Created as a spin off of the older Spoken Sprocket Cycling blogs that I've written, Stubbornly Optimistic is all about life, philosophy and positivity in the face of our everyday challenges. The intent is to kindle thought, discussion and exploration of ideas through my own musings and those of yourselves, the readers. Have any feedback? hit the twitter link and let me know!
We simply must keep talking .... I videoed the piece below a week or so before the attack, and added a foreword saying much the same thing, far less eloquently..
Perhaps "safe space" ideology needs to take something of a back seat whilst we deal with the unpalatable questions. However that does require all participants to be grown ups, and therefore responsible. Currently that rules out both the UK PM and the US child in chief.
So, with the 8th June fast approaching, history will judge, and not on who's suit cost more, nor on whether one was born wealthy or otherwise. It will judge on negotiation ability, moral character, outcomes of ones actions and the application of the true meaning of the words:
Manchester, A suicide bomber. Children, at a concert.
22 dead and 50+ injured on what should have been a fun filled and family night out.
There are some days when, within the space that is my head, Philosopher, Nurse & Soldier all stand in sober and abstract horror at what the world places before us.
The reaction of each however...
Robert burns
Truly, on this day there are no words sufficient, just an ever present sense of sorrow.
How many times have we heard that defence? Usually, although not always, from someone who has just voiced an objectionable viewpoint or questionable statement.
Now ok, we all get to have a right to an opinion, and its been said that opinions are much like arseholes, (in that we all have one...)
But....
How do we counter this "defence" and what is it based in? Well some philosophers from the early 17th century - John Locke and Voltaire - had some thoughts on the issue as did the later philosopher John Stuart Mill.
Each of them postulated arguments as to what opinion "is" and the reason(s) why we might consider exchange of opinion valid or perhaps best avoided.
This was later built upon by the work of Karl Popper in the latter half of the early 20th century, he suggested via his thoughts on the "open society" that tolerance would actually lead to it own demise.
(one could argue that tolerance is NOT synonymous with pacifist approaches thus we may never reach an absolute state of 0% tolerance and 100% intolerance.. much like the scientific principles of equilibrium and osmosis and indeed Karl did so citing the need to defend tolerance with a measure of intolerance once a critical point was reached.....)
Two well known quotes from Karl are :
“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
And
paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
You can read the full article from which these quote were taken Here...
So since we all have an opinion, merely stating what your own one is does not prove it has, nor imbue it with, any validity. Similarly shutting down the arguments around that opinion reduces our ability to learn, consider and grow as individuals and thus society.
This "shutting down" isn't limited to the knowledge of specific viewpoints and opinions and whether they be correct, valid or otherwise. In my view it also concerns the methods by which we arrive at those view points. In my video I pose the question "how do we know where the limits of discussion are?" And at what point does opinion become "harmful" in the sense of Mill's definitions and thus worthy of censure?
If you have a free 15 mins have a cuppa and listen to a few more thoughts...Apologies for the squeaky chair.. i'm gonna sort a new one soon!
Well food for thought isn't it?
Again, my own view is that we discover "that point of censure" by means of having the debates in the first place. If we allow a pervasive culture of no platforming to persist over a long enough period of time (say a generation or so) these academic skills are diminished, if not lost, and whilst people may still believe certain viewpoints wrong/right, they may well lack the (well practiced) critical thinking and analysis skills to explain why this is so as direct result. (not to mention the researched evidence base) This skills atrophy would apply equally to political arguments be they conservative or liberal, Scientific argument, ethical debate, you name it.
Knowledge of how to discuss, critique and argue is as important, if not more so, than the topics being argued about, so as I said in the video, we need to be mindful of that balance point. The equilibrium of censure, and acceptable argument.
After all.....not every liberal is left wing nut job, nor every right winger a Nazi. A detractor from LGBT issues is not a necessarily a bigot, and not every cis (non trans) person hostile to trans issues...
Perception and reality are two other concepts that play into this when one considers the truths of any argument. And that's where I'm going next... Nigel warburton's comments on appearance, and reality, be that of arguments or otherwise...
I've been busy over on you tube, so its been a bit of break from the writing, but I realised I had to come back to "the basics of politics" to finish off the comments on the current US/UK scene.
