, refuse others, and can ask any student to leave. Offenses leading to expulsion may be drugs, fighting, language, disrespect, or just non-compliance. It doesn't take a lot to be removed from a private school. Public schools don't have that luxury. They must handle every student, regardless of the home situation, the stressors, the choices families make. Bruised, angry children, from broken homes, lashing out at a system that they feel has failed them are beside students from picture perfect homes. Both deserve an education, and only public education commits fully to caring for them.
--- Special education has never been a priority for private schools. The cost is too high, and the law has not mandated them to do anything. Public schools, on the other hand, have a legal obligation. Special education teachers are often overloaded, and work diligently to care for those most vulnerable in our society. But, because of their special situation, they often act as a second teacher in a classroom, or deal with fewer students. Often, public schools bring in aides to help out students with extra needs. All of this drives up the cost of education, and is unique to the public sector. A private student with a Individualized Education Plan is by law required to be transported to a public school by the public school for anything that the private school can not offer.
--- Public schools have social workers, Student Resource Officers, and numerous people to help bridge the growing gap between the haves and the have nots in society, and the children caught in the middle. This is just good business, but again, drives up the price.
--- Technology is better in public schools, usually, and the variety of programs offered (at a loss) is much greater. Technology classes, real world skills, vocational technologies, etc. are offered at public schools, but are not at private schools. Most private schools call themselves college prep, and have no courses in vocational technologies. The cost is too high. But, not all of our students are college bound. Some have skills and interests that aren't college specific.
Enough of a rant. Understand that my descriptions were large, and wide. They won't fit every situation, but they are for the most part accurate. Both school systems have a purpose. But the argument is not as simple as private does it better. They do a lot of fundraising, a lot of cherry picking, and a lot of demanding. Teaching has never been about the money for teachers. Don't reduce education down to a simple argument over money. It is so much more complex.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Freedom Riders, PBS
Wow, I forgot this was coming on. What a great documentary. So powerful. The Civil Rights Movement could only gain that much steam with the power of cameras and television. Unfortunately, I missed parts, so I'll have to come back and watch it online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/freedomriders/watch
Here are some key points that caught my attention:
1. There is a segment where the story of the Riders is broadcast in the Communist Bloc. This is intriguing, because it put the abstract ideals America stands for in stark contrast a concrete reality shown to the world. That was a Cold War blow, and it is often something overlooked.
2. The prison system where the riders were sentenced, and the labor they were pressed in to for their challenging the system. Wow. The chain gang is an interesting experience.
3. Robert F. Kennedy (Archival):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/freedomriders/watch
Here are some key points that caught my attention:
1. There is a segment where the story of the Riders is broadcast in the Communist Bloc. This is intriguing, because it put the abstract ideals America stands for in stark contrast a concrete reality shown to the world. That was a Cold War blow, and it is often something overlooked.
2. The prison system where the riders were sentenced, and the labor they were pressed in to for their challenging the system. Wow. The chain gang is an interesting experience.
3. Robert F. Kennedy (Archival):
"A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all. Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right as well as reality." -- Wow. I am called to act. How do I act like I didn't hear this?
I am curious what others thought of the show.
Does Prison Socialize?
I came across this today, and it reminded me of the movie Shawshank Redemption, which was actually written as a novella by Stephen King originally. The scene I am thinking of is with the older man, I don't remember is name. He asks to use the restroom. The employer looks at him as if he is a fool. But, his entire adult life, that is exactly what he has done. He doesn't know how to live without the direction of the guards. He has been resocialized, or institutionalized. I experienced a similar effect when I came home from Basic Training. I missed the routine, the lack of decisions (I almost wrote choices), and the lack of responsibility. It was like a vacation in some respects. Anyway, it can be overwhelming to reenter life, and its complexities when you have been out of it for so long. The following article is about a man who sought to go back to prison.
CHICAGO (AP) — After spending
most of his adult life behind bars, 73-year-old Walter Unbehaun decided to rob another
bank in hopes of getting caught. He felt more comfortable in prison, court
documents allege, and wanted to spend his final years there.
So the balding, gray-haired South Carolina man leaned on a cane as he walked into a bank in suburban Chicago over the weekend and used a novel stickup line: He had just six months to live, so he had nothing left to lose, according to a federal complaint citing his post-arrest interrogation.
Unbehaun also allegedly lifted his coat to
show a teller a silver revolver shoved into his waistband.
Investigators say Unbehaun, of Rock Hill,
S.C., walked out of the Harris Bank in Niles on Saturday with $4,178
in his pockets. He wore no disguises, so law enforcement quickly tracked him
down using surveillance-camera photos of him holding up the bank, the complaint
said.
