Beau of the Fifth Column
Socrates Taught Plato How to Turn Prehistory Into History
Prehistory did not begin when our universe coalesced, when our galaxy began to rotate together, when gravity caused our star's fusion, or when oceans collected. It also didn't begin when our moon began to spin overhead, when single-cellular life started, or even when complex life evolved. Those events occurred billions of years ago.
We humans easily understand the word year because we have personal reference points, which we can empirically measure. (In the previous 365 days, the covid19 pandemic killed over 500,000 Americans and 2.5 million worldwide.) Some of us might be able to think in terms of a hundred years, because we understand it's possible to live that long. However, when we learn that over a century ago, the 1918 pandemic killed 50 million people, we begin to lose the related-to-me focus. And when we read that more than five centuries ago, the bubonic plague killed maybe 200 million people? We're mentally drifting without a point of personal reference.
And that's only half of a millennium in the past! The numbers: billion (a thousand million) and million (a thousand thousand) are completely non-relatable. Our minds struggle to grasp-comprehend (or even imagine) what it means when we hear:
Prehistory began when millions of years ago, some of our stone-age, bipedal, hominid ancestors crafted tools, buried their dead, worked collectively in order to survive, and decided it would be valuable to start communicating with their future selves.
Those someones thought it would help to augment their memories. And they started marking with chalk or soft stone or charcoal on flat surfaces; tieing knots in rope; cutting gouges in wood; making impressions in mud or clay; burning or dieing on hides; etcetera. This lasted for hundreds of millennia. Time ate all their chalkboards and etch-a-sketches; toys and utensils; caves and corpses, until a confluence of location, luck, and lack-of-liquid (ll&lol™) made it possible for their distant descendants (us) to unearth a few of their grocery lists, calendars, and guidebooks.
- The fossil record contains evidence anatomical homo sapiens existed at least 250,000 years ago.
- Cave painting and art has been found which has been dated to more than 45,000 years ago.
- Earth's magnetic poles reverse (then reverse back 800 years later) about 42,000 years ago.
- Sculptures and jewelry have been carbon dated to more than 35,000 years ago.
- Standing stones and stone structures date to more than 10,000 years ago.
- Cuneiform writing (indentations in clay) date from 5,000 years ago (Bronze Age, starts in areas).
- Egyptian pyramids and hieroglyphs date from 4,500 years ago (Ancient Historical Era starts in areas).
- Stonehenge stones date from about 4,400 years ago.
-
Gilgamesh epic poems (Sumeria) on stone/clay tablets from 4,000 years ago.
- Chinese logosyllabic writing dates from 3,500 years ago.
- Hindu texts began to be written/edited about 3,500 years ago (Iron Age, starts in areas).
- Pueblo dwellings and cliff houses date from 3,200 years ago (Stone Age mostly ends).
- Hebrew bible began to be written/edited about 2,800 years ago (Bronze Age mostly ends).
- Nazca lines (Peru) date from 2,500 years ago.
-
Philosopher
Confucius
of Zou (China) reportedly lived 2,500 years ago.
-
Philosopher
Buddha
of Lumbini (Nepal) reportedly lived 2,500 years ago.
- Philosopher Socrates of Athens (Greece) reportedly lived 2,400 years ago.
- Philosopher Zhuang of Dao (China) began to be written/edited 2,400 years ago.
-
Philosopher
Epicurus
of Samos (Greece) reportedly lived 2,300 years ago.
- Sandstone city of Petra (Jordan) begun carving in stone cliffs 2,000 years ago.
-
Philosopher-statesman
Seneca
of Cordoba (Spain) reportedly lived 1,950 years ago.
-
Philosopher-slave
Epictetus
of Hierapolis (Turkey) reportedly lived 1,950 years ago.
-
Philosopher-emperor
Marcus Aurelius
of Rome (Italy) reportedly lived 1,900 years ago.
- Christian bible began to be written/edited about 1,800 years ago.
- Roman empire began to shrink/collapse about 1,500 years ago (Modern Era begins in areas).
- Muslim quran began to be written/edited about 1,400 years ago (Iron Age mostly ends).
Rise & fall of the Roman Empire |
In my opinion, Socrates was not actually a man who lived in the -5 century. He was too perfect of a caricature and is credited with too many well-thought-out philosophies (as would any character be, who's an amalgam-pilation of several philosopher-authors imaginations).
