After a nice day working on my diss and teaching, keeping my mind off politics, I have to end the day like this.
This is what the McCain campaign now resorts to: they have no arguments (did you see their convention? it was all biography!), and so they resort not just to distortion (that happens in any election cycle), but to straight up LIES. Does this ad purport that Obama actually supports teaching sex education to kindergartners? They incite the "culture wars," because folks, they got nothing else.
The truth: part of Obama's legislation promoted the importance of teaching young children about the difference between a "good touch" and a "bad touch." In other words, it promoted teaching kids, obviously in a delicate manner, how to avoid becoming a victim of sexual abuse!
And is Sarah Palin, who likely also "supports this message," really one to be lecturing Americans on how to teach children sex education?
Ha!
I want to meet the idiot who watches an ad like this and actually swallows it whole.
What I appreciate about the Obama campaign is that, even during the primaries when the Clintons used a defeat-at-all-cost strategy, and even when the McCain campaign flat-out lies about him, he has never resorted to anything like this. Surely McCain is not without honor, but his campaign is a circus freakshow masquerading as a political campaign. Obama does not employ people like Karl Rove, his minion, or his vile political philosophy. These Sophists reborn will get what's coming to them--the same thing the Clintons got for all their effort to exploit Obama's non-whiteness: a resounding defeat.
6 comments:
I guess his "pig and lipstick" comment yesterday doesn't qualify? :)
I'm curious, Sam... what are the flat-out lies you've heard from McCain?
I'll gladly be called an "idiot" and vote for the "freak show" in hopes that, just possibly, we might see more protection for the unborn.
Well, the above lie, for one.
He's lying when he says his VP pick opposed the bridge to nowhere.
He's lying when he says she opposes earmarks.
He lied when he said that Obama would rather "lose" a war if it helped him win a campaign.
There's a few off the top of my head. If you'd like more, I'd be happy to supply them when I have more time.
You should read the context of the quote before you believe everything you read. He had been speaking of McCain's policies immediately before he said that. McCain also used the phrase, last year, to describe H. Clinton's health care policies. And Obama has used the phrase during his campaign, before he even knew who Sarah Palin was.
It's a common phrase. Just because Palin used the word "lipstick" in a trite little moment to describe herself, does not mean that all future uses of the word "lipstick" are automatically a reference to her.
I never said that anyone who voted for McCain is an "idiot." You should read my post more closely. I wrote that anyone who's actually swayed by such a sleazy campaign ad must be an idiot. I'm simply puzzled as to how something like that could work, since the most minimal amount of reading/research reveals it as a blatant lie.
Clearly, it's probably meant for people who would want to believe it in the first place.
I'm sure McCain will be happy to have your vote, chalk you up, and then ignore your concern for the unborn--just like Republicans have been doing for just short of 40 years.
Meanwhile, your vote does nothing to actually hold the government accountable for its vast failures during the last eight years.
I have a question for you, John. Are there any other issue in American politics that you care about?
Whatever your beliefs about Iraq, it's clear that this administration at least largely fumbled its handling. They did not prepare, they did not plan, and their evidence for war was faulty. They believed their own lies, and then fed them to us.
It's very difficult for me to vote for a man who, for all his claims of being a maverick, has been in lock-step with Bush in matters of war.
It's hard for me to vote for a type of man who voted against establishing MLK day.
It's hard for me to vote for a man who himself was tortured in Vietnam, but will not acknowledge that the Bush administration has used and is using the same exact tactics at Guantanamo, contra the Geneva Convention.
It's hard for me to vote for a man who, after years of voting no on any viable energy legislation that would lead to a more sustainable future, is now suddenly touting the very same energy legislation he has so long opposed.
I could go on. To me, the world is simply more complex than one issue.
And I appreciate candidates that don't use smear.
Overall Sam, I really do just want to have a healthy discourse. I hope we can dialogue without getting upset?
The lies you mention are highly debatable (certainly not cut and dry).
Is McCain perfect or without blame? Absolutely not. We're only presented with two options. The preservation of life is vital to a culture's existence. They are the "least of these" in our culture. *Somebody* needs to stand up for them. And, please don't minimize my little old vote--it matters. I'm free to vote. God can make much of our feeble and seemingly unimportant decisions. They add up. And, I certainly do more than vote in my fight for little ones in the womb.