When authorities stopped Unbehaun on Sunday outside a motel room where he was staying, he immediately threw down his cane and surrendered, saying he knew they were there because he robbed a bank the day before, according to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago.
Unbehaun told investigators hours after his arrest that he had spent most of his adult life in prison and "felt more comfortable in prison than out."
"He wanted to do something that would guarantee that he would spend the rest of his life in prison, and he knew that robbing a bank with a loaded gun would accomplish that," according to the complaint, signed by FBI agent Chad Piontek.
Contacted on Tuesday, Unbehaun's defense attorney, Richard McLeese, declined comment.
Unbehaun's most recent stint behind bars
ended in 2011, when he was released after serving 10 years for a 1998 bank robbery. His
Illinois record alone includes multiple other felonies dating back decades.
Unbehaun made an initial court appearance Monday in Chicago and was ordered to remain in jail pending further court procedures. No additional hearing dates were set.
If he is eventually convicted on the new bank robbery charge, he could be sent to prison for up to 20 years.
http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-elderly-ex-con-robbed-bank-hopes-prison-010514734.html
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Feminism (?) (!)
I have heard the word (feminist) or some derivation or pejorative (femi-nazi) banded about in the media or my social community for years, but really couldn't put my finger on it. Well, as my students are working on research projects around the end of the Victorian Era (and its influences in the United States) and the heart of the Progressive Era, I came across the term in our textbook. It dawned on my that the first wave of feminist came about with Margaret Sanger, Alice Paul, and the ladies of this era. In my Master's level Historiography and (oddly) a Foreign Policy course a few years back, the topic turned to the different waves of feminism in American history, and their use as a lens to study the era and aspects of influence.
Second Wave feminism comes about during the turbulent times of change in the 1960s and after. The push was to unite women the world over under a common agenda, and in rebellion to the 1950s conformity. Ok, fast forward. Third Wave feminism is, arguably of course, what we are in right now. Some wonder if we are not entering a fourth, but I don't understand it well enough to make that call, I can only report what I hear.
Now, to cross streams of thought. I am a huge fan of the singer Pink. I prefer strong, edgy girl singers. Oddly, I also adore Taylor Swift (its my inner Tween heart, looking for simple love). But, when I saw her latest video this past week, the video for "Try". Her words are always powerful, and speak to me of a batter heart. But, when I saw the beauty of her body (well toned and sculptured), the dance she and her partner do in the video, the simplicity of the background, and then compare that to the violence they perpetrate on each others bodies. It immediately took me back to Eminem's "Love the Way You Lie". Pink (and Eminem) have both spoken to abuse in relationships, of hurting (physically) their partners. Rihanna has been openly in an abusive relationship. When Eminem raps about abuse, it is a man writing of a masculine anger in a sense that many will recognize, and fits a traditional mold. When Pink speaks of fighting with her husband or a lover, you get the sense of an empowered woman who is strong enough to stand up for herself. But, this video made me wonder: Is this fourth wave feminism? Or is this third-wave continued, played out? When the first wave women are fighting for a declaration of marital rape, control of their own sexuality, and a voice, now what is the goal of feminism? Pink, Katy Perry, Madonna, Lady Gaga, Rihanna, etc, seem to have taken up the gauntlet for female sexuality, but are demanding more. It's complicated. They want to be left alone. They don't want to be a voice for feminism and equality in the traditional sense. They want to be judged on their own merits. They are open with their failures and back down to no man. So, are they 3rd or 4th? I don't know. . . . If it helps, compare first wavers in Iron Jawed Angels, second wavers with Janis Joplin in concert in 1970, and then Pink, as our latest (?) wave. I know, I just presumed that she is third wave. . .
Second Wave feminism comes about during the turbulent times of change in the 1960s and after. The push was to unite women the world over under a common agenda, and in rebellion to the 1950s conformity. Ok, fast forward. Third Wave feminism is, arguably of course, what we are in right now. Some wonder if we are not entering a fourth, but I don't understand it well enough to make that call, I can only report what I hear.