- His mother was a midwife and his father a stonemason. As an adult, Socrates referrs to himself as a midwife (helping 'birth new ideas' by asking 'what is it?') and he builds/constructs theories using dialectic Q&A's and logical arguments. This is just one example of many contrived coincidences.
- He was uniquely ugly, odd, and dressed without care (bulging & askew eyes; a pig nose; short and fat; unkempt/disheveled dress). Staged-contrast: overt visual flaws while speaking flawlessly.
- He "exploded into existence" on the pages of many playwrights/authors, but only after his death.
- His publicly ordered execution was, in actuality, a calmly accepted suicide (he could have chosen exile, but didn't). He willingly carried out his suicide by drinking hemlock tea. What a hero! What a soliloquy!
- Hemlock poison paralyzes the diaphragm and respiratory system. Plato's description of Socrates's death (itself, told from a fictional character's POV) details a growing numbness beginning in his feet and traveling up his body, eventually killing Socrates when it reached his heart. Someone bitten by a cobra might die in this manner. Do we need any more evidence Plato's faux description was fabricated?
I suspect—if Socrates was a real person—he was not at all the figurehead and intellectual powerhouse depicted in "his student's" books. But, since Plato's and Aristotle's (Et al.) words survived, they are considered to be the first to quote what they heard "prehistory say". I think they were creative nonfiction writers (like all successful theo-philosophical authors/editors must become, to reach and hold an audience).
... Socrates showed displeasure with those who thought him to be poor by stating: 'One can be rich, even with very little, on the condition that one has
limited his needs. Wealth is just the excess of what one has, over
what one requires.' ... — Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, circa 360 (700+ years after Socrates "died")
more like this:
Redux: "I Cecil You, Too" (First Fortnight in February)
I have never celebrated the fake holiday in mid-February. It's a scam holiday which businesses use to sell cards, flowers, candy, and all that foolish shit. I give gifts or messages of love whenever the time feels right, not when someone's calendar says I'm supposed to.
Anyway—what the fuck is this thing we all have labelled with the word: LOVE? I know what mix of emotions I feel/have felt for those I've loved and do love (not a very large list) but it's amazingly hard to explain how certain fluctuations in my brain's chemicals affect my heart/brain/gut/libido and even harder to understand/compare when others explain their "feelings of love". We just assume everyone must be feeling the same way we feel when we use the same words they use.
"See that color? That is what I have labelled: Red."
"Oh, that's red? Ok, I'll begin to refer to everything which is colored that way: red. Umm, what about when I feel all these crazy feelings at the same time? I need a label, so that when I am feeling all these feelings I do not need to explain each of them every time."
"That is labelled: Love."
"What about all those same feelings, except one: I don't want to be physically intimate?"
"Still labelled: Love. You could add the word Platonic, but that'll require an explanation because that word has different interpretations."
"What about when I feel all those feelings for my pet?"
"When I say, I love my cat, Cecil, I think I must be misusing the word 'love'. Instead, I should-maybe find a word which is a compound for the meanings of the words: pride, enjoyment, happiness and
I'm proud of Cecil's training and I enjoy his 'loving' attention; he never makes me angry (mostly because he can't communicate with words, has no malice, and enjoys my company); and I admire him for his actions, looks, demeanor, and thoughtfulness (Is he being thoughtful? Am I just anthropomorphizing?). Maybe I should consider his name, Cecil, to be a label for what I feel about him—so when I say: "I Cecil you," I'm currently feeling a combination of pride/enjoyment/happiness/admiration for you.
When I receive an "I love you" I—almost never—respond with an "I love you too".
It's wrong to treat an I love you as if it requires a mandatory reply. It is not supposed to be interpreted as if it were the question: Do you love me? Also, it should not become a replacement phrase for goodbye. When people do that, they cause their incessant I love you's to lose their value. Eventually, it becomes a throw-away line. If said all the time, what do they say when they really want someone to know they have caused a rush of complicated emotions which are identified (when felt all at the same time) as the feeling of love?
