An Open Letter to Barack Obama

Dear Mr. President,

I write this letter to you out of frustration and disappointment; but, I also write it out of hope. You have an opportunity, Mr. President. You have an opportunity to bring about the change that you so passionately defend as characteristically American, the same change that you championed and promised before your election as President of the United States.

I have lived in this country my entire life and I have seen and experienced the chaos that has become so ingrained in the American political system. I have heard my grandparents speak of times when politics and , more specifically, politicking were conducted with more honor… with more deference to the values that this country was founded upon – a time when the everyday American was more than just an afterthought in the mind of a recently elected government official. The reelection rat-race has torn our politicians away from the voices of the American public and towards interests groups, exploratory committees, and corporate fundraisers. You, too, Mr. President have fallen into this way of conducting reelection campaigns. Recently, you announced your bid for reelection as President of the United States. This announcement also carried with it an intended goal of $1 billion in campaign funds. I know that reports have set that number a bit lower, and some reports have set that number ever higher still. The amount is inconsequential. Do you realize that such an amount of money is incomprehensible to the majority of Americans? There are roughly 400 billionaires in the United States – that’s less than a fraction of 1% of all Americans. $1 billion dollars could house 2,857 American families and build 77 3-story hospitals. So, my question, Mr. President, is why do you need $1 billion dollars to run a reelection campaign?

I am angry with you Mr. President, very angry. But, the only thing I am more conscious of is my disappointment. I believed in you and your message of change… not that I necessarily no longer do. You simply need to understand that my faith in you as our President has been shaken and my understanding of your message and its meaning is changing in very profound, fundamental ways. The thought of you spending 1$ billion on television, radio, internet, and print advertising sickens me, especially considering the financial difficulties that most Americans continue to feel as they are trying to dig themselves out of the “Great Recession” of the last several years. I understand that reelection campaigns cost money, Mr. President, I do. But, why does it have to cost $1 billion? To me, your announcement of this intended fundraising goal is indicative of the severe lack of attention that Americans – and that is an all-inclusive term – pay to how much money is spent on political campaigns. Americans have become complacent about politics, and so have American politicians. The simple fact is this: Too much money is spent on political campaigns, and your finance goal is indicative of this.

I am aware that major campaign finance reform has been taking place in this country since the 1970s. I ask, then, why is it that every election cycle more money is being spent on campaigns than in the previous cycle? It seems major campaign finance reform has been ineffective. Or has it? Perhaps these reforms do not seek to limit the amount of money that is spent on campaigns; but, instead, make it easier for money to be drawn in and retained. That is a mistake and an affront to the everyday American because it assumes that if you simply throw a bunch of advertisements at the American public they will see the carefully designed layout, the painstakingly thought-out slogan and march to the poles, ultimately putting a little black check mark next to your name. The sad thing is, that this is true; but, that doesn’t make it right Mr. President.

We, as a country and a people, so often assume that simply because the world looks to us to set certain international norms, we do not need to be introspective about the values we espouse or the methods we condone. This assumption has led us to give ourselves a “free pass.” What I mean is that we believe our morals cannot be judged, that our way of doing things is not open to question. Do you realize, Mr. President, that we are the only democracy in the world that spends so much money on political campaigns? Do you realize that our democracy has one of the most unregulated campaign systems in the world? We could learn a thing or two from European systems of campaign finance and campaign finance reform.

This brings me to the opportunity that I spoke of earlier. You have an opportunity to change the way campaign financing is done in this country… and not only the way it is done but also the way it is thought about. Your opportunity comes in the form of a challenge from me, a lowly ol’ college student in North Dakota: I challenge you to make campaign finance reform a priority should you be reelected, and I also challenge you to cap your intended campaign fundraising goal at $250 million (which I still believe to be quite high; but, it is a start). This is an opportunity that I hope you take, Mr. President. You’ve made me think that change is possible… now make me believe it’s possible.

