Postmodernism is the world we live in today. Since we are, in fact, living it, it can be difficult to define what postmodernism is. This strikes me as feeting, considering that we discussed today that our world is all about blurring the lines between what is real and what is not. Question: if we consider something to be real, does that make it real? For example, if I go to see the projection Bill Gates has of the Mona Lisa, which looks just like the original, is that just as good as seeing the original Da Vinci? I don't think so. I think that we are losing appreciation for the beauty of the creation and vision that had to go into the original. Yes, we can mass produce things, but something is lost, in my opinion at least.
Our world is quickly becoming a virtual one. We play virtual sports on the Wii, we talk to images of people on Skype and train for important jobs in extremely realistic simulators. Today I learned about Hatsune Miku- a huge singing sensation in Japan. She has a number one album on the charts and sells out shows. She has overseas concerts. She's also fake. She's a 3D projection. Search for "World Is Mine Live in HD" on YouTube and watch the crowd react. It's rather ridiculous.
Already, we've lost a lot of things by making ourselves slaves to computers and their virtual worlds. I sat down to write letters the other day, by hand, for some of my friends, and was amazed at how long it had been since I'd done it. Sure, it took longer than it would have for me to write on their wall on Facebook, but I felt like it forced me to think more about the actual person I would give it to, instead of a computer profile. We expect things so fast, we're forgetting that patience is an important virtue.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
Thoughts on Existentialism
Wow. Existentialism makes me think. It's basically the belief that instead of "I think, therefore, I am," we should say, "I am, therefore, I think." For there to be an idea of self, or 'I', we have to create it. I don't exist unless I believe that I do, and create myself.
An existentalist believes that we all create ourselves as individuals. It rather reminds me of Romantacism in that way. Remember, leaves don't exist, only each individual leaf. This means that there is no human nature, because we are all different. If it was naturally ingrained in us, we wouldn't be able to completely create ourselves. And if there is no human nature, then there can't be right and wrong, because we are all different. There can only be what each of us finds acceptable or unacceptable. There are no moral absolutes or meanings-- we each create our own meanings and rules for life. Really, anything goes.
Within the beliefs of existentalism, by the choices each of us makes, we show others what kind of a world we'd like to live in. Basically, we would all take the Golden Rule literally. As it is, most of us view the Golden Rule as "Do unto others as you OUGHT to want done to you." It elevates our desires to treat others well. But that's not what the Golden Rule says. It says, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." That means, do to other people as they do to you. For example, if I throw rocks at people, I'm showing others that in my world, everyone would throw rocks at each other. Therefore, someone would be perfectly justified in throwing rocks at me, because that's what I was saying I wanted. I remember using this logic as a child towards my mother as an excuse for hitting my sister back, because I was "just following the Golden Rule." She hit me first, she obviously wanted to be hit, I hit her back. I just didn't want to get in trouble- little did I know that I was practicing existentalism!
Life is made of nothing but millions of miniscule choices mixed in with larger ones. There is no fate, nothing is forced. We have to deal with the choices of others as well as our own, but there is ALWAYS a choice. Always. Even if someone puts a gun to my head, I can still choose not to listen to them. No one can take away my power to choose, because I'm not a robot. This can be difficult to deal with because it makes us all responsible for everything good, as well as bad, that goes on in our life. All the choices I face today are the results of choices that I made in the past. No one else can be blamed for my circumstances.
I agree extremely with the idea of the anguish of choosing that goes with existentalism: we are completely and utterly alone in making choices. No matter how much people might want to help me, no matter how much advice I am given, no matter how confident I may be, I have to make all of my choices on my own. And when the moment of decision comes, I don't know if it is the right choice. It may become clear very quickly whether it was the right choice, or it might never become clear at all. And in that time when I don't know if I'm making the right choice or not, anguish is a very apt descriptive word.
The vast variety of choices that we have to make every day astounds me whenever I think about it. We choose constantly. There is NEVER a moment when I'm not making a choice. Some of them are more apparent to others, like choosing a college, getting into a relationship, or getting a job. But in between the big ones are millions and millions of smaller choices that lead to the bigger ones. We don't even think about them while we make them, but they do affect our lives and culminate in huge choices. I had been thinking about this even before we started talking about existentalism, because it's scary to me. I hate knowing that I might be making choices that will seriously make my life hell without even knowing it. Sure, I might be making the ones that lead to extreme happiness, but here's the thing- IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW.