Recap: "I Love You"—all three words—are reserved for when the emotion of love is actually being felt. I do not want my I love you to cause an immediate response of I love you too. I prefer either no reply or a response like: "those words make me feel good," or "Thank you," or "I like it when you tell me that," or "those words make me happy," or "when you say that, I get warm inside". It is better that the person you love smiles and says nothing, and some time in the future, if they tell me they are currently feeling the emotion they call love—for me—I know they're feeling love at that moment and I can decide to reply with my present feelings, or not to reply. I appreciate their statement of love when they are feeling it and then I consider what I did to make them feel that way. This is my normal.
Denise now says I love you to each of her children many times a day. Each of her kids reply with a I love you too. I see and hear their devotion and their respect. With them, it does not seem to be a "worn out phrase" or a "throw away line". In fact, when a child is upset (and, intentionally, does not reply to their mother's I love you) they—routinely—apologize (later) and remind her that they love her.
I am now an old distant relative with whom respectful cheek bumps may be apropos. And, now, I am adjusting to her normal. Now, I reply to her I love you with an I love you, too.
Flags of Hate
"That's not who we are" — is what it is.
Death Decade (2020-2030)
Definitions and examples:The commonly understood definition for vaccine is: "...a drug which provides an active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease..." The vaccine for the measles virus is normally administered to very young children with a second booster shot administered a few years later. These two immunizations provide a lifetime immunity to the measles virus (with rare exceptions).The commonly understood definition for inoculation is: "...the introduction of a pathogen or antigen into a living organism to stimulate the production of antibodies..." Because variants of the influenza virus constantly change, "seasonal flu shot inoculations" are required. To retain life-long, year-round, flu virus immunity, new inoculations are required every year. Pharmaceutical companies test/produce new flu shots every 6 months so as to combat the constant new variants of the flu virus.
February 2021: The new US federal administration is attempting to fix the US CDC and NIH responses (hampered, nonexistent, or broken by the previous administration) to the Covid19 pandemic. These inoculations/booster shots designed to drastically reduce serious hospitalizations and deaths are optimistically projected to be available to all US citizens "hopefully by summer". WDT between 2.5 and 3 million; USDT between 450,000 and 600,000 (previous US under-counts now being "found" and belatedly reported).
I can find no reporting, discussion, or any research being conducted on a
vaccine which imparts lifelong immunity.
Are you—dear citizen of Earth—calmly satisfied with the facts (or even aware of them)? Do you understand everyone needs to wear masks, social distance, receive booster inoculations about every 6 months, and will STILL BECOME INFECTED, ASYMPTOMATICALLY CONTAGIOUS AND STILL COULD INFECT OTHERS ?? Do you realize that, until a lifelong-immunity vaccine is found, everyone will be gambling on not becoming part of the 5 to 40 percent? Can your brain understand this new paradigm? That you'll forever be contributing to the serious illness or death of those who either do not understand these facts or who foolishly choose to not be inoculated?
As pharmaceutical companies rake in tens
of trillions from the world's governments over the coming decade, and
WDT/USDT shrinks but never, ever, goes away, I will get inoculated (as soon as
it's my turn). And I recommend every-one-of-you do the same.
But. Covid is here to stay. The decade 2020 to 2030 is,
unfortunately, going to be the Death Decade.
Claims About Gods: Theirs, Yours, (as well as) Mine
The foremost reason I avoid talking about religion, as a topic of normal conversation, lies in the mandatory requirement to discuss and agree-upon the definitions of words and to, then, go-back-over common misunderstandings (for every 'new use' of previously defined words).
Example: When someone begins a conversation with "I believe god created the universe." I have to interrupt / hit the pause button and reply:
Wow! A six word sentence and four words require extensive definition. Since you didn't preface the most confusing term god with the word a, I must assume you think there's only one? So . . . first question: what's your opinion of the other religion's gods? And, please explain what you mean when you use the term belief. I also need to know if our understanding for the label the universe is comparable. Finally, are you able to explain your use of the term created with more than the simple context found in the bible or quran?
When someone begins a conversation with "I believe the massive storm was created by La Niña." I do not have to interrupt. Instead, my internal dialogue goes something like:
I understand their use of the word belief was an alternative to think; the massive storm would be something empirically measurable (with human senses and machines) and I have a general understanding of the global, cyclic, climate pattern which has been labeled La Niña.
The actual creator—which I refer to as 'god'—is the effect commonly referred to as: Gravity.