I would suggest that's a masterclass in understatement. When I wrote my piece on the US scene, President Trump wasn't facing the beginning of an impeachment process, and hadn't fired the boss of the FBI for digging too deep into the "Russian issue"
How things change eh? It's interesting how there's an alignment with Russian and US positions on LGBT issues, all be it one publicly, and the other under the table so to speak. One can't help but wonder if a few years ago, a white, christian fundamentalist viewpoint has been shared in some quiet hotel room somewhere and a plan hatched to gain control and "remake the world..."
Too fanciful? you decide. However what of the UK?
During my military career I refrained from political opinion, since I kinda figured that I worked for whoever was in charge regardless. Since leaving, and looking at a wider section of the population, myself included, there is definitely cause to suggest that those who work within and for the military are perhaps shielded from the wider domestic actions of their political bosses by elevated wages etc. Of course there are other genuine difficulties and it's far from an easy ride, but my point is that I didn't see how difficult life is for some people day to day until I stepped outside of that sphere of influence, and many that remain within it still don't.
So where are we in the UK?
Campaign wise PM may is doing a great job of not doing a great job. Whatever you might think of the policy delineations of the the Labour and Conservative parties, one has to question the actions of the individuals concerned.
Actions telegraph attitudes, and as such give a window into motivations...
From what I can see the Conservatives are thinking one of two things:
We will win anyway thus we don't need to bother
We can't fix this and therefore wish to pass the buck by throwing this election.
I said I refrained from political opinion in my former life. But that doesn't mean I didn't observe. I can't remember quite such a distinct difference between the political parties since the days of Margaret Thatcher and Neil Kinnock.
With such a slim majority in the house of commons, (just 6) and the country facing such monumental issues as those that now lay before it, the PM I think took the only wise option, i.e, that of calling an election.
Why do I say that? Well because the UK doesn't exist in a vacuum. The EU, & the US, both have a huge bearing on our future, and whilst the election itself may well be fought on domestic issues of health, social welfare and other such points, the international relations question looms large.
The UK election may well have a huge bearing on the global political mood in the coming years. Tensions are high to both the east and west of us, and I for one do not assume that any impeachment of 45 will be a smooth process free of violence. "They" i.e. the "Trumpettes" have already tested the homeland security issues.. and we have seen that certain sections of the American government would side with 45 in contradiction to the judicial process. It begs the question... just how quietly do civil wars start...
Yeah yeah I know...hyperbole and fear mongering... but I am sure those who lived through 1937-8 couldn't foresee what was to occur....so there nothing wrong with being ever watchful..
For reference.. anyone seen Star Wars? ..republic/separatists becoming rebels/empire... with the definitions of right and wrong switching sides in the process dependent upon viewpoint...its not a difficult principle to understand, hence why its in a movie....
IF we have an election that brings about an ultra conservative government in the UK with (albeit not publicly admitted) shared Ideals with 45, then would the "UK special relationship" be used as reason to go to the (military??) aid of 45?
On the other hand if we elect a more socialist left wing government, lead by a distinctly different set of principles, I suspect that would be unlikely.
And what of the UN? would it intervene? could it? and would the UK stand with it against a belligerent US at war with itself?
After all the western world has practiced "regime change" a number of times.. is it so hard to envisage a situation where that might be needed or actually happen on US soil? Perhaps the manoeuvrings of 45 have lead to this point, and he "wants" to be impeached to then legitimately stage a coup..now theres a scary out the box thought. The man sure is unpredictable enough, that we do know.
This is something of a "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" argument here. Domestic political outcomes having a world wide bearing. As such one can see the obvious parallels with the individual voter and the wider outcome of the UK election itself.
So, come the day, make a difference, go, vote, be part of the answer, whether you be conservative or labour matters a little less than actually showing up. Inaction is not "no action" & Should the world steer itself towards choppy waters, your going along for the ride regardless of whether you bought a ticket or not...
I've been a busy bee today... Heres a few thoughts on my own experiences. As ever it's not an exhaustive or even comprehensive list of options. It is the story of one person and their navigation through life and the questions of gender, existence, meaning and morality.
I thought it was high time I revisited my mini series on the the book by Nigel Warburton. "The basics of Philosophy"
In this case: Politics.