What is your stance on abortion, Sam?
With regard to pig/lipstick: McCain used the phrase specifically in context and a description of the bill itself, not the person. If you watch Obama, it's clear by his remarks and audience reaction he was 1) referring directly to Palin implying she was a pig and 2) referring to McCain as an old fish.
With regard to the vid: The Wall St. Journal discovered the facts about this and wrote an article from their own research (not the RNC) about Obama's team in Anchorage and Wasilla--so, I'm not sure it's the sleaze & misrepresentation that you characterize it as.
In answer to your question, abortion (murder of unborn children) is not my only concern but certainly a priority for me. In light of God's word and what's important to Him, I can't see otherwise. The blood of 40 million slaughtered children cry out for justice. I, for one, won't ignore that.
Other issues that would be important:
* Growth of government (RNC as much to blame for that since '94)
* Stranglehold that the NEA/Gov't has on lower/higher education and it's impact on our culture
* The battle to preserve the family as a recognized institution that is protected by our laws
* The battle for parental freedoms in terms of raising and teaching our children how and where we choose
* Lowering our tax burdens (not increasing them)
* Supporting business/corporations
* Privatizing gov't programs rather than creating even more universal programs (such as healthcare)
* Getting conservative/constitutionalist judges on the bench, etc...
Despite it's many errors, at least the RNC at least gives lip service to protecting life. It's the best option for my vote. My hopes with Palin and her life choices is that there would be another advocate for life in D.C.
John,
I'm not upset. If I use strong language it is because I'm passionate and sincere. Although I'm not sure why you think I'm "upset" in the first place.
I'll try to address some of your points, although I teach at 11 and need to prep soon...
I guess we'll just have to disagree on your reading of the "lipstick" comment. I do not think that Obama would purposely call anyone a pig.
The video you're referring to above is not the same video I posted. As far as Obama sending teams up to Alaska, that is debatable as well. Opposition research is common, and perfectly accpetable. But I've read that the video you're referring to is a distortion of the facts (featuring the wolves?). So that issue is not cut and dry either.
After all, there are many people (media, etc.) in Alaska trying to figure out who Sarah Palin is, because she has not done an interview since she's bee named VP.
--As far as "growth of government." Do you know what our #1 expenditure is? Defense. By far. Do we cut defense, or just everything else? And you're right, as far as I remember, Clinton left office with a balanced budget.
--Obama's tax plan would give a tax cut to 95% of Americans, or retain taxes at current Bush levels.
--Democrats, and the American government in general, could not be more pro-business, even if it's at the cost of employing millions of Chinese. The depletion of our manufacturing jobs has been the result of administrations of both parties. NAFTA, for example, was supported by both parties.
--"Privatization" also has its pitfalls: see our recently bailed out mortgage industry, an airline industry that constantly accepts government bailouts, a banking industry that has nearly collapsed if not for government bailout. Sometimes government intervention is needed to curb the greed inherent to the freedoms provided by a capitalist economy.
Education: I simply disagree with you here. I've spent pretty much of my entire life in education, and what I've observed is that the same legislatures that usually complain about the lack of quality education are ones most reluctant to pay for quality education. I do favor teacher accountability. I staunchly favor unions (we have both benefitted tremendously from unionization, as sons of sometime-union workers, and grandsons of a lifelong union member).
Our healthcare system is good for some, but not so good for many others. There's no evidence to believe that privatization would make healthcare more affordable, since privatization means that the profit motive is tantamount to anything else. I believe that in issues of health care, taking care of people should be more important than making lots and lots of money, which is the primary motivation of our current healthcare system.
I'm not sure how you think your parental freedoms are infringed, or how anyone would to take them away from you. I am against government intervention into people's families. I do not feel it is our government's responsibility to define what a family is.
We currently have a more-often-than-not conservative supreme court. I don't have exact statistics with me here, but they have shown (the Roberts court at least) to consistently side with the government, and with big business. Not with the citizen, and not with the consumer/worker.
Finally, as far as abortion, it would be incredibly presumptuous of me to insist that this is a dead issue or that your concern is misplaced. I try not to be presumptuous.