Sincerely,

Jonathan S. Hamlin

Suffering: A Necessary Evil

Sometimes, the trials of life can seem too much to bear. There are nights when the pillow is soaked through with tears, nights where no solace can be found. But, is not suffering an essential human experience? Is not suffering indeed one of the most important human experiences? There are some who would question whether or not suffering even exists; and, there are, too, some who simply call it something else. However, these people are doing themselves a great disservice in not recognizing suffering as a human experience. To an extent, things exist in this world as opposites. There is love and there is hate. There is life and there is death. To your white, I have a black, and so on. And, just as with the others, to joy and prosperity, there is also suffering and loss. To deny suffering as a human experience is to acknowledge only that which is good in life… optimists often take this line of thinking. However, it has been my experience that when a life catastrophe finally does strike, the optimist is less able to deal with the terrible situation that has been forced upon them than is the person who embraces suffering as an essential human experience.

Suffering exists and it is a very real and raw human experience. The pessimist often realizes this. However, like the optimist,  the pessimist also takes her/his view to the extreme so that very little of value is gleamed from having gone through the process of suffering. To the pessimist suffering is simply a state of being, a state of existing, if you will. Suffering simply is… it is the opposite to joy, the antithesis of happiness. A pessimist fails to see the value that can be found in embracing suffering. A pessimist seeks to distance him/herself from either extreme and instead numbs themselves to all emotions.

The point that I am trying to make is this: Suffering is essential in order to teach us things. Or, rather, suffering should never be  viewed as a human experience that is meant solely to force tears down our cheeks or wrench our hearts from our chests. Human suffering should always be viewed as an opportunity to open the self and discover something real… something beautiful. If we allow it to, suffering can teach us lessons about ourselves, about those around us, and about how we interact with the world. Suffering can be a window through which we may glimpse the figure of the person that we wish to become. Underneath all of the pain and tears that come with suffering are the lessons that teach us to love and cherish this life. Yes, cry, weep even… embrace the pain; but, also allow yourself time to be with your suffering. It is in these snapshot moments of life where the weight of the entire world seems to be upon our shoulders that an opportunity is born, that in these instances we may find the recourse to make our lives fulfilling and meaningful.

Gaining a Better Understanding of the Self

My experiences in life have taught me about the fragility of human nature, and that our existence here is one of the most temperamental and delicate things that exists in the natural world. The human condition is dependent on so much without the realm of our control that one may question exactly where the idea that we control our own destiny came from. We do not get to pick and choose when we feel sad or when we feel happy… we do not get to pick and choose when our parents die or when our significant other has to leave for a long period of time. To a large extent, our state of being is influenced by things far from our control. Even the best planning and consideration with foresight cannot prevent the unknown from happening. So, how then does one deal with the occasionally oppressive weight that life throws on our shoulders? I think it is best to live in the moment… to allow one to experience the full canvas of emotions. Now, some may be prone to think that living “in the moment” promotes a certain daredevil, reckless sort of lifestyle; but, I think differently than that. Oddly enough, I believe that living in the moment and experiencing the full weight of one’s emotions actually promotes a prescient awareness, for it grounds one in reality; and, if one is grounded in reality, one understands the situation more clearly; and, if one understands the situation more clearly, than one can better her/his understanding of their emotions, thus equipping one with the emotional maturity that promotes a more wholesome awareness of one’s own  condition within the human experience. Living in the moment can be dangerous for your emotions can more easily control you; yet, it is more prudent than living in the past and dwelling on emotions. Living in the past merely promotes the awareness of emotions… it does not promote the mastery of emotions – it is contemplative. I am not arguing for anyone to discount and discredit their past experiences, for they too are part of who we are and are part of the human experience; however, they are only things that we can learn from retrospectively and the past will not equip us with the knowledge required to live in the reality of today. Living in the moment, in the here-and-now, is about mastering one’s emotions and through this mastery gaining the ability to better understand one’s own human condition – it is through this that a prescient awareness is developed… an awareness that will equip one to live in the reality of today. We must give ourselves over to the moment and embrace the unpredictability of life. This is where living in the moment, living in the reality of today… in the reality of the here-and-now, is essential. It will help us to better cope with the invisible force that directs the course of our lives. We cannot dominate life, for, surely such a thing would be to our own detriment; no, we must only aspire to catch glimpses of its triumphs and tragedies… and in those moments – moments that we must dedicate ourselves to – we must strive to understand and master our emotions. This understanding can then lead to a better understanding of the human condition and then human nature itself… pain… suffering… joy… love… … … all existing in the reality of today.

