DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Global Collapse
HTML https://globalcollapse.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1217--------------------------------------------------
Cultural Errat
By: RE Date: October 11, 2021, 4:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Superman is BISEXUAL!!!
HTML https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/new-superman-bisexual-dc-comics-issue
Is he Top or Bottom?
RE
#Post#: 1245--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cultural Errat
By: Digwe Must Date: October 13, 2021, 2:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, I don't know where the hell to put this. I think it is
tangentially relevant to a couple of different ongoing topics -
so one of the wizards can certainly move it wherever you think
it might do the most good - if you find it interesting. If not
- forget I said anything. My wife always does.
I had to copy the article or you couldn't read it without a
subscription. Near the end it references a survey that shows a
phenomenal number of Americans who want to break up the union.
Some interesting stuff about "epistemic hubris".
The New York Times October 6, 2021
HTML https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/opinion/trump-voters-2020-election.html
Trump True Believers Have Their Reasons
By Thomas B. Edsall
Just who believes the claim that Donald Trump won in 2020 and
that the election was stolen from him? Who are these tens of
millions of Americans, and what draws them into this web of
delusion?
Three sources provided The Times with survey data: the
University of Massachusetts-Amherst Poll, P.R.R.I. (the Public
Religion Research Institute) and Reuters-Ipsos. With minor
exceptions, the data from all three polls is similar.
Alexander Theodoridis, a political scientist at the University
of Massachusetts, summed it up:
About 35 percent of Americans believed in April that Biden’s
victory was illegitimate, with another 6 percent saying they are
not sure. What can we say about the Americans who do not think
Biden’s victory was legitimate? Compared to the overall
voting-age population, they are disproportionately white,
Republican, older, less educated, more conservative and more
religious (particularly more Protestant and more likely to
describe themselves as born again).
P.R.R.I. also tested agreement or disagreement with a view that
drives replacement theory — “Immigrants are invading our country
and replacing our cultural and ethnic background” — and found
that 60 percent of Republicans agreed, as do 55 percent of
conservatives.
The Reuters/Ipsos data showed that among white Republicans,
those without college degrees were far more likely to agree
“that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump,” at 69
percent, than white Republicans with college degrees, at a still
astonishing 51 percent. The same survey data showed that the
level of this belief remained consistently strong (over 60
percent) among Republicans of all ages living in rural, suburban
or urban areas.
With that data in mind, let’s explore some of the forces guiding
these developments.
In their September 2021 paper “Exposure to Authoritarian Values
Leads to Lower Positive Affect, Higher Negative Affect, and
Higher Meaning in Life,” seven scholars — Jake Womick, John
Eckelkamp, Sam Luzzo, Sarah J. Ward, S. Glenn Baker, Alison
Salamun and Laura A. King — write:
Right-wing authoritarianism played a significant role in the
2016 U.S. presidential election. In subsequent years, there have
been numerous “alt-right” demonstrations in the U.S., including
the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville that
culminated in a fatal car attack, and the 2021 Capitol
Insurrection. In the U.S., between 2016 and 2017 the number of
attacks by right-wing organizations quadrupled, outnumbering
attacks by Islamic extremist groups, constituting 66 percent of
all attacks and plots in the U.S. in 2019 and over 90 percent in
2020.
How does authoritarianism relate to immigration? Womick provided
some insight in an email:
Social dominance orientation is a variable that refers to the
preference for society to be structured by group-based
hierarchies. It’s comprised of two components: group-based
dominance and anti-egalitarianism. Group-based dominance refers
to the preference for these hierarchies and the use of
force/aggression to maintain them. Anti-egalitarianism refers to
maintaining these sorts of hierarchies through other means, such
as through systems, legislation, etc.
Womick notes that his own study of the 2016 primaries showed
that Trump voters were unique compared to supporters of other
Republicans in the strength of their
group-based dominance. I think group-based dominance as the
distinguishing factor of this group is highly consistent with
what happened at the Capitol. These individuals likely felt that
the Trump administration was serving to maintain group-based
hierarchies in society from which they felt they benefited. They
may have perceived the 2020 election outcome as a threat to that
structure. As a result, they turned to aggression in an attempt
to affect our political structures in service of the maintenance
of those group-based hierarchies.