I have two points in regard to the abortion issue and its role in our politics. You refer to a "culture of life," but in my view, it's hypocritical to care so much about the unborn, and to care so little for those walking around. A perfect example of this kind of hypocrisy is Sarah Palin's pro-life stance, and her line-item veto as governor, for money reserved for helping teenage mothers. This makes no sense to me.(I'm not saying this is your hypocrisy, but rather the hypocrisy of thsoe who normally benefit from the "pro-life" vote.) What of those left behind by a bad healthcare system? Those sent to war on false pretenses? Those living in poverty? These are culture of life issues as well, and I think the Democrats do a better job at trying to address them.
My second point: for me, the abortion issue comes down to this question: when is a human a human? what makes a human? I won't pretend to be able to answer that right now, becuase it's a hard, (but nevertheless vital) question to answer. Where we disagree, probably, is that I would not use the word "murder" as a synonym for abortion.
I want to address you personally, John, before I finish. I'm glad you've been writing, and I wish it were under different circumstances. Politics is often an uncomfortable issue for families (at least ones that sometimes disagree with each other), and I'm glad you have not shied away from challenging me. I started this blog, in fact, fully realizing that many readers, especially within my family, would indeed disagree with me. But I think it's healthy to talk, especially in times like these.
What we can both agree upon, I think, is that we're both trying to do what's right in life--trying to be good people, good fathers, good husbands, good citizens. It would be nice to talk to each other as fathers, as Schwartzes, sometime. I'm sure we have a lot in common, actually, despite our political views.
I wish you well.
Hello Sam,
Hope teaching went well for you today. We do need to get together and hang at a pub or something soon. Where exactly do you guys live? :)
You know--the politics stuff, it's important. Yet, I agree--it doubtfull we'll change each other's minds any time soon. But, I'll keep letting you know my thots if it's ok with you?
-I was encouraged to see Palin have a nice interview yesterday. I think she did pretty well even with a testy interviewer.
-Ya, we spend from 15-25% of our Federal budget on defense. I'm glad for most of that. Without it, the world would be in much sadder shape than we realize. There's certainly waste, and need for top-to-bottom overhaul. But, I truly am thankful for our crew overseas in so many places we take for granted holding back those who wish to destroy: South Korean border, Taiwan, Nato/Europe, Middle East of course, etc.
-Tax plan numbers--hard to know who to believe. I don't remember last time we got tax cuts from a Democrat prez tho. ;o)
-I think outsource of our labor is less about greedy companies and more about 1) gov't environmental reg's choking our industry, 2) the enourmous wealth of our land and the lack of folks willing to do dirty industrial work, 3) the over-reach of unions, etc etc. Bottom-line: it's hard to compete with highly-educated Indians in Asia who are willing to code PERL at less than $5 an hour. The world has grown smaller.
-Privatization simply works. The more gov't removes itself from intefering with people, the more the free market is allowed to let people breath, invest and re-invest wealth, put ingenuity to work etc. Will there be abuses? Certainly. There are wicked men who do wicked things with any system. But, bottom-line: more freedom means more good accomplished for the broadest range of people. There has never been more freedom enjoyed and good as a result than from our capitalist country. There has never been less freedom enjoyed and millions slaughtered than as a direct result of socialish/communist regimes and their direct disregard for life and freedom.
-We spend more than $8,000 a kid in our secondary education (so much more in higher ed) and throwing more money at it is not the answer. The answer is in a healing and restoration of our families--dads and moms living together and setting an example for their children. Unions are fine, but as they currently exist, their drumbeat is more-and-more-and-more money for schooling. Along with that money is more power. And, you must admit, the NEA and similar institutions have little love for the foundational Judeo-Christian values our country was founded upon. They are fearful of partents educating their own children, etc etc. Public education is not the answer for our society. The homeschool movement in our land is a shining example of this. Very little money is needed. What is needed is healthy families. There are no better educated students these days than homeschoolers--they will be shaking up our nation in the next generation.
-If the government cannot protect the basic structure of the family (One man and one woman) when that very structure is under attack by our sickening culture, what good is government for? Government infringes on our life in such moral ways every day for good reason: you can't go out and murder your neighbor example. Does gov't have no responsibility for such good? Bottom line, are we not the gov't? Do we not have the right to determine what laws our country should be governed by?