Now, to cross streams of thought. I am a huge fan of the singer Pink. I prefer strong, edgy girl singers. Oddly, I also adore Taylor Swift (its my inner Tween heart, looking for simple love). But, when I saw her latest video this past week, the video for "Try". Her words are always powerful, and speak to me of a batter heart. But, when I saw the beauty of her body (well toned and sculptured), the dance she and her partner do in the video, the simplicity of the background, and then compare that to the violence they perpetrate on each others bodies. It immediately took me back to Eminem's "Love the Way You Lie". Pink (and Eminem) have both spoken to abuse in relationships, of hurting (physically) their partners. Rihanna has been openly in an abusive relationship. When Eminem raps about abuse, it is a man writing of a masculine anger in a sense that many will recognize, and fits a traditional mold. When Pink speaks of fighting with her husband or a lover, you get the sense of an empowered woman who is strong enough to stand up for herself. But, this video made me wonder: Is this fourth wave feminism? Or is this third-wave continued, played out? When the first wave women are fighting for a declaration of marital rape, control of their own sexuality, and a voice, now what is the goal of feminism? Pink, Katy Perry, Madonna, Lady Gaga, Rihanna, etc, seem to have taken up the gauntlet for female sexuality, but are demanding more. It's complicated. They want to be left alone. They don't want to be a voice for feminism and equality in the traditional sense. They want to be judged on their own merits. They are open with their failures and back down to no man. So, are they 3rd or 4th? I don't know. . . . If it helps, compare first wavers in Iron Jawed Angels, second wavers with Janis Joplin in concert in 1970, and then Pink, as our latest (?) wave. I know, I just presumed that she is third wave. . .
Monday, January 28, 2013
"Is BET Reverse Racism?"
This is touchy and difficult question and concept. Racism is acting on a set of beliefs that based on the concept of race. So what is race? That is hard to explain, and becoming more fluid. Scholars are not sure they want to pin down the concept of race in 2013. It is an historical concept, but seems to have outlived its usefulness. Prejudice is common, and we all live with some form of it, regardless of were we come from. Acting on prejudice is a problem, and so it is best to be aware of ones prejudice and work to negate actions that may be based on that prejudice.
When prejudice becomes mainstream and moves in to the actions of institutions (companies, governments, schools, and any organization that has authority), if prejudice becomes embedded in the practice of this institution, the effects may be devastating. For example, women not being allowed to attempt to gain a place in combat roles in the military means that women will not advance beyond a basic level. If one is judged without being given a straight chance to prove their abilities, they are limited incredibly.
With this in mind, we come back to the question of black culture celebrated in television, magazines, and other cultural sources. Is there anything racist about BET? A television show that demonstrates black culture is seen as a threat to the hegemony of white culture. But why? Is it racist? No. By promoting only black culture, it is not committing a crime, nor is it really threatening to hold back any white actor. Is BET an entry point for white actors hoping to make it big, duly qualified, but unable to because the producers and execs at the channel don't find the actor to be dark enough? Not likely to happen. A celebration of a particular culture does not negate the pride other cultures should be allowed to feel about their own. The KKK is more than welcome to celebrate white culture and offer up scholarships for white children. There are white ethnic holidays (St. Patrick was not black, and neither were Lincoln and Washington, or Columbus, although he did speak Spanish).
So, what if we had a commercial on television dominated by white people? Would that offend anyone? What if we had a magazine full of white people? What if we went in to a store and all the pictures on the walls were white? Or just a vast majority, with a black person or Asian person tossed in to even it out, so it doesn't seem like a KKK convention? Would it surprise anyone that the KKK has a television channel? I just looked again, and although I won't post their link directly, it doesn't take a lot to google them. The following is from their television channel, a section for youth.
Andrew would like to talk to kids for a few minutes each week. He is proud to be a white Christian boy in America, but he knows that because of his minority status, the odds might be stacked against his people. Kids will enjoy hearing a few comments from Andrew as he warns them of things to watch out for because he cares!
The language attempts to mimic the voice of ethnic minorities in the American past who attempted to rally together without institutional power. Unfortunately, Andrew does have institutional power largely on his side, and the deck is not stacked against him. He just doesn't like to share.
So, no, BET is not reverse racism. Can a black person be prejudiced against whites? Yes. Also very likely is prejudice against a fellow black of a different shade, suprisingly. We are more complex in our dislikes than we are credited with being. The real question, when dealing with racism, should be who has the power to enforce their prejudice. You don't have to like me or what I write. As long as you are not in my classroom, you will never have to fear whether my prejudice is being used against you. That is truly the only realm where I have the power to use my prejudice. Lucky for those who are in my classroom, I am very aware of my prejudice, and work hard to keep it in check. We all live with prejudice. The key is learning to balance your feeling with your reality. To take a deep breath, walk up to your prejudice, put your hand out, take a risk, and pull the mask of the boogey man off. Ultimately, if we truly believe in a just God, we believe that humans by nature are good. So, don't be so afraid of them. Don't look for the worst in people. Instead, until you get burned personally, treat me as a human being. Give me a chance to disappoint you.