In their paper, Womick and his co-authors ask:
What explains the appeal of authoritarian values? What problem
do these values solve for the people who embrace them? The
presentation of authoritarian values must have a positive
influence on something that is valuable to people.
Their answer is twofold:
Authoritarian messages influence people on two separable levels,
the affective level, lowering positive and enhancing negative
affect. and the existential level, enhancing meaning in life.
They describe negative affect as “feeling sad, worried or
enraged.” Definitions of “meaning in life,” they write,
include at least three components: significance, the feeling
that one’s life and contributions matter to society; purpose,
having one’s life driven by the pursuit of valued goals; and
coherence or comprehensibility, the perception that one’s life
makes sense.
In a separate paper, “The Existential Function of
Right‐Wing Authoritarianism,” Womick, Ward and King,
joined by Samantha J. Heintzelman and Brendon Woody, provide
more detail:
It may seem ironic that authoritarianism, a belief system that
entails sacrifice of personal freedom to a strong leader, would
influence the experience of meaning in life through its
promotion of feelings of personal significance. Yet right-wing
authoritarianism does provide a person with a place in the
world, as a loyal follower of a strong leader. In addition,
compared to purpose and coherence, knowing with great certainty
that one’s life has mattered in a lasting way may be
challenging. Handing this challenge over to a strong leader and
investment in societal conventions might allow a person to gain
a sense of symbolic or vicarious significance.
From another vantage point, Womick and his co-authors continue,
perceptions of insignificance may lead individuals to endorse
relatively extreme beliefs, such as authoritarianism, and to
follow authoritarian leaders as a way to gain a sense that their
lives and their contributions matter.
In the authors’ view, right-wing authoritarianism,
despite its negative social implications, serves an existential
meaning function. This existential function is primarily about
facilitating the sense that one’s life matters. This existential
buffering function is primarily about allowing individuals to
maintain a sense that they matter during difficult experiences.
In his email, Womick expanded on his work: “The idea is that
perceptions of insignificance can drive a process of seeking out
groups, endorsing their ideologies and engaging in behaviors
consistent with these.”
These ideologies, Womick continued,
should eventually promote a sense of significance (as
insignificance is what drove the person to endorse the ideology
in the first place). Endorsing right-wing authoritarianism
relates to higher meaning in life, and exposing people to
authoritarian values causally enhances meaning.
In “Race and Authoritarianism in American Politics,” Christopher
Sebastian Parker and Christopher C. Towler, political scientists
at the University of Washington and Sacramento State, make a
parallel argument:
Confining the definition of authoritarianism to regime rule,
however, leaves little room for a discussion of more
contemporary authoritarianism at the micro level. This review
shifts focus to an assessment of political psychology’s concept
of authoritarianism and how it ultimately drives racism.
Ultimately, we believe a tangible connection exists between
racism and authoritarianism.
Taking a distinct but complementary approach, David C. Barker,
Morgan Marietta and Ryan DeTamble, all political scientists,
argue in “Intellectualism, Anti-Intellectualism, and Epistemic
Hubris in Red and Blue America” that epistemic hubris — the
expression of unwarranted factual certitude — is prevalent,
bipartisan and associated with both intellectualism (an identity
marked by ruminative habits and learning for its own sake) and
anti-intellectualism (negative affect toward intellectuals and
the intellectual establishment).
The division between intellectualism and anti-intellectualism,
they write, is distinctly partisan: intellectuals are
disproportionately Democratic, whereas anti-intellectuals are
disproportionately Republican. By implication, we suggest that
both the intellectualism of blue America and the
anti-intellectualism of red America contribute to the
intemperance and intransigence that characterize civil society
in the United States.
In addition, according to Barker, Marietta and DeTamble, “The
growing intellectualism of blue America and anti-intellectualism
of red America, respectively, may partially explain the tendency
by both to view the other as some blend of dense, duped and
dishonest.”