-I would agree, and thankfully so, that our current court leans conservative 5-4 (barely). All the more important that we elect a president that will seat judges that will not further erode the integrity of our nation as a sovereign entity not beholden to world's opinions, international law, etc etc. You would have to admit that our Democratic friends would love to see us submit more to international law and consensus, at the sake of our own interests and integrity.
-With regard to your thoughts about abortion I am most passionately in disagreement. Trying to set up some kind of moral equivalency with killing 3,700 babies per day in our country and lack of health care? Wow. Comparing the brutality of ripping to pieces a defenseless baby in the womb while it's heart is beating with vetoing a bill? I can't agree.
In terms of being a human? When there's brain waves and the heart is beating, there's certainly life, Sam. And 90%+ abortions occur when that's the case. At 8 weeks alone, you can see there little toes, fingers, watch their heart beat etc. Murder as defined in Websters? 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. Technically, abortion isn't murder because our land disgracefully has allowed it legally. But, Sam, in God's eyes... it is murder. And, that's what counts anyways. We live unto God. All men will be held to account one day.
Bottom-line? I think defenseless (the "least of these" that Mr. Obama mentioned the other day) deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for your kind words about us as a family... I do miss our getting together with everyone. Would love to get together when time/circumstances allow. You're right that we both are trying to do our best. For me, lately, I'm more and more realizing that that effort is best directed and focused on the God-man, Jesus Christ:
"This is what the Lord says:
'Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches,
but let him who bosts boast about this: that he understands and knows me'" Jer. 9:23-24
Ok – another round. I’ll try address each of your points.
* Generally, I’m not against spending money on defense. What I am against are stupid wars. Iraq was a mistake. We invaded a country that did not attack us. Wasn’t even close to attacking us. In fact, they were so incapable of harming us that our government had to cook up reasons to go to war. Unfortunately, in the emotional heat after 9/11, it was understandably easy to take advantage of the nation’s willingness to fight back—at anyone and anything. The country’s foreign policy has always ebbed and flowed between being more isolationist and more adventurous. I think right now it is important for us to scale back and re-determine how to engage with the world. This is hard to do, again, since the attack seven years ago. But we must not let the sin of seeking revenge overcome more wise reactions. I’m not a huge fan Bill Clinton, but when he said that the world is “more impressed by the power of our example, than the example of our power,” I think he is fundamentally right. The world wants to believe in us; we disallow that when we enter into wars indiscriminately.
As far as the political philosophy behind our national defense, and the “Bush Doctrine,” (which Palin swung and missed on), it seems very inconsistent to claim as conservative a doctrine as adventurous as Bush’s. To claim to be able to remake the world in your own image (the image of “democracy”) through force is a utopian idea—and utterly “progressive.” Mistakenly progressive in my view. And totally unpragmatic. If we want to help the world, genuinely, I would much rather see us go into places like Sudan, and stop the slaughtering there.
* You’re right. Sometimes it is hard to tell reality from campaign promises. But right now, that’s all I have to go on. Reagan, of course, did not increase taxes much, but still spent money as if he had, which is why when Clinton entered office in 92 he was faced with a huge budget deficit.
* I’m no expert on the economy, so I’m not going to pretend to be. But here’s my general perspective. Governmental environmental regulations are necessary so that we do not choke on the air we breathe, and so that we can protect the environment. You know, the forests, the plains—all the beautiful vistas that make America great (and which a Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt, fought hard to protect). These are also the same spaces hunters and fisherman need if they are want to continue their way of life. If you’re skeptical of “climate change,” well, all I can say is there’s a hell of a lot of really smart people who would disagree with you. The lack of people willing to do industrial work? That’s highly debatable. If the jobs were there, I think they’d come. And you’re right. It is hard to compete with the wages that others will work for. That does not mean that exploitation need be practiced just because exploitation is possible (and at the expense of the American worker and the American economy). In other words, there’s nothing wrong with injecting morality into capitalism, sometimes.
* I am not against privatization. But most of your claims in this section are highly abstract. I think ideally, it would be nice to live in the world you describe. But there need not be a simple contrast between capitalism and communism. Those aren’t the only two ways of institutionalizing an economy. I have nothing against people who wish to start up businesses, and I have nothing against people who make a good living. That said, our system thrives on massive economic inequality. It’s my view that “equality,” as it is expressed in our constitution, has as much to do with opportunity than it does with granting everyone the vote. If government can help to generate opportunity for those who simply have less of it, then I’m all for that. The government can do that by encouraging businesspeople to keep their business in the states, and by forcing them to adhere to a system of ethics beyond the almighty dollar. I’ll leave the specter of “consumer culture” for another time.