The Responsibility to Protect: An Incomplete Thought

The question of conflict intervention has played out within many different contexts. But, it is always a rather heated discussion that surrounds the topic of conflict intervention; for, within the discourse of conflict intervention there is to be found the ever precarious notion of morality and moral judgments. Prior to 1994, the debate on conflict intervention was largely framed around the idea of the “right to intervene.” The R2I doctrine argues that some states in the international community, because of their military and economic power and established, stable political infrastructure, have the right to intervene in conflicts around the world. This, then, begs the question: Why do states intervene under the R2I doctrine? Taken at face-value, most would answer this question by saying, “Because they can.” However, the explanation has more depth to it than that. Under the R2I doctrine, states often intervene to protect their own interests, whether they be – as they often are – economic, political or even geopolitical. The R2I doctrine often focuses on choosing sides and it is those same economic, political and geopolitical interests that dictate whose side the intervene state will take.

But, during the time period from 1994 to 1996, in the midsts of the Rwandan and Bosnian Civil Wars, a new, controversial doctrine emerged – the “responsibility to protect” doctrine. Pioneered by Evans, Gareth and Mohamed Sahnoun, the R2P doctrine was the result of a collaboration between many humanist international conflict resolution specialists. It seems the reluctance of the international community to get involved in the Rwandan and Bosnian conflicts spurred Evans, Gareth and Mohamed Sahnoun – and their collaborators – to action. The R2P doctrine received its first official endorsement in December, 2001 when the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty included the term in their report to then Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. Since that time the R2P document has been worked into the founding charter of the African Union, the Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit and various United Nations General Assembly Resolutions. However, the first United Nations General Assembly Resolution dealing directly with the R2P doctrine was not produced until 14 September, 2009. But, what exactly does the R2P doctrine entail and what does it mean for the international community when intervention is the proverbial “order of the day?” The R2P doctrine can be better understood in three general principles:

1.) A State has the responsibility to guard its citizens from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

2.) If a State does not have the capacity to guard its citizens from stated criteria, the international community has the responsibility to provide the State with the means or resources necessary to guard its citizens from stated criteria.

3.) If a State is failing from guarding its citizens from stated criteria the international community has the responsibility to intervene diplomatically or militarily.

Now that I have provided background on the R2P doctrine I can move on to the purpose of this blog post in the first place – to air my issues with the R2P doctrine. The first among many issues that I have with the R2P doctrine is that it takes the issue of state sovereignty out of the State’s hands. The United Nations being used as an organization that can determine the status of a State’s sovereignty is not an idea that I liken to in the least. The issue of a State’s sovereignty can then be used to justify a military intervention by the United Nations. Now, before you explode in anger and call me a cold, pessimistic, cynic, please allow me to state this: The basic principles of the R2P doctrine I am more than willing to sign on for. Intervening in international civil wars when innocent lives are being destroyed is something that I think is a good idea. I am also even more than willing to sign on to the argument that if a State cannot meet its responsibilities to protect its citizens than said State forfeits its sovereignty and the international then may enact its responsibility to protect. However, where I begin to become worried is that there is currently no mechanism to determine who makes the decision as to when a State has failed to protect its citizens… does the international community make the decision through various diplomatic channels, does the U.N make the decision, does a country uni- or bi-laterally make the decision? None of this is outlined in the U.N. R2P Resolution passed in 2009. Who is making this decision is important, even though it may not appear so at first. It is important to make sure that a sort of international “power” hierarchy is not created as a result of the U.N Resolution’s failure to explain who decides when a State has failed to adequately protect its citizens from atrocities. That power – to make the decision – should not rest with the few powerful Western nations that are used to strong-arm diplomacy. Any mechanism that is implemented must make sure that the decision is as inclusive as possible when the question of determining a States failure to adequately protect its citizens from atrocities is at hand. The second issue that I take with the R2P doctrine is that it largely ignores causal aspects of civil wars where atrocities occur. Under the R2P doctrine, nations are only intervening because innocent lives are being lost to atrocities. So, what, then, happens when the international community intervenes, ends the conflict, and is then left without the slightest idea as to why the civil war was being fought in the first place. This is where conflict resolution and conflict negotiation specialists could lend the conflict intervention specialists a hand. Currently, the R2P doctrine has no mechanism in place that outlines what happens once the conflict ends. Do the intervening countries simply leave… or do they stay and see to the end of the conflict by bringing the two warring sides to the table to negotiate? I think the the R2P doctrine needs more development when the question of “what happens when the conflict is over?” is being asked. Thirdly, I ask this: What happens if a State does not wish for the international community to intervene, regardless of whether or not their efforts to protect their population from atrocities have been declared failed? Of course, proponents of the R2P doctrine would say, “Too bad, so sad. You knew the rules and you failed, therefore we have the right to intervene.” This is all well; however, is does not erase the sentiments of a recalcitrant State. After the conflicts ends, the international community would have to deal with a State that is still a bit upset, perhaps even raged, about the fact that the international community did not respect its wishes, and some would say still further, its sovereignty. What then? Do you punish the State that failed to protect its people? Do you do nothing to them? Do you welcome them back into the General Assembly when the session begins as if nothing at all had taken place?