I have taken a while to write this compared to the other two or three articles I've done from reading Nigel's book. That's because I've been watching. The UK and US political arena's are currently very very ... interesting. So I've been watching and thinking about the points made by Nigel in his book.
Dependent on your POV The US Republican & UK Conservative Party policy's are either "get stuff done& cut the beuracratic BS" or becoming "scarily autocratic" regimes. TBH It's most likely that people are somewhere on that scale, liking some stuff and disliking other bits.
We are just over 100 days into the current POTUS tenure and now heading into a UK election. To say the situation is volatile and unpredictable is ....imo putting it mildly.
Unlike the previous articles where I go into huge detail on the terminology and sections of Nigel's book, I'm not going to do that here. But if you want to do some further reading, look at these concepts.
Equality: Why? between whom? and with reference to what exactly?
Democracy: Direct or Representative? Does voting work? is democracy an illusion?
Freedom: What does this mean? how is it limited and why so? Negative freedoms?
So here is a potted guide to philosophical politics, or the philosophy of political debate, and also my thoughts on where were are at currently in the UK and US.
The basics of: Politics.
Ask anyone what the "goal" of politics is, and you might get a number of answers. It depends on precisely who's goal we are talking about. The people or the decision makers? Are they in fact the same? How do we know? Let's say we broadly mean "Society". What is the goal of politics in society? What is its purpose?
To answer that, consider what happens when politics fails. Politics "is" the art of talking, discussion and crucially, of making decisions, deals and producing outcomes. Those decisions should be - and mostly are - justified on the basis of being "in the best interests of...." and theoretically at least are reached via compromise, and mutual benefit.
So if we accept that view of politics, when this process fails the alternative is what? Insular and very protective arguments, lack of progression, frustration, removal of common purpose or its recognition, and ultimately if unchecked, war.
Tiny, Small, Medium, big, ....Biggest....
The neighbours fighting over a tree that is blocking light to one of the windows. Cats digging in next doors flower beds. The price of oil on the stock market if bought in bulk. Trade agreements, national boundaries, fishing quotas, even sovereignty. All these examples can and do have an element of political negotiation involved in their process at some level.
So politics can be thought of as negotiation for mutual benefit and thus reward, the societal goal of which is "Peace", or at the very least the "absence of war", which is not quite the same thing.
The Athenians had a very rudimentary political system where anyone could spend a day on the council for decisions. However one man who observed this was .. yes you guessed it... Socrates. He observed two things.
1) Too many people with differing needs results in no decision.
2) Those on the council for the day often didn't really know anything about the things they were to decide on, thus often made the wrong decision.
As a result society eventually comes up with a compromise. An elected representative political system. The "many" actively select "a few" to represent their interests. However this has a few holes and problems as we shall see.
So this is what we call "representative democracy". Something pretty close to what most countries run on today.
But what of the individual living in society? Sure the "absence of war" is to be applauded but there are other simple needs. Food, shelter, work and/or employment, health care, law, order and safety. There are moments in the life of a democratic system where these mean differing things to differing people, for reasons of their own morality..
For example in the present day US we have the recent legislation for same sex marriages. And the resultant religious freedom bills that have been put in place to either "protect" religious liberty and ideology, or "circumvent non discrimination legislation" dependent on ones POV. Both of these legislations are supposedly conceived via the proposers sincerely held moral and ethical judgments & beliefs, yet they are diametrically opposed, even mutually exclusive.
So what do we do here? who is right? and really, is there actually a wrong? With that in mind, It's not hard to see why Politics is so problematic for society.
It really comes down to just two words.
"Interests"
and
"morality"
Both can be "societal" or 'personal" concepts., and in each case their erroneous application causes problems:
Church and state
In the US currently one has to admit that there is a close relationship between religion and state. There is however a constitutional and legal framework for how these two institutions should be kept a reasonable distance from each other.
But why is this important? There is much talk of the first amendment and the constitutional "separation of church and state" in the US, by which one usually means the "Christian" church. However this is often miss interpreted. What is actually written suggests that congress shall:
"....make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The grounds for argument here is clear.
