You are here: Home > Personal Liberty

Tag Archives | Personal Liberty

Better Angels, Triumphant

By on December 17, 2012 in Liberty & Freedom, Ruminations, US & International Affairs

What can anyone say after a tragedy like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that is remotely adequate?  For me, there was almost so much to say that I had nothing at all to say.  Simply no words were sufficient.  Horrific might be the single best word, but even that grossly pales.  Last Friday, the nation glimpsed the worst of humanity, and we wept.

Inevitably following such an event, social and mainstream media, and everyone around the water cooler has been a-buzz with discussions about gun control (for and against), mental illness, the degradation of society, the loss of god in our culture/schools, and countless other proposed reasons to what’s “wrong with our society” and how to fix it, how to prevent such a terrible act from ever happening again. 

Instead, I find myself thinking over and over again about something else entirely.  I keep thinking that I feel lucky to be alive, in this country, in this point in time of human existence.  I keep thinking about how good life actually is right now, right here.

Our justified condemnation and outrage over an atrocity like children and teachers being murdered in the classroom tells me how far we have come as a species, a culture, and as a nation.  Our reflexive response tells us how rare an event this truly is, and how much we value the lives of children and the adults who want to protect them.  I’m sure as a result of what happened, our political leaders will rush to create new laws and limits on our freedom, and generally the people will support that reaction.  How could we not?  It’s to protect children, right?  Anyone speaking out against it risks being labeled insensitive, or stupid.   I do not intend for this to be a political discussion.  I think there are plenty of valid points on all sides of many of these debates.  From my perspective, creating new laws – at least immediately – is completely unnecessary, and is another nail in the coffin of liberty, and the reason for America’s existence.  Each one risks pushing our society backwards towards eventual despotism.   Knee-jerk responses to create more laws are unnecessary because by any reasonable standard, the world is getting better, partly as a result of increased liberty.  Often our emotional rush to action creates many more unintended consequences that are problematic (Department of Homeland Security, anyone??).  What I wish is before any decision is made about what actions to take is for us to take a collective breath and reflect on how wonderful our lives and society actually are.  

Recently I started reading the brilliant Steven Pinker’s “[easyazon-link asin=”B0052REUW0″ locale=”us”]The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined[/easyazon-link]”  The title is a nod to Abraham Lincoln’s beautiful sentiments in his First Inaugural Address in 1861.  Pinker’s book is thus far so extraordinary, that I recommend you stop reading this blog right now, and go read his book for yourself.  Pinker more eloquently states, with gobs (that’s the scientific term) of data, what I (and countless others before Pinker) have observed and believed about humanity for years: 

By almost every measurable standard, life is better now than it was in our past (recent and distant) for almost every human society, even the poorest among us.  And violence is undoubtedly on the decline. 

It’s sometimes difficult to believe those truths.  Some people willfully deny them despite there being ample evidence to the contrary.  Human society is more peaceful than it has ever been.  

Compared to the age of the earth and even compared to the time modern humans have walked on earth, our life spans are short (though getting longer all the time).  A generous one hundred years next to 200,000 is miniscule.  The blink of an eye.  We have an extremely difficult time comprehending times longer than a few decades, much less those on the scales such as these.  So, we get wrapped up in the here and now and compare something like what happened in Connecticut on Friday against our typical daily existence (which is usually quite peaceful, and relatively easy, especially in the west).  We are barraged daily by the media about the threat of terrorism, America’s homicide rate, and this atrocity and that one.  The news is littered with stories about murders, rapes, kidnappings, wars, and we think, what have humans descended to?  When will the violence end?  Surely, it wasn’t like this in the good ole’ days!  The truth is that more than ever before, humans are showing an ascendance of virtue.  We just have a natural tendency to remember the irregularities over the far more prolific prosaic experiences.

And the good ole’ days weren’t really that good after all.