Example: During the first couple weeks of school, my roommate and I made the choice to hang out at the clocktower after dinner and sing songs. We did this because it was fun and we enjoyed it. We didn't do it every day, just sometimes. One Thursday night, we chose to. I didn't think about it, she didn't think about it, we just did it. Because of that simple little choice, I met a boy that I fell hard for and ended up dating very soon after. The relationship lasted less than a month, and I didn't deal with the breakup very well. I went into a spiral of depression. There was one guy who helped extremely much with encouragement and making me feel like it was going to be okay. In fact, he turned out to be way more awesome than the guy I originally fell for. The scary thing is, I would likely have never met him if it hadn't been for the dubious choice of dating the first guy, which resulted from the choice to sing at the clocktower. Even if I had met him, I probably wouldn't have liked him or gotten to know him, since I didn't like him the first couple of times that we met.
So, by choosing to sing at the clocktower on a Thursday night, I inadvertently chose to watch "The Big Bang Theory" into the early hours of the morning with an amazing guy two months later. We could take it even farther back. We could say that when the Housing people put Rian and I together for roommate's, they were choosing to let me have one of the best Friday nights ever. We could say that when the girl who was originally going to be my roommate chose to make other arrangements, she was choosing for me to be introduced to Leonard and Sheldon!
I get so overwhelmed thinking about stuff like this. It's not just my choices I have to deal with, it's also the choices of everyone around me! Lately, I haven't been able to stop thinking about the little choices that might be ruining my life, and I can't live like this all the time. I can't think that every time I choose to go to lunch five minutes later than I might have, I made a choice that results in me missing a once in a lifetime opportunity. Choosing between going on walk to the park or to the other side of campus should not be the most critical choice I make of the day, but I've been viewing it like that lately.
In short, existentalism is all about choices. I'm forced to agree with it, because it makes so much logical sense. Look at life- it's NOT planned. It's so unpredictable and it all depends on the miniscule choices that billions of people make everyday without stopping to consider the impact that they might have.
An existentalist believes that we all create ourselves as individuals. It rather reminds me of Romantacism in that way. Remember, leaves don't exist, only each individual leaf. This means that there is no human nature, because we are all different. If it was naturally ingrained in us, we wouldn't be able to completely create ourselves. And if there is no human nature, then there can't be right and wrong, because we are all different. There can only be what each of us finds acceptable or unacceptable. There are no moral absolutes or meanings-- we each create our own meanings and rules for life. Really, anything goes.
Within the beliefs of existentalism, by the choices each of us makes, we show others what kind of a world we'd like to live in. Basically, we would all take the Golden Rule literally. As it is, most of us view the Golden Rule as "Do unto others as you OUGHT to want done to you." It elevates our desires to treat others well. But that's not what the Golden Rule says. It says, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." That means, do to other people as they do to you. For example, if I throw rocks at people, I'm showing others that in my world, everyone would throw rocks at each other. Therefore, someone would be perfectly justified in throwing rocks at me, because that's what I was saying I wanted. I remember using this logic as a child towards my mother as an excuse for hitting my sister back, because I was "just following the Golden Rule." She hit me first, she obviously wanted to be hit, I hit her back. I just didn't want to get in trouble- little did I know that I was practicing existentalism!
Life is made of nothing but millions of miniscule choices mixed in with larger ones. There is no fate, nothing is forced. We have to deal with the choices of others as well as our own, but there is ALWAYS a choice. Always. Even if someone puts a gun to my head, I can still choose not to listen to them. No one can take away my power to choose, because I'm not a robot. This can be difficult to deal with because it makes us all responsible for everything good, as well as bad, that goes on in our life. All the choices I face today are the results of choices that I made in the past. No one else can be blamed for my circumstances.
I agree extremely with the idea of the anguish of choosing that goes with existentalism: we are completely and utterly alone in making choices. No matter how much people might want to help me, no matter how much advice I am given, no matter how confident I may be, I have to make all of my choices on my own. And when the moment of decision comes, I don't know if it is the right choice. It may become clear very quickly whether it was the right choice, or it might never become clear at all. And in that time when I don't know if I'm making the right choice or not, anguish is a very apt descriptive word.