In an email, Marietta wrote:
The evidence is clear that the hubris driven by intellectual
identity and the hubris driven by anti-intellectual affect lower
our willingness to compromise with those who seem to lack
character and honesty. I suspect the divide in perceptions, but
unanimity in hubris, feeds the growing belief that democracy is
failing and hence anti-democratic or illiberal policies are
justified.
Marietta reports that he and his colleagues
conducted a series of experiments to see what happens when
ordinary citizens are faced with others who hold contrary
perceptions of reality about things like climate change or
racism or the effects of immigration. The results are not
pretty.
Once they realize that the perceptions of other people are
“different from their own,” Marietta continued,
Americans are far less likely to want to be around them in the
workplace and are far more likely to conclude that they are
stupid or dishonest. These inclinations are symmetrical, with
liberals rejecting conservatives as much (or sometimes more)
than conservatives reject liberals. The disdain born of
intellectual identity seems to mirror the disdain arising from
anti-intellectual affect.
I asked Barker about the role of hubris in contemporary
polarization, and he wrote back:
The populist right hates the intellectual left because they hate
being condescended to, they hate what they perceive as their
hypersensitivity and they hate what they view as an
anti-American level of femininity (which is for whatever reason
associated with intellectualism).
At the same time, Barker continued, the intellectual left really
does see the G.O.P. as a bunch of deplorable rubes. They
absolutely feel superior to them, and they reveal it constantly
on Twitter and elsewhere — further riling up the “deplorables.”
Put another way. Barker wrote,
The populist/anti-intellectual right absolutely believe that the
intellectuals are not only out of touch but are also ungodly and
sneaky and therefore think they must be stopped before they ruin
America. Meanwhile, the intellectual left really do believe the
Trumpers are racist, sexist, homophobic (and so on)
authoritarians who can’t spell and are going to destroy the
country if they are not stopped.
What is a critical factor in the development of hubris? Moral
conviction, the authors reply:
“The most morally committed citizens are also the most
epistemically hubristic citizens”; that is, they are most
inclined “to express absolute certainty regarding the truth or
falsehood” of claims “for which the hard evidence is unclear or
contradictory.”
Moral conviction plays a key role in the work of Clifford
Workman, a postdoctoral fellow at the Penn Center for
Neuroaesthetics at the University of Pennsylvania. Workman,
Keith J. Yoder and Jean Decety, write in “The Dark Side of
Morality — Neural Mechanisms Underpinning Moral Convictions and
Support for Violence” that “people are motivated by shared
social values that, when held with moral conviction, can serve
as compelling mandates capable of facilitating support for
ideological violence.”
Using M.R.I. brain scans, the authors “examined this dark side
of morality by identifying specific cognitive and neural
mechanisms associated with beliefs about the appropriateness of
sociopolitical violence” to determine “the extent to which the
engagement of these mechanisms was predicted by moral
convictions.”
Their conclusion: “Moral conviction about sociopolitical issues
serves to increase their subjective value, overriding natural
aversion to interpersonal harm.”
In a striking passage, Workman, Yoder and Decety argue:
While violence is often described as antithetical to sociality,
it can be motivated by moral values with the ultimate goal of
regulating social relationships. In fact, most violence in the
world appears to be rooted in conflict between moral values.
Across cultures and history, violence has been used with the
intention to sustain order and can be expressed in war, torture,
genocide and homicide.
What, then, Workman and his co-authors ask, “separates accepting
‘deserved’ vigilantism from others and justifying any behavior —
rioting, warfare — as means to morally desirable ends?”
Their answer is disconcerting:
People who bomb family-planning clinics and those who violently
oppose war (e.g., the Weathermen’s protests of the Vietnam War)
may have different sociopolitical ideologies, but both are
motivated by deep moral convictions.
The authors propose two theories to account for this:
Moral conviction may function by altering the decision-making
calculus through the subordination of social prohibitions
against violence, thereby requiring less top-down inhibition.
This hypothesis holds that moral conviction facilitates support
for ideological violence by increasing commitments to a “greater
good” even at the expense of others. An alternative hypothesis
is that moral conviction increases the subjective value of
certain actions, where violence in service of those convictions
is underpinned by judgments about one’s moral responsibilities
to sociopolitical causes.