Humans most certainly have a dark side.  Violence has always been a part of our species’ existence.  The capacity to commit violence has been evolving in us for millions of years along with other traits like competitiveness, ambition, empathy, compassion, and love. But consider this:  Only 2000 years ago, the greatest civilization in the world – the Roman Empire – regularly entertained themselves in great arenas by watching animals and humans rip other animals and humans to shreds in regular bloodbaths. This was their sport of choice. Gladiators were the Champions and heroes, the rock stars of their day.  People would spend an entire day eating, laughing, drinking while unbelievable carnage happened in front of them.  Today, in America, our bloodlust is channeled into the “violence” of football on Sunday afternoons, and into violent, but fictional, video games and movies. 

The Romans would have thought we are a weak society with those notions of violence.  They are welcome to that opinion.  But it is notable to consider how far we’ve come.  The Romans – the epitome of advanced and civilized society for their day – would have thought nothing of a game of football that resulted in mass homicide for one or both sides.  Simply for entertainment.

We have progressed.  We continue to do so.

We are fooling ourselves if we believe violence will evolve out of us anytime soon, (millions of years from now, perhaps) if ever. I’m often frustrated when people talk about the decline of our “culture.”  What this usually means is the loss of morality defined by religion.  Or the loss of some sort of repressed “Leave it to Beaver” style existence of post World War II America.  The fact is the murder of children, adults, sacrificial animals, is repeated over and over again within the bible (particularly the old Testament), and other holy books.  Violence was a far more acceptable and expected in everyday life for our ancestors than it is for us today.  Thankfully, we are moral in spite of some of the lessons taken from our holy books.  We are able to rationalize away, modify, or outright ignore those terrible stories of our religions’ (while retaining our religious beliefs) because we know that human suffering – especially the suffering of children — is bad.  

Through our intellect, capacity for reason, and the power of civilization (which despite popular belief to the contrary is the driving force of our mundane, peaceful lives), most of us are able to suppress the violent tendencies of our nature, ignore the casual and prolific violence of most of our history and our myths, and even decry with outrage when those tendencies are expressed in a rare event like Sandy Hook.  The better angels of our nature are far more prevalent today than they ever have been in our history as a species.  The atrocity of Friday, December 14, 2012 should not propel us to take emotional, and unnecessary actions that could be a step backwards from the progress of freedom and liberty that have helped bring those angels out to play far more than ever before.  At least not right now.  Not in the immediate wake of destruction when emotions are running high, and our rational sides are suppressed.  

We should mourn the loss of life.  We should remember them and cry over the lives shortened by the unspeakable evil that struck down so many before their lives had even really begun.  We should honor the heroic efforts of the protectors who died trying to save them.  We should support the families and friends of those lost.  We should try to figure out if anything reasonable can prevent another terrible day like that one, and talk about it without demonizing each other.  We should continue to progress and strive to eradicate violence from our nature, despite it being a fool’s errand.

But most of all, we should remember that life is precious.  Life is short.  Life is beautiful.  And this kind of evil is not who most of us are.  Not anymore.

 

Peace,

PersephoneK

[easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B0052REUW0″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51De3EFfS1L._SL160_.jpg” width=”105″]
Comments { 2 }

My Plea to Anyone Voting “Yes”: A Libertarian Marriage Amendment Perspective

By on October 9, 2012 in Liberty & Freedom, US & International Affairs

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B000EUKR2C” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41RZVN56TAL._SL160_.jpg” width=”100″]On Election Day this year, Minnesotans – like myself — will vote on whether or not to add a ban of gay marriage to the state’s constitution.  This is an open letter to anyone planning on, or considering, voting “Yes”, as in, planning on voting to add the amendment to the constitution and thus ban gay marriage by law.  Even if you’ve made up your mind, I implore you to let me bend your ear (or eyes), and I promise in return to respect your choice, whatever it may be.  It can never hurt to have another perspective.  

Let me say upfront, I understand where you’re coming from.  Fifteen years ago or so, I would have absolutely voted “yes.”  My position at that time was largely informed by my religious values.  I’m not here to argue those views (if you share them) because they are unarguable.  If you hold certain religious beliefs, you hold those beliefs.   Nothing I can say here would change that, nor do I wish to try.  The debate on the merits of religion is not relevant to this issue, despite it being entwined with the issue in the media.

What is relevant is how you regard freedom, and the covenant We the People have with our government as expressed in the US Constitution.