I suppose the simple explanation is this: The R2P doctrine addresses why and when the international community gets involved in another State’s internal conflict, but does not address what happens in the time succeeding the intervention. To me, the R2P doctrine is a wonderful idea; but, it is lacking further development that would make the doctrine whole and complete. As it stands now, the R2P doctrine is not fully realized. Also, a note: the above explanation of the R2P doctrine and its inception and subsequent implementation is, for the sake of brevity, over-simplified… as are my issues with the R2P doctrine. If you would like a greater and broader discussion, I invite you to leave a comment with your email address in the comment section and I would be more than happy to engage in deeper discussion with you about the R2P doctrine.

But, thank you, dear reader, for taking time out of your day to read my incessant babbling. I appreciate it greatly.

Of Time

Time… a concept that man has oft pondered at. I have thought much of time lately. I have thought of its fragility, of its passing, and of the power that it holds over all of humanity, and indeed over all things. Time held the answers to the greatest scientific questions of the 16 and 17th centuries; and, many also think that it holds the answers to some of this eras most problematic and otherworldly scientific questions.

Time… how does one measure its passing? For, when was time’s beginning, and when will time end; that is, if time is ever to come to an end. Time will eventually destroy everything as there is nothing in this world that can outlast it. Our modern skyscrapers, our stone bridges, our Cristo Redentors and Eiffel Towers will all eventually succumb to the passing of time. Their metal and stone will rust and erode away… mirroring humanity’s own capitulation to time; for, eventually, our hearts will stop beating. It seems to me, that with all the awesome power it holds, humanity should be worshiping and praying to time – but, that would be silly wouldn’t it? We try so very hopelessly to preserve our most treasured historical documents, artifacts and landmarks. But, they too will acquiesce to time. Perhaps time does not heal all wounds but creates new ones.

Considering the sheer scope of time, our existence here on this Earth is so very short. But, time is not all destruction and death… while it does truly destroy all it also gives rise to several wondrous human concepts. Humanity partitions time into three relative categories: the past, present and future. It is the future that gives us hope, it is the future that serves as motivation for humanity to better itself. One may sit and wonder what the world will be like in 100 or 1,000 years. Will things have been destroyed? Yes. But, in their place we have a chance to place something beautiful, something venerable and something far more exceptional that what preceded it.

Time truly is relative; but, it is what we have been given… it is how we ultimately define our world and how we measure our existence. Use it wisely – do not despair at its passing and embrace the opportunities that time sometimes affords us. I think Robert Herrick related it best when he wrote in a poem:

” Gather ye rosebuds while ye may,
Old Time is still a-flying:
And this same flower that smiles today
To-morrow will be dying.”

Having a Tea Party…

It was the late evening during election night and it didn’t take long for my phone to start ringing once a good number of the races had been called and it became apparent that the Tea Party would indeed have a number candidates taking public office. What did these people calling me want? Well, I fielded questions about the future of the Tea Party. Many of my friends who called me wanted to know exactly where the Tea Party would go from here… would they fizzle out and die the slow painful death that most non-party political movements do? Or, would they find a home in Congress and speak with a legitimate voice?