In a 2018 paper, “A Multilevel Social Neuroscience Perspective
on Radicalization and Terrorism,” Decety, Workman and Robert
Pape ask, “Why are some people capable of sympathizing with
and/or committing acts of political violence, such as attacks
aimed at innocent targets?”
For starters, they note:
Disturbing as it may be, individuals who become radicalized and
involve themselves with terrorist organizations are, by and
large, ordinary people. These individuals have typically
functioning brains; they are not mad but are fanatics. Most are
not psychopaths and, with the exception of lone wolf terrorists,
are not especially likely to have psychiatric diagnoses.
Instead, Decety, Pape and Workman contend:
People who are otherwise psychologically typical may develop
values and strong emotional ties to narratives and causes and
become radicalized. Many individuals who sympathize with and
even join terrorist organizations are educated and seemingly
rational.
This immediately raises another question: “Are there
characteristics that distinguish individuals who merely hold
extreme views from those who act on those views by engaging in
ideologically motivated violence?”
Decety, Pape and Workman cite a range of findings:
From political psychology:
Individuals who are cognitively inflexible and intolerant of
ambiguity may become captive audiences for ideological,
political or religious extremists whose simplistic worldviews
gloss over nuance. Indeed, cognitive inflexibility has been
positively associated with authoritarian aggression, racism and
ethnocentrism.
From neuroscience:
The radicalism dimension, which included items such as “People
should use violence to pursue political goals,” was related to
increased activation of the ventral striatum and posterior
cingulate.
From the study of moral values:
Violations of sacred, moral values may trigger disgust and/or
anger responses that may set the stage for ideologically
motivated violence.
The tools of political science, neuroscience, evolutionary
theory, psychology, cognitive science and sociology are all
necessary to understand the ongoing upheaval in politics — not
just in America but globally.
On Sept. 30, for example, the University of Virginia Center for
Politics and Project Home Fire released a survey showing
unexpectedly large percentages of voters agreeing with this
statement: “The situation in America is such that I would favor
states seceding from the union to form their own separate
country.”
Among Trump voters, 52 percent agreed, with 25 percent in strong
agreement; among Biden voters, 41 percent agreed, 18 percent
strongly.
There are credible reasons to find this alarming.
By Thomas B. Edsall
Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C., on
politics, demographics and inequality.
=============================================
#Post#: 1341--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cultural Errat
By: K-Dog Date: October 20, 2021, 7:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This looks like a good place for these:
HTML https://youtu.be/jtTr8k6sh78
HTML https://youtu.be/t74YeWd2SOs
I agree with the fucked -up electronic meat monkey brain riding
the back of a tiger comparison.
COVID denialism which Rebecca talks about in the first video
makes it crystal clear. People are walking around with
unlicensed brains.
#Post#: 1343--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cultural Errat
By: RE Date: October 20, 2021, 9:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=73.msg1341#msg1341
date=1634777445]
I agree with the **** -up electronic meat monkey brain riding
the back of a tiger comparison.
COVID denialism which Rebecca talks about in the first video
makes it crystal clear. People are walking around with
unlicensed brains.
[/quote]
I think you need to go back to why about ALL cultures, civilized
or not believe in a God or Gods. It's because Homo Saps always
look for an explanation for everything, including things which
are unexplainable.
How did life begin? WHY did life begin? What is the purpose of
living? What came before the Big Bang? Where did the stuff
that went Bang come from? Why does time only move forward? Why
is the Speed of Light fixed at 186,000 mps? Why are so many
people Jackasses?
Science purports to answer many questions, but is really bad at
answering philosophical questions people are actually concerned
about. God fills in the gap for anything you cannot explain
otherwise.
Since the invention of writing, stories passed down orally from
the dawn of sentience were codified and written into books,
notably here the Bible's Old Testament being one of the first,
if not the first. If you go back just a couple of hundred years
before radio and television, reading stories out of the Bible
was the only nightly entertainment for the family. They could
only afford one book, books were expensive. Church is like a
big book club, where everyone meets on Sunday to discuss the one
book everyone owns.