No scientist, no
astro-theoretical-quantum-physicist, not Steven Hawking, nor Albert Einstein has
yet identified the mechanics of gravity. Nobody knows how it does what
it does. There are theories (think: conjecture, not actual scientific theory) as to the hypothetical existence of a graviton particle (similar-in-size to
a quark, which makes up protons and neutrons). So far, every experiment
has failed to locate an element or particle, contained within objects with
mass, which warps spacetime around those objects. [This is Gravity's
carefully-worded definition; it's no longer simply called an 'attraction
force'.]
We all know Gravity exists because we can empirically measure it with our senses and machines. It's all powerful. It is everywhere in the visible universe. Thru telescopes, we can see Gravity at work 14 billion-light-years ago/40 billion-light-years away (which, because of space-expansion, is the same distance). Without Gravity: the star we call The Sun wouldn't exist, the ball of rock we call Earth would never have formed, and oxygen and nitrogen molecules would not have collected to form our atmosphere. All life exists because Gravity exists.
Gravity has no awareness, does not think, and can not communicate. It does not plan. It has no agenda. It does not listen to prayers. Anyone who prays to Gravity, does so because they don't want to become hypocrites in their own eyes.
Your god—on the other hand—was 100% fabricated by humans. How do those of you who label yourself, christian, or jewish, or muslim, or hindu, (etc, etc, three bags full) come to terms with the hypocritical elements in your religion's dogma? Do you cherry pick the parts that you like and disavow the evil portions? How do you come to terms with the inability of your religion's books to document any facts or knowledge about the world, beyond that known by those long-dead humans who claimed to merely be transcribing their god's words? Is it hubris on your part?
At an unknowable time in the unforeseeable future, someone will identify Gravity's origin-particle or, specifically, they'll locate the element which, when present, permits spacetime to warp in the nearby vicinity of mass (or energy). To prove their theory, they'll remove it from a small sample of matter. And that tiny chunk of gravitation-less matter will either:
⁕ Instantly disappear from existence.
- or -
⁕ Grow
exponentially. Infecting every particle/molecule/atom it comes into
contact with, until everything with matter is without Gravity. In a few
short minutes the Earth will dissolve and dissipate. In a few short
millennia, the entire universe will become a quiet, dark, cooling-soup of
protons, neutrons, quarks, and electrons. (Similar-but-different to what happens with ice-nine in
Cat's Cradle
by Vonnegut.)
- or -
⁕ Form a new type of gravitation-less
category of matter. Immediately making all transportation (especially
space travel) exponentially more efficient.
PS: It's OK to look for god, but please don't remove the glue that holds the universe together when you locate it.
PPS: For those rare few who both read-to-the-bottom and are "science-savvy" you'll probably recognize some additional facts (not beliefs) related to my claim that Gravity is the origin of life: Gravity is inexorably intertwined with time (there are current hypotheses that time wouldn't exist without Gravity and, obviously, vice-versa) also, time is inexorably intertwined with space (thus the term spacetime). Extrapolation—at the same instant, Gravity is making it possible for objects with mass to experience a progression of events in Gravity's vicinity and a three-dimensional location for those objects . . . Gravity creates time and space.
more god stuff:
Level 1 and 2 Thinking (with Amanda Gorman)
As summarized in Astrid Groenewegen's article on Kahneman's theory related to the human brain: we have a fast and a slow button in our decision making process. Fast (level 1) is our default mode. Our brains do not want to expend the effort to slow down, focus, or pay attention (level 2).
Want to see it at work? *Of course you don't.* Your brain's default mode has already begun to encourage you to not finish this essay! It (you) scanned ahead and suggested (thought) 'this is waay too long' or 'those speed-bump words are tripping me up'. Here's another trip wire for it . . .
If your brain has previously, repetitively, relied on confirmation bias as one of its preferred modes of level 1 shortcut decision-making—and it's inside a body with lower-levels of melanin—it may have noticed the image of a person with high-levels of melanin in her skin and is now bringing forward ...don't prefer to associate with those people... thoughts.
For the 14 people who've successfully skipped over the trip wires, Amanda Gorman read her poem The Hill We Climb at the US Presidential Inauguration of President Joseph Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. Maybe your level 1 decision maker has begun to fabricate an escape hatch for you? Did it say 'already watched it' - or - 'click-away and find the video clip'?