Here’s a link on wealth distribution in American full of statistics:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
* Education: that seems like a lot of money, but split up among all of us, it really isn’t that much at all, especially in comparison to the rates you would pay for sending children to a private school, which are much more expensive. Since not every family has the capacity to send their children to private school, and since even less families are able to home school their children, public schools become necessary. I’m all for good, stable families. I think, in an ideal world, everyone wants to live in a nice, stable home. But that isn’t the world we live in. We live in an imperfect world and we must face our imperfect situations pragmatically, and with compassion. Not with dogma. As far as the NEA not having any love for Judeo-Christian values, I guess it’s how you define those values. Fairness, equality, inquiry—are these not Judeo-Christian? Now, I can’t speak for the NEA, or their general opinion on home-schooling. I’m sure home-schooling has tremendous advantages. And surely the public high school I attended could have been better in many ways. But I think you can improve public education in two important ways. Hiring the best people, and reducing class sizes. The only way to accomplish this is with money.
The disadvantages of home school might be these: if I’m correct in asserting that people turn to home school not just to give their children a better education, but also to have some control over the kind of values they’re taught, then the purview of that education risks being too narrow. In other words, if children and young adults do not assimilate the kind of intellectual rigor that is encouraged by challenging one’s own assumptions and beliefs, then they probably won’t develop that in adulthood. It’s my view that one’s own positions and beliefs are strengthened when honed against the ideas and beliefs of someone who does not share your perspectives. Now, I’m not saying all home schools are like this, but maybe some probably are. Conservative, Christian scholars that I respect, like Garry Wills, do not have the intellects they do because they avoided the world and all its Godlessness, but because they engaged with it.
* Ideally, government truly represents each and every one of our wishes. But we know that there is often a disconnection between the people and their government. After all, we live in a Republic, not a democracy. We basically vote for people and then hope they’ll make the right decisions and pass the right laws. According to conservative philosophy, which is fundamentally skeptical of government intrusion into people’s lives beyond what is absolutely necessary, any time a government tries to legislate morality, they are no longer conservative, but are instead trying to shape the world into an image they prefer. But here’s the thing. If you grant the government that power, you have to prepare for the fact that they might not shape the world in a way you like. You’ll win some, but you’ll inevitably lose some, too. That is why it’s best to let the people decide for themselves how they want to run their families. The separation of church and state protects the church, and religious people, from the state, as much as it does vice versa.
As far as gay marriage, which you indirectly reference, I’m going to throw what might seem like a counterintuitive argument at you. Gay people who want to get married are acting in a fundamentally conservative manner. They do not want to destroy marriage, or families, they want to participate in the institution of marriage and create their own families. This is a conservative gesture, and not one to be feared. I know what the Bible says about homosexuality, but I also know that homosexuality is nothing new to our culture (or any culture), and is not going to just go away. In fact, the Greeks, who invented our vaunted system of government, upon which so many of the values our own constitution rests, were actively homosexual.
And as far as our “sickening” culture, well, that argument has been made in every century of recorded history. There’s no theory, religious or otherwise, that can demonstrate that people have gotten progressively worse, morally speaking. If people have always been sinners, they’ve always been sinners.
* I am skeptical of an overly conservative supreme court because they seem to be overly comfortable granting our executive branch more power. Civil rights are important to me, and this administration has shown to have so little respect for civil rights, like the right not to be spied on without a warrant, which the Bush administration made an excuse for in the name of the war on terror. An important exception, of course, was the recent decision that stripped away some of the powers our executive claimed to have had over the inmates at Guantanamo.
Regarding international laws and consensus, I think we do a pretty good job of protecting our own interests. We basically run the UN and NATO already, and I’m not sure what the supreme court has to do with the UN and NATO. Anyhow, like you said earlier, the world is simply a smaller place now, and it’s important to acknowledge that we’re not the only country on earth. We shouldn’t act as if our human needs and interests are somehow more important than the human interests that reside in other nations. I don’t think my status as an American citizen makes me better, or more valuable, than other people. Don’t get me wrong, I love this country. I study its culture for a living (esp. its literature), and I do believe our “Founding Fathers” were truly exceptional people who invented a truly exceptional system. But I think too often that pride turns into a blinding hubris, with the result that people assume we can do no wrong in the world.