The vast variety of choices that we have to make every day astounds me whenever I think about it. We choose constantly. There is NEVER a moment when I'm not making a choice. Some of them are more apparent to others, like choosing a college, getting into a relationship, or getting a job. But in between the big ones are millions and millions of smaller choices that lead to the bigger ones. We don't even think about them while we make them, but they do affect our lives and culminate in huge choices. I had been thinking about this even before we started talking about existentalism, because it's scary to me. I hate knowing that I might be making choices that will seriously make my life hell without even knowing it. Sure, I might be making the ones that lead to extreme happiness, but here's the thing- IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW.
Example: During the first couple weeks of school, my roommate and I made the choice to hang out at the clocktower after dinner and sing songs. We did this because it was fun and we enjoyed it. We didn't do it every day, just sometimes. One Thursday night, we chose to. I didn't think about it, she didn't think about it, we just did it. Because of that simple little choice, I met a boy that I fell hard for and ended up dating very soon after. The relationship lasted less than a month, and I didn't deal with the breakup very well. I went into a spiral of depression. There was one guy who helped extremely much with encouragement and making me feel like it was going to be okay. In fact, he turned out to be way more awesome than the guy I originally fell for. The scary thing is, I would likely have never met him if it hadn't been for the dubious choice of dating the first guy, which resulted from the choice to sing at the clocktower. Even if I had met him, I probably wouldn't have liked him or gotten to know him, since I didn't like him the first couple of times that we met.
So, by choosing to sing at the clocktower on a Thursday night, I inadvertently chose to watch "The Big Bang Theory" into the early hours of the morning with an amazing guy two months later. We could take it even farther back. We could say that when the Housing people put Rian and I together for roommate's, they were choosing to let me have one of the best Friday nights ever. We could say that when the girl who was originally going to be my roommate chose to make other arrangements, she was choosing for me to be introduced to Leonard and Sheldon!
I get so overwhelmed thinking about stuff like this. It's not just my choices I have to deal with, it's also the choices of everyone around me! Lately, I haven't been able to stop thinking about the little choices that might be ruining my life, and I can't live like this all the time. I can't think that every time I choose to go to lunch five minutes later than I might have, I made a choice that results in me missing a once in a lifetime opportunity. Choosing between going on walk to the park or to the other side of campus should not be the most critical choice I make of the day, but I've been viewing it like that lately.
In short, existentalism is all about choices. I'm forced to agree with it, because it makes so much logical sense. Look at life- it's NOT planned. It's so unpredictable and it all depends on the miniscule choices that billions of people make everyday without stopping to consider the impact that they might have.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Freud and Rebecca
We've been delving into the twisted mind of Sigmund Freud lately, and I would not be completely truthful if I didn't say that I was disturbed. I know that I'm not as smart as he was, and don't really understand what I'm talking about, but I don't agree with him on a lot of points.
It becomes obvious very quickly reading "Civilization and Its Discontents" that with Freud, everything is about sex. He's obsessed with it. Not that we all aren't, on some level, but he really is. Unfortunately, his obsession doesn't extend to include love. I don't like the way that he seems to think being in love is the same as being exclusive sexual partners. I believe that not all exclusive sexual partners are in love, and not all those in love have sex. His Oedipus complex idea (basically that all men subconsciously want to kill their fathers and marry their mothers) doesn't make sense to me. What about those kids that didn't have dads in their homes? Their chances of seeing a father figure naked and then making the connection that he should respect men more than women don't seem high.