The answer to that question is difficult because it depends on several things. First of all, I’d like to say this: If the Tea Party forms a Congressional Caucus – as some of its members aim to do – than the question of the Tea Party as a third party is answered. At that point there would be no question as to whether the Tea Party is an official third party or not. Now, the question of the Tea Party as a third party that will continue to exist for more than election cycle depends largely on the Tea Party’s efforts to build up a political structure around itself and Republican efforts to absorb the Tea Party Congressmen/women into their existing leadership rings and Congressional Caucus. The fact of the matter is that if the Tea Party fails to build up a political structure around itself, if they fail in getting out their political messages to the public, than they will fade away after one – possibly two – election cycles. Right now, the Tea Party does not have the resources in place to be able to build this political infrastructure… and only time will tell if they start to move in that direction.  The Republicans are currently in the process of trying to absorb the Tea Party candidates into their Republican Congressional Caucus. Viewed through the lens of the Republican leadership in Congress, the Tea Party is a sort of separatist movement. Their success in incorporating Tea Party members into their caucus largely depends on what kind of deals they are willing to make with Tea Party members on certain fiscal policies. Their success is also largely dependent on how well they do at incorporating Tea Party members into the existing power/leadership structure that is already in place. If they seek to absorb the Tea Party, the Republicans are going to have to be willing to share power with Tea Party members in Congress.

Now, I will be the first to admit that I certainly do not like the Tea Party, what they stand for, or the candidates that they supported. However, there is a positive to be found within the Tea Party movement, I believe. Thus far, I hardly think that one could call the Tea Party movement a failure; no, it has largely been a success. The fact that they fielded candidates in the 2010 mid-term elections and that a number of their candidates won seats in Congress certainly makes their efforts as a political movement – and possibly even a political party – a success. The fact that they have enjoyed such success is evidence enough that it is possible for there to be a third party in the United States party system; or, it at least legitimizes the possibility of there being a third party. For too long has the two-party system been the bane of political and even social progress in this country. I believe – while I do not like the Tea Party – that their success thus far is a great spring-board for other political movements to break into the political system, field candidates, and win seats. However, as the old adage goes, only time will tell.

America the…

For the past two weeks I have been busy in a number of different ways. I attended a conference, started to apply for a scholarship, and contracted the dreaded North Dakota Winter Cold/The Bubonic Plague. So, you will have to forgive me and accept my apologies for the late manner in which I now return to Adversaria.  I did not have much time to think of anything, much less the greater questions of life, while at the conference I attended or while starting the application process for this scholarship. However, over the course of the last four days, while curled up in bed resting and trying to combat my illness, I had plenty of time to simply think… and so think I did. The topic of discussion in my little head? America. Or, rather, the state thereof: The state of America. The more I thought about it I realized that there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there?

Don’t worry, I am not going to turn this into some radical Tea Party rant, nor am I going to espouse an ultra-liberal political agenda. In fact, I would plea with my reader to simply lay aside their political biases for a moment and consider what I have to say as an American.

America today suffers from a stunning lack of perspective… we know so little of ourself as a country, as a modern nation. Do we have priorities? Do we really? Allow me to put to you a few observations. In a country that supposedly values education the cost of attendance at our universities and colleges rises every year and as a result over the last 25 years American institutions have raised their cost of attendance an average of 150%, with the highest rates topping 400%. On  a yearly average, 17% of all college students in the U.S. have to drop out due to the rising cost of attendance, with the highest state rate at 24% in California. Do we really value education?

In a country that espouses the importance of family and family values we have a divorce rate that is among the highest in the world. Over 40% (some statistics point to a rate of over 50%) of all child-bearing households will end in divorce,  with the divorce rate increasing by 15% for each marriage the divorced couple enters after their first. Do we really value family?

In a country that prides itself on the openness of its political system and a place where political aspirations can become a reality we have a horrible mess of a political system. In fact, our political system is so open that you have to align yourself with one of two parties in order to be seen as a politically viable candidate. It’s so open that all you need to run a presidential campaign is the small amount $50 million. In the 2008 presidential campaign John McCain raised a total of $368 million while Barack Obama raised a total of $745 million, for a combined $1.1 billion dollars. The fact that political scientists say that to even think about running for president a prospective candidate needs at least $50 million is absolutely ridiculous. The fact that the two candidates campaign funds combine to equal the annual economic output of some of Middle-America’s cities is also absolutely ridiculous. Barack Obama’s cash-on-hand report was enough to buy out some of America’s most industrious energy companies, and the overall amount of $745 million dollars could have single handedly financed the operation of 76% of all public schools in America for six hours; and, with the combined $1.1 billion every school in America, and then some, could have operated for six hours.