For the nine people who made it to this point: you should be proud your level 2 is not locked behind a unused rusty-dusty barrier. Congrats.
When reading Ms Gorman's poem, focus-concentrate on her intentional word choices, her rhymes, the verbal imagery. Keep in mind: she was sixteen-years-old when the Black Lives Matter organization was formed; nineteen when Trump was elected; and even though this poem may contain clichés (belly of the beast), utilize jargon (shade), and strikes a few too-optimistic chimes (for my taste) it was fantastically written, includes references to the insurrection of January 6th, and was beautifully delivered from the steps of the US Capitol—where hundreds of domestic terrorists attempted murder just two weeks before. Her poem was the most memorable words spoken, or sung, by anyone that day. Now, allow your level 2 thinking to understand the value of her words.
The loss we carry. A sea we must wade.
We’ve braved the belly of the beast. We’ve learned that quiet isn’t always peace,
And the norms and notions of what “just” is,
And yet, the dawn is ours before we knew it. Somehow we do it.
Somehow we’ve weathered and witnessed a nation that isn’t broken,
We, the successors of a country and a time,
We are striving to forge our union with purpose.
To compose a country committed to all cultures, colors, characters, and conditions of man.
And so we lift our gazes not to what stands between us, but what stands before us.
We close the divide because we know, to put our future first, we must first put our differences aside.
We lay down our arms so we can reach out our arms to one another.
We seek harm to none and harmony for all.
Let the globe, if nothing else, say this is true:
That even as we grieved, we grew.
That even as we hurt, we hoped.
That even as we tired, we tried.
That we’ll forever be tied together, victorious.
Not because we will never again know defeat, but because we will never again sow division.
It’s because being American is more than a pride we inherit.
It’s the past we step into and how we repair it.
We’ve seen a force that would shatter our nation rather than share it.
Would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy.
This effort very nearly succeeded.
But while democracy can be periodically delayed,
it can never be permanently defeated.
In this truth, in this faith, we trust,
for while we have our eyes on the future, history has its eyes on us.
This is the era of just redemption.
We feared it at its inception.
We will not march back to what was, but move to what shall be:
We will rise from the golden hills of the west.
We will rise from the wind-swept north-east where our forefathers first realized revolution.
We will rise from the lake-rimmed cities of the mid-western states.
We will rise from the sun-baked south.
We will rebuild, reconcile, and recover.
In every known nook of our nation, in every corner called our country,
our people, diverse and beautiful, will emerge, battered and beautiful.
When day comes, we step out of the shade, aflame and unafraid.
The new dawn blooms as we free it.
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
more s l o w thinking:
Bernie Jolly Roger
Favorite Films of 2020
1 The Hunt (darkly comedic satire; horror)
2 Palm Springs (unpredictable 'groundhog day'; rom-com)
3 My Octopus Teacher (unforgettably unique, 'tear jerker'; wildlife documentary)
4 The Platform (suspenseful, 'closed box' survival; art-house film)
5 The Forty-Year-Old Version (dramatic comedy; musical)
6 The Gentlemen (fast-paced funny Guy Ritchie; heist film)
7 The Vast of Night (suspenseful 'low-budget-high-quality'; indie film)
8 Love and Monsters (CGI-heavy fantasy post-apoc-action; 'road film')
9 The King of Staten Island ('based-on-real-life'; dramatic comedy)
10 Enola Holmes (fast-paced, lighthearted, coming-of-age; who-dunnit)
Winter Wintalf-a-bet
Living in the northern states, and enjoying the winter, takes a certain mindset. While I do not live north of the US-Canada border, every sentiment and insight succinctly spewed (in the above Letterkenny three-minute video clip) isn't spurious and should satisfy. Seriously.
While 2021 has my spouse currently watching every season, I—on the other mitten—have caught a few clips and greatly appreciate its/it's amazing writing, but find some element of my brain's wiring prevents me from feeling almost all of the funny.
I don't think my sense of humor is governed by my Asperger's, but maybe some element of qualifying membership in nefnd holds my humor sensing device hostage behind my continual attempt to concentrate on catching every quip as they blur past my slow-on-the-uptake grey matter. This is not new to me. My comedic radar has been on a three-to-five second delay my entire life. I rarely am the first to get the joke and I'm absolutely never able to be quick-sarcastic or in lock-step with your double-entendres.