Let's say you fundamentally believe that "marriage" is between a Man and Woman (leaving aside the definitions of each for now...) Well then the constitution should not permit the passing of laws limiting your free exercise of that belief if it stems from religious conviction. So if you as a cake shop owners choose not to bake a cake for a wedding between two women? ....is that ok?
If its a"moral" viewpoint born of religion it may indeed be protected. However, what do we mean by "free exercise" exactly, and to whom does that apply? Furthermore, if you take the parts of Christian teaching that talk of "an eye for and eye" etc, and apply the same logic, can the government therefore legally prevent religious honour killings?
One cannot of course condone honour killings, and nor could we rationally argue that they be legally sanctioned. However it follows from this that if they cannot be allowed, then the cake shop owner is on dodgy ground, since the underlaying premise for each argument is the same? (freedom of religious convictions) This is why the first amendment needs to be looked at in conjunction with other laws to ascertain which of them takes precedent in a given set of circumstance. Why can't we condone honour killings? because it's murder... pretty obvious... In the case of cakes, anti discrimination legislature took precedent, via the 9th amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
in essence .. "its not about cake" or "water fountains".
It's about people, and how we interact with them. One cannot suggest that "my right" to "A" is greater than "your right" to "B" if by carrying out "A" distress or harm is caused and "B" happens to be a protected right under the 9th amendment.
Now consider the other view point. You're "for" same sex marriage. So if the government sided with the religious arguments in favour of a fixed definition of marriage, could it be said to be forcing people to conform to a religious view point ..? I suppose one would perhaps have to oblige them to marry to actually make that argument..but tis food for thought. It certainly would be awkward to explain that away in respect of the 9th amendment.
And of course we can ask in this context what is a "religion" exactly? One could interpret one's sexuality as a religion in the legal sense here, thus the government cannot block the free exercise of that? ... Of course that just becomes a can of worms, & I am deliberately stretching the point....... Jedi anyone?
I jest but you get the idea. Things are rarely clear cut. As a result it is abundantly clear that pure theological arguments of morality are not best suited to use in legal and societal terms. (unless you'd like to go back to loosing hand if accused of stealing of course?) Rule by religious theocracy is by definition exclusionary of anyone not sharing of it's founding beliefs and/or principles.
That is not to say the holding of theological beliefs is wrong. It is the application of them in a legal sense that is problematic. Which is why there must be clear boundaries between the theological and the judicial. An individual citizen in the US has the right to choose their religious belief. They do not however, have an opt out of the legislative process.
Trump's "white" House. Who's ethics are they, and in who's interest?
Yet, as I look at the US, it would seem that a fledgling theorcracy is what is being proposed. There are a high proportion of old school Christian white middle Americans with a certain world view that are populating the corridors of power at present. The rule of law, with properly seperated secular judicial review is slowly being supplanted by moral and ethical judgements based in theological tradition, which are then erroneously passed off as legal expertise & packaged as in the best interests of all, when in fact this is not the case.
Err no Jeff..Sorry...
Traditional party lines seem to have been somewhat circumvented by the need to be White, male and "Christian" in the fundamental sense. Tis a view that sits well with the die hard separatists and those who fervently preach and believe that America belongs to "the white race". (whatever that is) whilst still going to church on Sunday. I have to wonder, will we look back at this time in history as a "knee jerk" to having had a black president? The flurry of orders that came from the pen of Trump seemed at one time to have no purpose other than to eradicate the name of Obama from the legal statute. The only way they made sense was through the lens of a white supremacist cleansing operation.
Of course there are practicing devout christians who are not of this ilk. Some may even disagree with the principles mentioned here in. Thats ok. No one is wanting to outlaw disagreement...(yet) But wilfully discriminating against your fellow human on the sure and certain belief that you're inconvertibly right? That's a whole other ball game right there, and thankfully ACLU et al seem to be doing a nice job of defending those who otherwise would have no means of reparation.
Needless to say all of this worries me. Theocracies are known for being less than forthcoming in the art of political compromise and discourse, suspicious of science and independent thought. Discouraging of education, and controlling of the public access to it, they are based on fundamental beliefs that are often mutually exclusive of competing theocracies, relying very much on the un swerving doctrine of controlled teachings.... otherwise people might start to believe the "bad hombres", or that dinosaurs actually did exist and that the earth actually rotates around the sun.