My point, ladies and gentleman, is that we, as a country, seem to have a lost a certain perspective. We are more unaware of the inherent hypocrisies in our nation than we have ever been before, and this is a dangerous thing. There is a disconnect between what we say we value and how we act. I am simply calling for us to take several steps back and reevaluate what we, as a nation, value and what our priorities are. As far as I am concerned we are not “America the Beautiful” or “America The Land of the  Free,” because I am not entirely convinced even American’s know what America is. I think we need to start an intelligent, rational, and realistic conversation about what we as a country believe in, what we would fight for… talk about things like equality, political campaign finance, race, religion, sexual orientation. I think we, as a nation, have forgotten the importance of discussion. So, let’s start one, so that we no longer have to be “America The…?”.

The Simple Pleasures

To say that the nature of life in this epoch is tumultuous and chaotic is certainly not altogether inappropriate. While out and about grocery shopping, driving or having dinner with a friend, one can hear the whistles and bells of the Blackberry; one can see the manner in which humanity continually disconnects itself from within. The internet has brought about a social revolution, this cannot be denied. Skype, Facebook, Twitter and smart-phones have all made made the ordeal of maintaining contact with someone much less painful and much less of a hassle. Needless to say, the days of hand written letters have seen their last sunset. Now, one simply needs an internet connection and a few spare moments of time in order to “talk” to someone. But, does all of this come at a cost?

Does the fact that it is so very easy to maintain these relationships without actually having to know someone or without actually having to interact with someone in the same room, make the connections that we maintain less important and less realistic? I would say that they do. But, I digress. What I really want to talk about is how this social revolution brought about by the dawn of the “inter-web” has made us lose ourselves in the hustle and bustle of daily life in the 21st century. Call me old-fashioned, but, I still find pleasure in the simple things of life – sometimes, the incredibly simple things of life. I don’t need the latest apps on my phone, cool little games that fling bird-bombs across my screen at pigs huddling in a fortress built of Lincoln Logs, or the ability to go onto the internet and check my email every moment of every day.

Nope, give me a Peggy Lee or Felonious Monk CD (yes, I said CD) on a sunny Sunday afternoon… an open window with a view and a cup of tea and I am happy man. Give me a good book – give me a lovely walk on a fall afternoon. When I tell people what I enjoy doing I often elicit an odd, blank stare followed by, “That’s boring” or “What’s a CD?” It seems to me that people have forgotten how to appreciate the simple things in life, and I think it is because they are so very caught up in maintaining their social lives as they exist on the internet. It’s sad really. Real friendships and relationships are hard to come by these days because of the increasingly disconnected way in which we interact with one another.

I am not saying that I do not text, or that I don’t have a Facebook account and don’t talk to people on Skype – because I do all of those things. However, the difference between myself and most people seems to be that I haven’t forgotten what really matters and I haven’t lost the ability to enjoy these “simple pleasures.”

Do yourself a favor and go downtown to a local coffee shop and people-watch; go out for a walk and enjoy being alive, and don’t forget that life doesn’t happen on Twitter or Facebook. Life is out there… in the wild, messy and wonderful thing we call society. Go make a new friend, a real one, and not someone with a profile picture and screen name. I promise, it’s not that hard or painful. Life doesn’t have a connection rating, people.

An Introduction to Insanity

Starting a blog is always an interesting, if at least entertaining, fiasco. You are never quite sure who will read it, nor are you ever quite sure as to why it is that you are actually starting it. When one thinks of it, blogs really are very arrogant. Who am I to think that anyone would read what I have to say, much less care? But, alas, here I sit arrogantly typing away.

I suppose the genesis of this blog is rooted in the same gross misunderstanding that I have in myself. You see, I am not sure about much and I am even less sure about the things that I know… for, what is knowledge really – could it be, like beauty, simply a matter opinion, how one chooses to view the world? Unlike most I am not willing to say that I understand the nuances and profundities of life. For, in the concepts of truth, suffering, love, and the all important question of “why,” I have little understanding. But, like most, I do seek to better understand these concepts. And therein lies the inception of this blog.

I am not so concerned with actually mastering any of these concepts. I am more concerned with simply seeking to gain insight into what this odd little thing of a world is and why it works. The questions of truth, suffering, love, and “why” are barely the beginning of the all encompassing manner in which our lives blanket the world.

With the “introduction” complete, I must bid you farewell… if only for a moment, for I will return.

Jon