You may say this amendment merely impacts a state constitution, but all state constitutions must adhere to the US Constitution as the ultimate law of the land.  If you read the US Constitution, you’ll note that all of the Amendments, except for the 19th (Prohibition of Alcohol), preserve the rights of the people, not limit them.  That one amendment limiting freedoms was repealed soon after it was enacted.  It didn’t work.

This is a powerful concept:  Laws limit freedoms; Constitutions preserve them. 

The US Constitution was designed so that no law could be created that limits freedoms (of the majority and the minority alike) preserved within it.  I am not going to argue that gay marriage is protected in the Constitution.  It’s not.  Not directly.  But the Founders very carefully crafted the original Bill of Rights with the intent of enabling individuals to pursue their own individual happiness without stepping on the rights of others to do the same.  That is the primary purpose of the Constitution.  

I’ll say it again in another way.  The Constitution is there to ensure you can do anything you want – anything – so long as you do not infringe on another person’s right to do the same.  

This new amendment if enacted, clearly limits the rights of certain individuals to pursue their own happiness.  This amendment if not enacted, does no such thing to any individual.  I take it as a very serious matter any law that restricts freedom for any reason.  You can disagree with a behavior and not require that it be set into law.  The creation of any law – much less one set in a constitution – should be undertaken with extreme caution, and thoughtful reason, and not merely on the basis of trying to mold the world into a single group or individual’s ideal.  We are all doomed to having our freedoms limited if we misunderstand that truth.

True freedom is messy.  True freedom requires that we live among people who do not hold our values.  True freedom requires that we work together, if not to live in harmony, then to at least leave each other alone.  Each law we add to the books tears down the fabric of true, voluntary (free) society a little more.  Would you rather your neighbor adopted your beliefs because they are beliefs worth having or because they are required by law to do so?

Another argument for voting “no” is more esoteric.  The discussion always turns to the idea that those who are pro-gay marriage want to “redefine” marriage.  The problem is that marriage has had vastly different definitions during our relatively short time as a country, much less throughout all our existence as social creatures.  If you have the time, I’d encourage you to read a fascinating book called [easyazon-link asin=”B000EUKR2C” locale=”us”]Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage[/easyazon-link] by Stephanie Coontz.  It is quite dense, but it is immensely thorough in its study of the history of marriage throughout human history, from ancient cultures, to our own.  One thing is certain: Marriage has never had a consistent definition.  

Marriage has been through many upheavals and re-definitions throughout its existence.  For example, marriage licenses required by states and other governments are a recent phenomenon.   Until very recently, the state had no business in “defining” marriage.  That was done by religious institutions and local custom.   In some cultures, a couple merely had to say “we’re married” for it to be binding.  Just as easily, they could say “I divorce you.”  The point being that marriage was a contract between individuals.  Some hold it as a religious sacrament, and that is fine.  Nothing prohibits you from getting married in a church, and having that recognized by God without getting a “legal” marriage certificate.  True, there are many “benefits” bestowed upon married couples in today’s law crazy world.  The stakes are high for deciding who is married.  I would solve that by saying the state should have nothing to do with deciding anything about marriage.  Leave that to We the People.  Leave that to your churches, mosques, and synagogues.  Leave that to you and your partner (gay or straight) to decide what commitment you want to have to each other and how you want that defined.   

Laws never succeed in changing behaviors as much as social pressure and good ideas do.  True democracy comes from the bottom up – from us – not from the top down via mandate.  Prohibiting alcohol did not eradicate its use, and alcohol abuse has arguably done much more to destroy the fabric of society and family than gay marriage could ever dream of doing.  I am not asking you to give up your beliefs about gay marriage.  As I said when I began this essay, I once believed as you do.  I understand why you hold those beliefs and do not wish to demonize them despite having significantly changed my own beliefs on the topic.  But I implore you to not be part of setting something in near stone because it does not conform to how you believe your life should be lived. 