When prejudice becomes mainstream and moves in to the actions of institutions (companies, governments, schools, and any organization that has authority), if prejudice becomes embedded in the practice of this institution, the effects may be devastating. For example, women not being allowed to attempt to gain a place in combat roles in the military means that women will not advance beyond a basic level. If one is judged without being given a straight chance to prove their abilities, they are limited incredibly.
With this in mind, we come back to the question of black culture celebrated in television, magazines, and other cultural sources. Is there anything racist about BET? A television show that demonstrates black culture is seen as a threat to the hegemony of white culture. But why? Is it racist? No. By promoting only black culture, it is not committing a crime, nor is it really threatening to hold back any white actor. Is BET an entry point for white actors hoping to make it big, duly qualified, but unable to because the producers and execs at the channel don't find the actor to be dark enough? Not likely to happen. A celebration of a particular culture does not negate the pride other cultures should be allowed to feel about their own. The KKK is more than welcome to celebrate white culture and offer up scholarships for white children. There are white ethnic holidays (St. Patrick was not black, and neither were Lincoln and Washington, or Columbus, although he did speak Spanish).
So, what if we had a commercial on television dominated by white people? Would that offend anyone? What if we had a magazine full of white people? What if we went in to a store and all the pictures on the walls were white? Or just a vast majority, with a black person or Asian person tossed in to even it out, so it doesn't seem like a KKK convention? Would it surprise anyone that the KKK has a television channel? I just looked again, and although I won't post their link directly, it doesn't take a lot to google them. The following is from their television channel, a section for youth.
Andrew would like to talk to kids for a few minutes each week. He is proud to be a white Christian boy in America, but he knows that because of his minority status, the odds might be stacked against his people. Kids will enjoy hearing a few comments from Andrew as he warns them of things to watch out for because he cares!
The language attempts to mimic the voice of ethnic minorities in the American past who attempted to rally together without institutional power. Unfortunately, Andrew does have institutional power largely on his side, and the deck is not stacked against him. He just doesn't like to share.
So, no, BET is not reverse racism. Can a black person be prejudiced against whites? Yes. Also very likely is prejudice against a fellow black of a different shade, suprisingly. We are more complex in our dislikes than we are credited with being. The real question, when dealing with racism, should be who has the power to enforce their prejudice. You don't have to like me or what I write. As long as you are not in my classroom, you will never have to fear whether my prejudice is being used against you. That is truly the only realm where I have the power to use my prejudice. Lucky for those who are in my classroom, I am very aware of my prejudice, and work hard to keep it in check. We all live with prejudice. The key is learning to balance your feeling with your reality. To take a deep breath, walk up to your prejudice, put your hand out, take a risk, and pull the mask of the boogey man off. Ultimately, if we truly believe in a just God, we believe that humans by nature are good. So, don't be so afraid of them. Don't look for the worst in people. Instead, until you get burned personally, treat me as a human being. Give me a chance to disappoint you.
"You're Amazing. . . "
Today was a good day. . . I feel worn down, tired, and a tad bit angry. And, as I think back about my day, I try to put my finger on why. . . Too often, we believe the negative easily, and the positive we brush off. We spoke today in Sociology about "positive" versus "negative sanctions". We are easily swayed by negativity. As I look back over my day, I realize how much I have to be happy about, and it boosts my spirits. I need to do this more often. So, here is my positive list for the day:
Got to go to First Watch friday with friends for a department meeting.
Jerry is coming on Thursday to revamp the old kitchen, so I don't have to do it.
70 degree weather when I get home, and the kids out running in it.
Try the software for Air Server, and it worked as described.
Kicked butt teaching Progressivism today.
Set up a teleconference about online learning and textbooks.
Received a $14 rebate debit card in the mail.
Fixed the stroller my wife busted, and expected to be busted for good. In seconds.
Made my kids a play bow to hunt for dinner with.
In the words of Ice Cube, "Today was a good day". Remember the positive when the world comes crashing down. You are great, and you make a difference. Thanks for reading this.
Got to go to First Watch friday with friends for a department meeting.
Jerry is coming on Thursday to revamp the old kitchen, so I don't have to do it.
70 degree weather when I get home, and the kids out running in it.
Try the software for Air Server, and it worked as described.
Kicked butt teaching Progressivism today.
Set up a teleconference about online learning and textbooks.
Received a $14 rebate debit card in the mail.
Fixed the stroller my wife busted, and expected to be busted for good. In seconds.
Made my kids a play bow to hunt for dinner with.
In the words of Ice Cube, "Today was a good day". Remember the positive when the world comes crashing down. You are great, and you make a difference. Thanks for reading this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)