It's really only since radio and television that Atheism has
become popular at all. With that, people learned about other
religions besides their own, discovering differences and flaws
in all of them. Which one to believe, which one is true? Some
people believe none are true, we call them Atheists. Or
sometime Agnostic if they won't commit one way or the other and
sit the fence saying they don't know.
The easiest thing to do is to simply accept the explanations of
the religion you grew up with. That is what most people do.
Most people don't have time or energy to ponder on philosophical
questions. They are too busy worrying about how to pay the
bills.
RE
#Post#: 1344--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cultural Errat
By: K-Dog Date: October 21, 2021, 12:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]If you go back just a couple of hundred years before
radio and television, reading stories out of the Bible was the
only nightly entertainment for the family. They could only
afford one book, books were expensive. Church is like a big
book club, where everyone meets on Sunday to discuss the one
book everyone owns.[/quote]
I was 12 years old and could not hang with god smiting a whole
town because of a few bad apples. God no better than the
schoolyard bully. God's **** up. I crawled under a table and
would not come out.
Would I have had the same feelings if I was born into a 15th
century village. Certainly not. By 15 I'd be doing my share of
smiting. No problemo.
But overall the situation has degraded. Ignorance is less, but
this happiness is canceled by how much more there is to be
ignorant about. More than cancelled. The sea of potential
ignorance is vast. Basic rules about how the world works are
confused in a new tower of Babel. Technology has abstracted
everyone from reality.
Human knowledge is working out the same way the reindeer on
Mathews Island worked out.
[img
width=300]
HTML https://www.adn.com/resizer/-TCElaO19_05Tpiili9WaLBNOO8=/1440x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-adn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/55D2XDUL2ZFBVGBDS4HP3AS4FU[/img]
There are no reindeer there now. And we are at peak data.
#Post#: 1345--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cultural Errat
By: RE Date: October 21, 2021, 3:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, here we are concerned with Ignorance rather than the
Existence of God. Because many Theists are Ignorant does not
mean many Atheists are not Ignorant. Many Atheists are firm
believers that Science can answer all questions, and thus will
find a solution to the current Shytstorm we are immersed in. If
you polled Atheists, you probably would find Anti-Vaxxers among
them. Maybe for different reasons than the Theists, but still
against getting Vaxxed, especially forced vaxxing. Does not
getting vaxxed automatically make you stupid?
To try to tie Ignorance to the Existence or non-Existence of
God, you have to ask the questions: If God Exists, why did he
make most people Stupid? If God does not Exist, why did people
evolve to be so Stupid? Neither Religion or Science can answer
these questions.
If the God of the Old Testament exists, this could all be a part
of the Master Plan. That God really liked to Smite People, now
we will get the biggest Smite of all time. The Mother of all
Smites! If there is no God, you can write this off to Entropy
and Dissipative Systems. Either way, you end up with a whole
lot of Dead People.
RE
#Post#: 1346--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cultural Errat
By: Digwe Must Date: October 21, 2021, 10:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=RE link=topic=73.msg1345#msg1345 date=1634805705]
Well, here we are concerned with Ignorance rather than the
Existence of God. Because many Theists are Ignorant does not
mean many Atheists are not Ignorant. Many Atheists are firm
believers that Science can answer all questions, and thus will
find a solution to the current Shytstorm we are immersed in. If
you polled Atheists, you probably would find Anti-Vaxxers among
them. Maybe for different reasons than the Theists, but still
against getting Vaxxed, especially forced vaxxing. Does not
getting vaxxed automatically make you stupid?
To try to tie Ignorance to the Existence or non-Existence of
God, you have to ask the questions: If God Exists, why did he
make most people Stupid? If God does not Exist, why did people
evolve to be so Stupid? Neither Religion or Science can answer
these questions.
If the God of the Old Testament exists, this could all be a part
of the Master Plan. That God really liked to Smite People, now
we will get the biggest Smite of all time. The Mother of all
Smites! If there is no God, you can write this off to Entropy
and Dissipative Systems. Either way, you end up with a whole
lot of Dead People.
RE
[/quote]
“When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's
my religion.”
-- Abraham Lincoln
“A life is either all spiritual or not spiritual at all. No man
can serve two masters. Your life is shaped by the end you live
for. You are made in the image of what you desire.”