None of this bodes well for America, or the world. And whilst a country and it's government is bigger than it's "personality" figure heads..."The Trump" as a climate change denier, and his VP as an evolution sceptic, are fully paid up members of that white christian fundamentalist mostly male club. A scary "theory" indeed and the biggest single challenge facing the American political system in decades.
Watch this space.
But what of the UK?
I'll get to that, but I'll save it for next time...
So how you all doing? I'm gonna post today's random ramblings on both my blog titles, since I can't decide which one it best fits
If ya haven't guessed it I have couple of opportunities in the offing over the coming weeks that may or may not result in a move of home.
I've been in my current house for just over 5 years. Not too long for some, but for me a life time, since the previous decade and a half saw me moving sooo many times I have lost count, with the longest period in one place being three years.
It's fair to say then that the prospect of moving after pretty much getting settled is ...well daunting.
Concurently with all this happening, I recently completed some work on my bike and rather than write reams about it I had video'd the process, vlogging the repair as I went. To do so I uploaded some of the videos to my youtube channel.
This use of youtube is where life started to wander off on a trip down "Nostalgia Avenue", I found a you tuber that I had followed some years back..more to do with trans stuff than anything else, and she had returned after something a hiatus. She still had a few subscribers, myself amongst them, even after the long break...
A few years back I used to do ALOT of this you tube stuff, all to do with cars, nuts bolts, breaking and fixing things.
Sooooo.... had a look at some of my old videos, mostly to do with the automotive stuff and even after all this time there are still 40 subscribers still on there! (like what?) with one vid hitting something like 8k views... (ok ok hardly viral but y'know thats a fair few)
So, I've sat and wondered "what to do about that?" I mean I haven't exactly done much spannering on sports cars, since 2009, but I did put a whole new front suspension in my old van. Vanessa is a game old girl, 160,000 miles, tired, a bit rusty, but she stubbornly keeps going. One day I'd kinda like to tidy her up a bit, purely for my own amusement and honestly, cos she was bought for me by a family member in what were very difficult circumstances and taken me where i needed to be in tough times. Yeah yeah .. sentimental ..so sue me...
I am told a two lire lump from a cavalier might fit... petrol conversion.. wonder if anyone has ever put a combo van down the drag strip at Santa pod?
.....nah, but seriously it would be nice to perhaps be able to return in some way to my automotive antics. I'll aways be a bit of a JDM nut, but then again I've often fancied a VAG camper too...
Here's a bit of what i have previously got up to... back when I had more money and less hair...
After having to/deciding to get rid of the sports cars, which was, I have to say, a damn shame and frankly a stupid move, for a brief time i had new toy.. 2011 saw me playing with:
I can still remember the look on the faces of the others in the barrack block when I walked back in that day having been under sealing the bad boy... I mean c'mon, you don't seriously pay other people to do that shit do you? its waaaayy too much fun....
I also pissed off the RSM of the camp, who to be frank, had "big badge in a small world" syndrome, by leaving the truck in the "wrong place" I often wonder how he coped when he realised the real world outside his bubble will happily walk all over his "authoretay" ....probably ended up a traffic warden.. couldn't happen to a nicer twa...er guy... but whatever I digress...
Mind you I wasn't the only one playing with automotive toys back then... ... I had some partners in crime too... the guys I grew up with are a funny, lovable bunch...
Perhaps if things pan out, with this new possiblity, I may well resurrect the old "spanner monkey" you tube channel for a bit of petrol headed nonsense. I have hankering for the two wheeled variety.....
*ahem*..... BMW GS1150....*ahem*
Who knows?. But whatever the outcome, every now and then when the road ahead is uncertain, it can pay dividends to look in the rear view mirror and remember just where we have been. And more especially, how we got there in the first place. You'll know from my last post that confidence is movable feast for me. ;-)
I am however going to Vlog the road trip and parts of the two days in south wales. ..I mean .. cmon..why wouldn't you?
So keep ya eyes peeled people.. though I dunno what the title will be yet....
"The Spoken Sprocket" gets "stubbornly optimistic"....
"Road trip rambles"?
The "Sarah & Vanesa chronicles....." ?