If the above clip happens to tickle your funny bone in a manner you find satisfying—then, allow this to be my "you're welcome"—there are 61 episodes available for you to binge (as of Dec 2020) on hulu.
'Don't have hulu,' you say? We're stream-cherry-pickers. We have (or have had) almost all of them. BUT. We pause, unsubscribe, and cancel them all on a rotating basis. I cancel Amazon Prime for months at a time and then re-subscribe. I cancel hulu every three months (3 months off / 1 month on). You get the picture. As soon as we spend too much time searching? Cancel. Paused. Unsubscribed. And then Uncancel/unpause/subscribe to a different "channel". I find this saves us about a c-note/benfranky/hunnabukz a month. Again, you are most welcome.
more:
Our ships—previously moored together—got severed on Jan 6th
My conservative
readers, neighbors, associates, friends and family members,
In the past, amicable respect for individual differences has been our standard operating procedure. Like most, we successfully maintained our relationship(s) by avoiding a few controversial topics of conversation. In my experience, this mutual behavior was a courtesy each of us bestowed on the other.
"Deep" conversations can be risky. Fragile egos can get seriously bruised when long-held opinions are examined using critical thinking skills. And, unfortunately, some of us store wishes and beliefs in boxes labeled 'facts'. So, as to avoid "getting in over our heads" or receiving bruised egos or having to sort thru facts, it's been simpler to keep conversations focused on our shared interests.
You and I may have ended many previous political debates with a cordial "we'll have to agree to disagree." That behavior will remain forever on the other side of the watershed of 6 Jan 2021. I can never again, in good conscience, politely agree to disagree with your political views because people you agree with, voted for, and support committed seditious, violent acts of insurrection in-and-around the US Capitol on Jan 6th.
Question time: What term would you use to describe the citizens of a foreign country—after a few thousand of that countries citizens attacked our country and a few hundred killed, injured, vandalized, and attempted to kidnap Americans? Would you refer to them as enemy sympathizers? Accessories before and after the fact?
Your fellow conservative Republicans attempted a coup d'état. As of the date of this open letter, their attempts were not successful. From my perspective, your silence on this matter looks exactly the same as what complicity looks like.
Are you familiar with the term 'Good German'? It was coined to describe the millions of German citizens
who didn't join the Nazi Party, kept their mouths shut, and went about
their lives in a business-as-usual manner while the Nazis took over
their country and murdered millions of their fellow countrymen.
Is 'Good Republican' what you're striving for?
In 1865, no
union soldier would have "agreed to disagree" when discussing
Lincoln's assassination with a confederate soldier. Nobody alive
today, with a functioning moral compass, would "agree to disagree"
if debating the 2001, Sep 11th attacks with a
member of Al-Qaeda. (You're the
confederate and Al-Qaeda in these metaphors.)
I can not help but see the mooring rope that once held our friendship together has been cut with a sharp instrument.
- The edge of that blade is comprised of hundreds of violent insurrectionists who attempted to overthrow the US Government. Enemies of the state who are neighbors are my enemies.
- Immediately behind that edge are the thousands of active supporters who cheered-on the insurrection (carrying a myriad of different flags, banners, patches, and slogans) followed Trump's guidance, marched to the US Capitol, but stopped short of committing crimes.
- Behind them, are millions of quasi-silent Trump-supporting republicans who are sad the insurrection failed and would have been pleased if it were successful.
- The handle of that blade is supported by millions of 'Good Republicans' acting like toady's, joking, and commiserating with their equally-complicit fellow republicans.
-
That entire weapon is in the hand of over 70 million conservatives who
voted for Trump, donated money to him, and who (so far) lack the
requisite moral courage to admit they made many errors in judgement, (have yet to) distance themselves from the growing stain-of-association and (are reluctant to) take any positive action to rectify their complicity.
Everyone who's met me—or who's read a few of my essays—knows what I think about
hypocrites
and
hypocritical behavior. If you ever claimed to "support the rule of law" and you
now diminish, attempt to rationalize, qualify, act as an
insurrection-apologist, or make any excuse for all the events
surrounding Jan 6th, you're the absolute worst hypocrite it is possible to be.
veachglines@gmail.com