The beautiful thing about this country and the ideals upon which it was founded is that people with vastly differing opinions and beliefs about how life should be rightly lived can literally live side by side in peace.  Thomas Jefferson was speaking of religious tolerance when he said the following, but I think it equally applies to the idea of marriage:

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”  

The only way to ensure that one day your own ideals won’t be made illegal is to preserve the rights of others to be different — even if you don’t agree with their lifestyle — as long as they do not hurt you, take your property, or infringe upon your own rights to purse Life, Liberty, and Happiness.  Voting “Yes” on this Amendment is about far more than gay marriage or marriage in general.  Voting “yes” sets us down the path to giving up on this Great American Experiment and deeming it a failure.  

That is the ultimate tragedy. 

I doubt I have convinced you to change your vote, but I hope I have at least given you something to consider.  Thanks for reading.  Vote “No!”

Cheers,

PersephoneK

Comments { 4 }

SCOTUS Ruling on ObamaCare Sad Day for Liberty

By on June 28, 2012 in Liberty & Freedom, US & International Affairs

Shock and sadness. 

Those are the raw emotions that have been cycling through my body for the past several minutes after learning of the Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) ruling over ObamaCare (or the Affordable Care Act, ACA).  I did not see this coming.  I fully expected, naively so it would seem, for this law to be overturned, and ruled unconstitutional.

I was wrong. 

More surprisingly, conservative Justice Roberts, of all Justices, weighed in as the swing vote.  BAM!  Knockout punch.  Down for the count.

For me, this decision was never (mostly) about Americans’ rights to medical care.  Healthcare and access to insurance are complex issues in my mind, and I’m not completely sure where I fall on the morality side of all points of the issue.  I have been a major flip-flopper over the past decade.  I’ll save that discussion for another time perhaps. 

The ObamaCare ruling has always been about the amount of power We The People want our federal (and really any level of) government to hold over us. 

Without having yet had the chance to read the full opinion (so I reserve the right to modify this position later), it is my understanding that the primary basis SCOTUS used in upholding the “individual mandate” portion of the law, which essentially requires everyone to purchase health insurance, is that they deemed it a “tax” as opposed to a fee.  This effectively removed the Commerce Clause from the equation, in their minds.  Once that was done, SCOTUS ruled that since Congress has the constitutional power to implement taxes on the people, it has the power to implement the individual mandate portion of the law.  The individual mandate portion of the law was the glue holding everything together.  If they’d struck it down, the entire law likely would have been thrown out.  They kept it in, so the law stays too.  Justice Roberts did make the point to say that the decision does not comment on the wisdom of the law, but rather on its constitutionality. 

Fine.  Done.  Not good.

I feel SCOTUS took the easy off-ramp on this one.  Once they removed the Commerce Clause from the argument, this was an easy victory for the President.  Of course Congress has the power to tax (how much or whether or not they should, is a completely different discussion also for another time), but I will concede, this is one of its powers. 

In my opinion, the individual mandate is not a tax.  It is an automatic “opt-in” program (unless my state opts-out??? but we’ll put a pin in that for now), with a penalty assessed to “opt-out.”  Either way, I pay.  Just for having been born in this country, I must pay for something that the government has no business in controlling in the first place.  I pay either for myself, or for others, or both of us.  I pay for something that should be left up to the marketplace.

Oops.  I said I wasn’t going to get into the broader healthcare vs. government discussion, but here I am. It’s all so intertwined.  While I would love to live in a world where money is never a consideration to whether or not someone receives the best medical care, I don’t. We don’t.  We never will.  It is a utopian dream that is impossible to realize.  Everything has a price.  Everything is paid for in some way.  Socialism in its various forms never works because it denies the basic laws of economics.  It is what we (some of us) want the world to be, not what it is.  When I was seven, I wished endlessly for the Millennium Falcon to appear on my front lawn, but it never did.  No matter how much I wanted it to be true, it just wasn’t possible.

The next best thing we have in Human society to an impossible Utopia is the Free Market system of Capitalism, and the presumption that “all men are created equal… endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights… that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  It’s not perfect.  It’s sometimes not pretty.  But by using the power of the markets, and the rule of law to protect individual liberty, we allow individuals to decide what is best for themselves, provided they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. 

Today, President Obama said this in his victory response: “I did it because I believed it was good for the American people.”  Thank you Mr. President, but I do not need you to decide what is good for me.  I need you to execute the laws of the land, and uphold the ideals for which this country was founded through centuries of blood, sweat and tears, and framed so perfectly the beautiful sentence I cited above from the Declaration of Independence.  That is what I want from you.  I want nothing else.  