However, there are also points that I agree with him on. For example, these quotes from "Civilization and Its Discontents":
"We are never so defenceless against suffering as when we love, never so helplessly unhappy as when he have lost our loved object or its love." -page 33
"The enjoyment of beauty has a peculiar, mildly intoxicating quality of feeling. Beauty has no obvious use; nor is there any clear cultural necessity for it. Yet civilization could not do without it." -page 33
"He made himself dependent in a most dangerous way on a portion of the external world, namely, his chosen love-object, and exposed himself to extreme suffering if he should be rejected by that object or should lose it through unfaithfulness or death. For that reason the wise men of every age have warned us most emphatically against this way of life; but in spite of this it has not lost its attraction for a great number of people." -page 56
"A love that does not discriminate seems to me to forfeit a part of its own value, by doing an injustice to its object; and secondly, not all men are worthy of love." -page 57
"When a love-relationship is at its height there is no room left for any interest in the environment; a pair of lovers are sufficient to themselves, and do not even need the child they have in common to make them happy." -page 65
It becomes obvious very quickly reading "Civilization and Its Discontents" that with Freud, everything is about sex. He's obsessed with it. Not that we all aren't, on some level, but he really is. Unfortunately, his obsession doesn't extend to include love. I don't like the way that he seems to think being in love is the same as being exclusive sexual partners. I believe that not all exclusive sexual partners are in love, and not all those in love have sex. His Oedipus complex idea (basically that all men subconsciously want to kill their fathers and marry their mothers) doesn't make sense to me. What about those kids that didn't have dads in their homes? Their chances of seeing a father figure naked and then making the connection that he should respect men more than women don't seem high.
However, there are also points that I agree with him on. For example, these quotes from "Civilization and Its Discontents":
"We are never so defenceless against suffering as when we love, never so helplessly unhappy as when he have lost our loved object or its love." -page 33
"The enjoyment of beauty has a peculiar, mildly intoxicating quality of feeling. Beauty has no obvious use; nor is there any clear cultural necessity for it. Yet civilization could not do without it." -page 33
"He made himself dependent in a most dangerous way on a portion of the external world, namely, his chosen love-object, and exposed himself to extreme suffering if he should be rejected by that object or should lose it through unfaithfulness or death. For that reason the wise men of every age have warned us most emphatically against this way of life; but in spite of this it has not lost its attraction for a great number of people." -page 56
"A love that does not discriminate seems to me to forfeit a part of its own value, by doing an injustice to its object; and secondly, not all men are worthy of love." -page 57
"When a love-relationship is at its height there is no room left for any interest in the environment; a pair of lovers are sufficient to themselves, and do not even need the child they have in common to make them happy." -page 65
Sunday, October 10, 2010
"A Doll's House" Characters
We just watched the movie "A Doll's House", a film adapation of the play by Henrik Ibsen. I found it to be an interesting play. However, I didn't like any of the characters, except for maybe Krogstad, which makes it difficult to really enjoy.
Nora, the female protagonist, came across as annoying and naive, seeming to think that every problem has a simple solution and no real consequences. However, I excuse her those faults and blame them instead on her husband, Torvald, who viewed her, and women in general, as too delicate to deal with life. If Nora's children are the toys in her dollhouse of a life, she is Torvald's. When she wants him to do smoething for her, she resorts to begging like a child. She isn't viewed as an equal adult, she is somone to be sheltered and protected. Men who treat women like that really get on my nerves, and Torvald's sentiment that he wouldn't want Nora to get anywhere without him or his permission irked me. He turns on Nora as soon as he finds out that she has done things behind his back, and then expects everything to be okay the moment he "forgives'' her. He refers to Nora as his squirrel, bird, or other small animal, inferring that she isn't even the same quality of human as he is.
Kristine Linde, the other main woman in the play, aroused some dislike as well. Both in the present time in play and the past, her only bargaining chips seem to be sexual. First she gives up her love for Krogstad in order to marry for money. After her husband has died, she goes to Krogstad and tells him that she still cares for him, but this is only after learning that Nora needs help, and it seems very fake to me. She also strikes me as deceptive. Nora goes to her for help, telling her that she forged her father's signature in order to borrow money from Krogstad when Torvald was sick, and now Krogstad has sent a letter to Torvald telling him all this. Kristine promises to persuade Krogstad to change his mind. As aforementioned, she tells him that she still loves him, and he is quite willing to demand his letter back unread. However, Kristine tells him, basically, to let Nora ride out the storm. I'm not saying that this wasn't a good choice, as it did open Nora's eyes to Torvald's true colors, but it wasn't what she said she would do.
Dr. Rank, a friend of the family, is an extremely creepy man. He admits to Nora that he is in love with her, and seems very obsessed with her throughout the story. Nora doesn't know how to deal with this. She is a very innocent person and had never thought that he would view her as more than a friend, especially since she is young enough to be his daughter. I can't help but think that the doctor should have gone for Kristine. As long as he's got money, I doubt she'd have a problem with it.