The Vanessa Vloggs?
Ok.. i'll stop now, don't want to turn into just another "pun"dit....tada!....
I've had an unexpected turn of events this week, the result of which is I'm gonna be on a mammoth road trip in the latter half of the next. Me and Jonny 5 are going to spend a day at bike park wales.
Why does this always come up when I'm outta condition....?
Ok so lament over. Hey I'm fat, Winter hibernation lasted till May, which in anyone's language is almost June and thus 6 months into a 12 month year. I kinda woke up to this today when I was (re)organising an appointment for my daughter and the lady said , "1st of June?" at which point my brain went:
"But that's still ages awa......oooooohhhhh...er yeah ok.."
So that happened.
But the scary thing is that this road trip might grow into something that requires a move. A permanent one. In as much as anything is permanent.
Ok, so I've moved all over this darn country, and the days doing so were cool, I get the new and exciting kinda fresh pastures vibe. But this is different. This time I'm (potentially) moving as trans person. One of the most miss represented and miss understood groups within that thing our species loves to call society.
And also, incidentally, as a civilian, which means no cozy safety net of a large organisation. It's all on me. And "me" has little to no resources.
I don't mind telling you that this is seriously freaking me out right now. SOOOO many things could go wrong here, from discrimination, (which tbh I've yet to experience in any huge degree), to housing, healthcare, isolation, ....etc. You know, the whole nine yards...
Yet, it could also all go so right. It could.
Whatever the out come, the North East is - and shall remain - my home. To quote the words of a few recruiters, I have to wonder why my "very impressive CV" cannot illicit some form of regular paid income in the place where I grew up. I know these hills, valleys and forests. Frankly I don't want to leave...again.
But if that is where the winds of life take me, then who am I to set my sail against the prevailing weather?
Fear is an odd thing. I've never really been afraid of choice before. TBH I've never really been that bothered about many things that others might find quite terrifying. And yet....sometimes life changes you to a point where one is so afraid of failing that this becomes "too afraid to try". We become so wrapped up in the "what if's" that one forgets to look at the "can do's"
Fear leads, therefore, to stagnation, inactivity, and eventually if unchecked, paralysis of all decision, lest it be the wrong one. Thus I guess the short answer to all that is simply that "I have a confidence problem"
(My brain reading this: Feckng what? no shit sherlock...you been battered by tons of baggage over the years.. your confidence is shot bro' and you is working this out now? #facepalm)
So, tis a simple fix.
I just have to loose the fear, and believe 2 things.
1) It can go right.
2) If it goes tits up, well thats ok too.
Sounds like it really is time to live up to the title of this blog. It's time to really be:
Heard it before? I have many times. But oddly when I get out and about, or see folks it's just the opposite. It's when I'm stuck back home, doing very little, with the little that I am able to do, that the clouds of mental weather start to gather.
And yet on occasion I find my self adopting the "hot chocolate advert pose" You know the one right? A pretty woman wrapped up in a woollen scarf, all cosy. The camera man gives it some soft focus as she stares wistfully of in the distance, both her hands cradling some delicious cup of warm chocolate goodness..
So yeah I kinda do something like that .. and stare off out the window, or into my own mental landscape and I can't help but observe the madness of it all with a wry smile.
So many people that have crossed my path, and I theirs over the years. I hope I left them better than when I found them. I know I am richer for meeting some of them, and wiser for having met the remainder. I carry some fond memories.
At times, it's handy to remember that whilst the effort, work, challenges and changes of life will inevitably continue, that we are simply here, now. This is where we are.
Life just "is"
It'll be different tomorrow. Might be harder, easier, better, or worse. You could be richer or poorer, You'll certainly be older, and whatever happens, this moment will never come again and life will never again be the same as it is now.
We humans spend so much effort worrying about what next, where next, etc. Spend too much time looking away, to the stars, to the horizon, and your mind will not be on where you are, and what you are doing. As result you'll probably miss the very point of being there in the first place.
Do that for long enough and you'll arrive at the end of your "three score and ten" on this earth feeling like you missed half the show. Sadly, there is no replay. This isn't life "on demand".
So I guess all I wanted to say today is grab yourself a mug, and enjoy a "now " moment. Because, just for now, everything is OK.