Unfortunately, now that ObamaCare has been vindicated by the highest court in the land – a decision I respectfully, but strongly disagree with – I fear that this president, those who follow, and Congress will feel emboldened to even more vigorously impose their wills upon us, strip us of more freedoms, all in the name of doing me “good” as if I were a child – or a small dog.  This is a path I’m terrified of traversing.  Government, and government power grows ever larger.  It seems to be a one way directional machine.  The more we allow this to happen, the more complicity we are in our eventual total loss of freedom.  It’s not without precedent.  After all, that is how this nation came to exist in the first place.  Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  We’re not quite there, but it’s only a matter of time before history repeats itself.

Cheers,

PersephoneK

Comments { 0 }

National Conversation on Drugs Misses the Boat

By on February 17, 2012 in Liberty & Freedom

I can honestly say I never thought I’d write a post inspired by Whitney Houston, but her death is connected to an issue of interest to me, namely the ineffective and unconstitutional “war on drugs” and how the conversation about the topic seems to always miss the boat.

Houston’s death was a sad event, but completely predictable.  She was a woman of immense talent, plagued by personal demons she was never able to slay.  I am truly sorry for that, and wish my deepest sympathy to her family, friends and fans.  But if anything good can come of her death, and the timing coinciding with music’s biggest day of the year — the Grammy’s — I hope its that it changes the tone and content of the conversation about drugs in this country.

When people debate drugs, they typically fall into one of two camps.  There are those who want to legislate our vices and criminalize (some of) our self-destructive behaviors, and there are others who think anything should go, do whatever feels good.  Predictably the former group tends to fall on the conservative end of the political spectrum while the latter falls on the liberal end.  I’m tired of predictable conversation.  Can’t we just get real?  Can’t we talk about every aspect of this topic, uncomfortable though some of it might be, without demonizing each other?

On the right, anyone who wants to legalize drugs is immoral, immature, not serious, or just wants to destroy themselves.  From the left, anyone who wants to keep drugs out of the hands of addictive personalities like Houston, must be a close-minded, Puritan square.

I personally feel that there needs to be a more nuanced debate on the topic, because as I see it, the issue inhabits a murky middle ground that we rarely hear about in today’s media.  Sure, when someone like Houston dies, likely as a result of her long and public drug use, there are cries of how tragic it is.  In the last several years, I have seen more public discussion of addiction being a medical problem rather than a criminal problem, but that rarely takes the discussion as far as it needs to go.

As I see it, we need to simultaneously legalize all drugs, but also stigmatize their abuse (note I didn’t write their “use”).

Let me be clear: My stance is that all drugs should be legal for adults to purchase on a relatively free-market (I’m ok with some control over where you can purchase them, like in a liquor store to keep them away from children, and ok with some warning labels).  The primary principal that governs most of my views on most subjects is that the government should interfere in our lives at the absolute minimum level.  Personal liberty should be the paramount guideline, and laws that infringe on any personal liberty choices among consenting adults should be the grave exception, not the rule.  The government exists to help us settle disputes when someone tries to take or destroy our property and lives, but it doesn’t exist to help us not destroy our own lives.  We have the right to do so at our own peril.

Freedom is an amazing gift from our Creator (whether that is god or your parents), but it can also be ugly and painful.  The Founding Fathers were clear: We have the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.  Any infringement on that right must be profoundly justified.  How can making some drugs illegal, while legalizing others (some of which are more dangerous than the illegal ones) in any way conform to that principal?  The drugs that are legal in America (alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco) were saved from the black list because they have been around longer, or had been more widely used throughout history, and are therefore more entrenched in our culture, not necessarily because of their danger levels.  Its politics and hypocrisy at their highest levels.

Not that it matters to me if they are highly destructive.  At least, I don’t care to use that as an excuse to infringe on personal liberty.  How destructive something is that I consume, and do not force anyone else to consume, should have no bearing on its legal status.  I do think destructiveness is a very good reason not to take most drugs, especially narcotics and the like.  The argument that drugs lead to the downfall of society, lead to early death, lead to the destruction of the American family, etc etc… I honestly don’t dispute much of that perspective.  Its hard to argue against.  As painfully evidenced by Houston’s death, drugs can kill you, and ruin your life along the way to the end.