-- Thomas Merton
“For me, the different religions are beautiful flowers from the
same garden, or they are branches of the same majestic tree.
Therefore, they are equally true, though being received and
interpreted through human instruments equally imperfect.”
-- Mahatma Gandhi
I
#Post#: 1347--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cultural Errat
By: Digwe Must Date: October 21, 2021, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Forgot to include Abigail.
“To be good, and do good, is the whole duty of man comprised in
a few words.”
-- Abigail Adams
#Post#: 1348--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cultural Errat
By: RE Date: October 21, 2021, 10:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Digwe Must link=topic=73.msg1347#msg1347
date=1634829084]
Forgot to include Abigail.
“To be good, and do good, is the whole duty of man comprised in
a few words.”
-- Abigail Adams
[/quote]
What is doing good? To stop burning FFs to hopefully slow
climate change, or to keep burning them so people don't die of
starvation in cold dark homes?
RE
#Post#: 1351--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cultural Errat
By: Digwe Must Date: October 21, 2021, 5:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=RE link=topic=73.msg1348#msg1348 date=1634831000]
[quote author=Digwe Must link=topic=73.msg1347#msg1347
date=1634829084]
Forgot to include Abigail.
“To be good, and do good, is the whole duty of man comprised in
a few words.”
-- Abigail Adams
[/quote]
What is doing good? To stop burning FFs to hopefully slow
climate change, or to keep burning them so people don't die of
starvation in cold dark homes?
RE
[/quote]
Ahhh... Now we get to the meat of it. (no pun intended)
That is a very important question and one that effects us all.
Glad you went there. I can give you my opinion , but I really am
looking forward to getting other takes on a critical subject.
I'm going to say something that sounds like a cop-out platitude
- but it ain't: That depends.
We are all in different circumstances, obviously. Our
individual ability to have an impact varies. As you well know,
for a sizable fraction of the world's population it's day to
day. This is not even an issue for debate. More access to more
energy is is a better chance for survival, or even a little
surplus, for so many. On a personal level, I can't look at a
kid in a bleak apartment in Warsaw (or anydamnwhere) and declare
that she should be cold and hungry for any reason. No way.
That could be my grandkid. The elite who would accept this
drive to the conferences in armored limos. They may need them.
Of course, I get the argument against FF use. I've listened to
many biologists say basically it's pay me now or pay me later.
Cut it now and cause suffering or ride this horse until it dies
and then endure much more suffering. I also know that estimates
are out there that without natural gas for fertilizer the
current ag system would support about 4 billion people.
I think that most of us can make more difference in our personal
lives than we can trying to have an effect on broad policy. No
politician or national leader that I am aware of will tell their
people they should be hungry so that we cut emissions. I
believe it is more likely that at some point fossil fuel
production will be mandated regardless of the economics and then
largely allocated to agriculture. That is, while centralized
states hold together. I think they can pass all the emission
goals and policies they want, but when the torches and
pitchforks come out they'll start shoveling the last of the
coal.
I believe that what we do on a personal level is very important.
We aren't going to save the whole shebang - not even close -
but having a lower energy footprint in your own life helps you
and yours anticipate and prepare for what is ahead. It gets you
thinkin'. And besides:
Just as ripples spread out when a single pebble is dropped into
water, the actions of individuals can have far-reaching effects.
Dalai Lama
Over the last 20 years or so we've done much to cut our own use
of fossil fuel. I estimate we use about 30% of what we used in
2000. We grow much of our own food and are trying to increase
that. We drive much less. We heat with wood. This is a
benefit because we use wood that would eventually be consumed in
wildfire if we didn't use it. And we make biochar and return it
to the soil where the carbon sits for a long time. We're still
on the electric grid - but it's hydro generated. (goodbye
salmon)
"It’s the action, not the fruit of the action, that’s important.
You have to do the right thing. It may not be in your power, may
not be in your time, that there’ll be any fruit. But that
doesn’t mean you stop doing the right thing. You may never know
what results come from your action. But if you do nothing, there
will be no result." - Gandhi
Must feed sheep.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page