* Finally, the toughie. I don’t think anyone likes abortion, or is happy that it exists. I’ll say that to begin. But allow me to address a few of your claims. Surely “life” is not completely equivalent to “human.” There’s life all around us, and it’s not all human. Surely a beating heart, and even brain waves, help to make up an important part of what constitutes a human being. But is that all? Isn’t part of being human having a soul? Can you honestly prove to me that you know when a human gets a soul? At conception? At birth? It would be difficult to argue that a fetus, at the moment of conception, which utterly lacks anything resembling consciousness, would unequivocally have a soul. That’s guesswork at best. As far as I know, there’s nothing in the Bible that says, “this is when a human gets a soul.” So when you write “in God’s eyes, its murder,” I’m wondering whose authority you’re really invoking. Surely you don’t presume to know the mind of God, perhaps except through the word of God. If you do invoke the Bible, that’s your right. But for as much as you desire for American laws to be in strict correlation with the Bible, that is functionally unlikely. The Puritans escaped England to flee religious persecution. They fled a state in which church and government were indistinguishable. Our forefathers, like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, remembered that when arguing for a wall between church and state. I rehearse all this to come back to my original point: that religious arguments for when a human is a human can only go so far, simply because not everyone is forced to submit themselves to religious doctrine.
* I think your “benefit of the doubt” argument is a strong one. I do not think it’s unfair to suggest that we suppose, without being able to prove, that a fetus is worth protecting. Certainly even if there’s a difference between human and potentially human, potentially human is still something our society should take seriously. But I would ask that you also extend your “benefit of the doubt” argument to women as well. I think too often the pro-life movement is very quick to throw around words like “murder” and “slaughter,” and not quick enough to ask this simple question: why do women get abortions? (I’ll exclude the highly defensible act of obtaining an abortion after being raped, in cases of incest, or when the mother’s life is at stake, just for the sake of argument.) Well, usually women get abortions because they are in an utterly desperate situation. As you know, raising children is not easy. Women who obtain abortions are commonly without the kind of support structure that families like yours and mine would provide. Unfortunately, and sadly, this is the case. The choice of whether or not to have a child is usually a choice made in the midst of surrounding realities: how will I support myself, let alone the baby? What if the father isn’t around? Like it or not, it’s the woman, not the man, who has to carry the baby, and who is ultimately responsible for caring for it. And so often there is no man around to do his duty. I, as much as you, would like for the world to be a different place in regard to this fact. But we have to deal with the world as it is.
So here’s what I think both the pro-life movement and the pro-choice movement can and should do. I think the pro-life movement is too self-righteous. When words like “murder” and “slaughter” are thrown around, this leads to a rhetorical dead-end. You’re not going to convince anyone of anything, when your first act is to call them a murderer. I think the pro-life movement should, if they’re serious about decreasing the amount of abortions, extend as much support to mothers as they possibly can, without having any strings attached. Too often, however, this has not been the case. I think the pro-choice movement should acknowledge that indeed obtaining an abortion is not equivalent to going and having your tonsils removed. It should be treated with the kind of moral seriousness that is certainly at stake. Pro-choicers should acknowledge a pregnant woman does have something growing insider of her, and face the fact that there is genuine good will among those who oppose abortion, and not just self-righteousness.
Then we might be able to get somewhere. Because here’s what I think. This issue will not simply be solved, in your favor, by appointing more conservative supreme court justices. The supreme court will always, rightly, in some way reflect the will of the people. You can change the law, but first you have to change people’s minds, or else the reversal of Roe v. Wade will simply lead to another reversal when a conservative supreme court turns into a liberal supreme court. These cycles are inevitable.
Anyway, this has been a great discussion. Though I will probably concentrate more on my next post after this. I would like to get a beer with you sometime, but alas I’m all the way down in Tucson, AZ. I’m working on my doctorate in English, but hope to move back up to the northwest some day. I’m sure we will sometime, and I look forward to it.
Finally, I’m sure your thoughts are with our grandfather, as mine are as well.
Post a Comment