Habitually using most drugs is usually a very bad choice.  Its a choice you should be free to make for yourself.

Here’s an even more obvious statement: The more addictive and dangerous (i.e. can kill you more quickly) the drug, the worse choice it is.  You can ruin not only your life, but the life of your family, you can hurt your friends who suffer by watching you destroy yourself, and if you drive a car, you can kill yourself or others.  There are many ways to do all of those things.  Putting all drugs into one category of “evil” is just wrong.  If all drugs were the same, caffeine, alcohol and tobacco would probably be illegal like the rest of the recreational drug group. For that matter, maybe chocolate should be illegal, since it has caffeine and leads to an endorphin rush.  Clearly, we all know there are differences in drugs, though the “war on drugs” may have made it much harder for us to know what those differences are since scientific study of many “hard” drugs is nearly impossible.  All that said, not all who try drugs become habitual users, or addicted, or ruin their lives.  Even if they did, its irrelevant to my point.  People need to be left to make choices for themselves, come what may.

Granting adults the right to choose what they ingest, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pressure people to stay away from that lifestyle.  Experimenting with marijuana (I’ll save the “gateway drug” discussion for another time), and trying cocaine are very different things. [In the interest in full disclosure, I have never tried any illegal drug, and very few legal drugs for that matter.  Despite believing people should be able to light up a doobie pretty much whenever they want, its currently illegal and I tried to adhere to the laws of the land.] We should discourage anyone from ever trying narcotics, heroin, and other drugs that fall into the highly addictive, highly destructive, can kill you even on your first try category.  But should we ruin the lives of people who smoke marijuana in their own homes?  I can’t claim ownership of this fantastic illustrative example, but have seen it often cited: Imagine if Presidents Obama, Bush, or Clinton — all have admitted to smoking marijuana — had been arrested trying something generally less dangerous than alcohol?  Its likely that their political careers would have ended before they began if they’d had criminal records.  Would that have made sense?  Regardless of your political persuasion, its clear that the only difference is that they were never caught.

And that is the missed boat I mentioned earlier… the one we seem to miss in public discourse over whether or not to make drugs legal.  Just because we decide to make something legal doesn’t mean we have to condone it, or condone every aspect of it.  But neither does it mean we have to demonize every aspect of it.  With personal liberty, people are allowed to make their own way in the world.  That is the very core of what it means to live in a free society.  And when people make mistakes, the default reaction shouldn’t be to throw them in jail.  We all have demons to battle, and so long as my demons don’t convince me to hurt you, or steal your stuff, the best way to help me fight most of them them is through medical treatment, therapy, compassion, and friendship.

Its clear putting users in prison, jail, or even just fining them, thus stigmatizing them isn’t solving the problem of addiction.  Its also led to the rise of Mexican, Central and South American drug cartels, inner city gang violence, and inflating the prices of drugs addicts will find a way to get no matter what.

Trying to legislate our vices is not only wrong in my view, but it just doesn’t work.  If lying were illegal (not including those Martha Stewart type lies people sometimes tell to law enforcement), would the fear of going to jail end our propensity to lie?  I think its fair to say that’s a big fat NO.  But I think most people would agree that lying is usually best avoided.  It destroys our relationships and reputations.  Some people are habitual liars, while others manage to be mostly honest.  Can the liars change?  I think they can if they want to, but not by being sent to prison where their reputations would be further sullied to an irreparable level.

Even if the fear of prison could keep us from lying, or eating doughnuts, or enjoying a few glasses of wine, or eating chocolate, should the government have the right to take our liberty away for indulging in activities that are inherently our personal business?  I believe the answer is no for the same reason I feel its no regarding drugs.

Like I said, personal liberty can be a messy thing.  That is life.  With the good, there can always be bad.  It is my unalienable right to decide how to maneuver through the mess, and it is the government’s responsibility to stand aside as I do so.

Where am I going wrong and what did I miss?  Lets discuss!

Cheers,

PersephoneK

 

Comments { 1 }