Krogstad is the only one to me who genuinely comes off as trapped by his circumstances, and didn't annoy me to death. I didn't particulary like him, but he didn't annoy me.
So there ya have it. I somehow manage to like "A Doll's House" without liking any of the characters, and despising most of them. Life's weird.
Nora, the female protagonist, came across as annoying and naive, seeming to think that every problem has a simple solution and no real consequences. However, I excuse her those faults and blame them instead on her husband, Torvald, who viewed her, and women in general, as too delicate to deal with life. If Nora's children are the toys in her dollhouse of a life, she is Torvald's. When she wants him to do smoething for her, she resorts to begging like a child. She isn't viewed as an equal adult, she is somone to be sheltered and protected. Men who treat women like that really get on my nerves, and Torvald's sentiment that he wouldn't want Nora to get anywhere without him or his permission irked me. He turns on Nora as soon as he finds out that she has done things behind his back, and then expects everything to be okay the moment he "forgives'' her. He refers to Nora as his squirrel, bird, or other small animal, inferring that she isn't even the same quality of human as he is.
Kristine Linde, the other main woman in the play, aroused some dislike as well. Both in the present time in play and the past, her only bargaining chips seem to be sexual. First she gives up her love for Krogstad in order to marry for money. After her husband has died, she goes to Krogstad and tells him that she still cares for him, but this is only after learning that Nora needs help, and it seems very fake to me. She also strikes me as deceptive. Nora goes to her for help, telling her that she forged her father's signature in order to borrow money from Krogstad when Torvald was sick, and now Krogstad has sent a letter to Torvald telling him all this. Kristine promises to persuade Krogstad to change his mind. As aforementioned, she tells him that she still loves him, and he is quite willing to demand his letter back unread. However, Kristine tells him, basically, to let Nora ride out the storm. I'm not saying that this wasn't a good choice, as it did open Nora's eyes to Torvald's true colors, but it wasn't what she said she would do.
Dr. Rank, a friend of the family, is an extremely creepy man. He admits to Nora that he is in love with her, and seems very obsessed with her throughout the story. Nora doesn't know how to deal with this. She is a very innocent person and had never thought that he would view her as more than a friend, especially since she is young enough to be his daughter. I can't help but think that the doctor should have gone for Kristine. As long as he's got money, I doubt she'd have a problem with it.
Krogstad is the only one to me who genuinely comes off as trapped by his circumstances, and didn't annoy me to death. I didn't particulary like him, but he didn't annoy me.
So there ya have it. I somehow manage to like "A Doll's House" without liking any of the characters, and despising most of them. Life's weird.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Men, Women, and Yellow Wall-paper
We've had some interesting discussions on gender/sex roles in class lately. When we were asked to come up with adjectives to describe masculine/feminine. One would think that the "stubborn", "barbaric", "proud" men and the "emotional times ten", "controlling", "expensive" women hated each other. I think it shows how much of an issue sexism continues to be even today by our debates about the capability and appropriateness of women to be in the military. I personally believe that if a woman wants to be on the front lines and can pass the physical tests that the men can, no one should be able to tell her no. Not when she will do her country more good than a man who doesn't want to be there. And don't tell me that she won't be able to fight as fiercely-- I would remind you of the Mother Bear Instinct we women have. When we fight about something we care for, hell or high water aren't going to get in the way.
Also, we read Charlotte Perkins Gilman's short story "The Yellow Wall-paper" (TYWP) along with watching a portion of the movie. It is a creepy little story, that's for certain. I can't imagine getting stuck in bed for three days, let alone three weeks. I would go crazy without something constructive to do, which is obviously the realization that Gilman wants me to come to.
I think the two subjects (women in the military and "The Yellow Wall-paper) have a similar theme. Women are seen by men as being less capable than themselves, and so they feed it to us until even other women start believing it. In TYWP, the unnamed narrator often says that she feels ungrateful, because she knows how hard her husband and nurse are working to help her. I think that we as women today are sometimes supposed to have the same level of gratitude towards the people who want to keep us down. We're being 'protected' from the reality of war, not being told that we can't do it. It's for our own good. In my mind, it's thinking like that that will make it difficult for us to gain the full equality with man that we completely deserve.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
Also, we read Charlotte Perkins Gilman's short story "The Yellow Wall-paper" (TYWP) along with watching a portion of the movie. It is a creepy little story, that's for certain. I can't imagine getting stuck in bed for three days, let alone three weeks. I would go crazy without something constructive to do, which is obviously the realization that Gilman wants me to come to.
I think the two subjects (women in the military and "The Yellow Wall-paper) have a similar theme. Women are seen by men as being less capable than themselves, and so they feed it to us until even other women start believing it. In TYWP, the unnamed narrator often says that she feels ungrateful, because she knows how hard her husband and nurse are working to help her. I think that we as women today are sometimes supposed to have the same level of gratitude towards the people who want to keep us down. We're being 'protected' from the reality of war, not being told that we can't do it. It's for our own good. In my mind, it's thinking like that that will make it difficult for us to gain the full equality with man that we completely deserve.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Some Thoughts on Compassion
We had an interesting discussion on Marx's Communist Manifesto in class today. Several interesting points that stood out to me, but the most thought provoking discussion point came up at the end of class. Where does compassion fit into the human nature? If we are motivated solely by greed and self interest, where does the urge come from to help others? Dr. Tucker told the story of a two two-year-old children who were in a room separated by a glass wall. One of the children had access to two ropes. When one was pulled, it would deliver a treat to the child who pulled it. The other delivered a treat to the other child. The child would pull both ropes so that the other child could enjoy. The same experiment was done with two monkeys, and the monkey never chose to help the other.
This makes me think that there is something naturally in us that makes us want to help others. If that is true, then the question can be asked, "Why are there things like world poverty? Why don't we help each other more?" In my opinion, the problem comes in the fact that as we grow older, we are taught self interest more and more. When we do help others, it is sometimes only to appear charitable and generous, and not always because we just see that someone needs something that we have. Rebecca's challenge of the day: Let's all try to be a little more like children. They don't always do things for logical reasons. While it's certainly true that little children can be quite unwilling to share, sweet moments abound where children notice that they can help someone else.
The world would be a better place.
This makes me think that there is something naturally in us that makes us want to help others. If that is true, then the question can be asked, "Why are there things like world poverty? Why don't we help each other more?" In my opinion, the problem comes in the fact that as we grow older, we are taught self interest more and more. When we do help others, it is sometimes only to appear charitable and generous, and not always because we just see that someone needs something that we have. Rebecca's challenge of the day: Let's all try to be a little more like children. They don't always do things for logical reasons. While it's certainly true that little children can be quite unwilling to share, sweet moments abound where children notice that they can help someone else.
The world would be a better place.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Responsibility and the Creator
We have now started reading Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. It always takes me awhile to really get into books, so it's not my favorite yet, but I am enjoying it. One of the moral questions that it poses is: What responsibility does the creator have for their creation? If Victor Frankenstein created his monster, is he responsible for its actions?
I don't have all the answers, but here are some of my thoughts on the subject. I think that every one has to be accountable for their own actions. A child eventually has to make their own decisions without blaming their parents. However, I also believe that the child can only be held responsible for what they know and understand. If they don't know that stealing is wrong, but take something that isn't theirs, it isn't stealing because they didn't understand that it was wrong. It is only when someone learns something is wrong they can do it. Like they say, ignorance is bliss.
Any creature that can read Paradise Lost and understand it can understand that it is wrong to kill people. I therefore find it more of a cop out than anything for the creature to say that it is Frankenstein's fault that it committed murder. Passing blame doesn't make you less responsible for your own choices.
I don't have all the answers, but here are some of my thoughts on the subject. I think that every one has to be accountable for their own actions. A child eventually has to make their own decisions without blaming their parents. However, I also believe that the child can only be held responsible for what they know and understand. If they don't know that stealing is wrong, but take something that isn't theirs, it isn't stealing because they didn't understand that it was wrong. It is only when someone learns something is wrong they can do it. Like they say, ignorance is bliss.
Any creature that can read Paradise Lost and understand it can understand that it is wrong to kill people. I therefore find it more of a cop out than anything for the creature to say that it is Frankenstein's fault that it committed murder. Passing blame doesn't make you less responsible for your own choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)