Tag Archives: laws

The Evil Weed

27 Apr

Before all these new laws were passed, I used to joke that I only take the legal drugs: alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine. I still don’t take marijuana, not for lack of access, but personal preference. But I’m still concerned that it’s still a federal crime.

Marijuana is still listed as a Schedule I Narcotic, which puts it in the same category as heroin, peyote, ludes, and ecstasy. For those who are not familiar with drug categories (as I wasn’t), these were established by the Drug Enforcement Agency which was founded by Richard Nixon back on July 7th, 1973. (Fun fact: he resigned one month and one day later.) However, the former president had a real passion for breaking the drug culture in America, which is how this whole thing started. See when Elvis became a federal narcotics agent.

So the newly founded DEA has to ask itself the question, “What should we focus on?” After all, there are lots of drugs out there. Congress categorizes them–you can check them out yourself–during the 1970 Controlled Substance Act. So they focus on the top ones… and make doctors fill out extra forms for the rest.

The difference between Schedule I and Schedule II appears to be “does it have a accepted medical use?” Schedule II meds are just as bad, just more useful. This includes the big winners in the abuse column like oxycontin, meth, cocaine… and interestingly enough, Adderall.

Then things get more interesting with Schedule III, which includes Tylenol with more than 90 mg of codeine. So you want this over the counter, you have to go to Canada, where they have the 222 mg of codeine. Also, anabolic steroids fall under this category. Then Schedule IV is “drugs with a low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence” like Ambien. As we learned from Tiger Woods, “low” does not mean “never.”

Like many federal laws, such as abortion, when advocates get frustrated trying to go through Congress, they go through the states. There is now 15 states where it completely legal, six states where it completely illegal, and the other 29 are in various states of legality. This can make it very frustrating if you’re a casual user, a serious user, or a businessman dealing in hemp. Take Colorado, completely legal, which borders on Nebraska, where it is decriminalized. It’s not legal there, just not going to throw a possession charge if they find a joint or vape pen on you. What they will do–as my sister who lives on the Colorado-Nebraska border will tell you–is bust ANY truck that is carrying a trailer full of marijuana. It may be passing through, it may be reaching the dealers in the Cornhusker state, but it’s busted when it crosses the border.

The DEA was busting California dispensaries just five years ago, where it was legal by state law, but as mentioned, illegal under federal law. I guess we can thank the Trump administration for that… also, there’s now a lot more states where it’s legal, so the DEA may not care about state laws, but they care about public opinion. Too much bad press means they lose funding; see Border Patrol. That’s why there’s the “prescription” fig leaf; if a doctor says you can have it, well, no problem, right? After all, that’s why doctors have licenses to prescribe under the DEA.

So there’s this strange dichotomy with weed being legal and illegal at the same time. Can’t take it on a plane (TSA is federal), can’t take it on a train (Amtrak Police are federal), but you can smoke it at home. At a time where smoking tobacco is socially disdained, smoking marijuana is preferable. This is ridiculous to have this double standard. Of course, I could be wrong–what do you think? Sure, marijuana isn’t addictive, but it can lead to a lifestyle that where do you don’t do anything else. Is there a reason we need to keep focus on this drug? Let me know in the comments below! Then check out one of my books; my characters aren’t usually addicts. However, if $1.99 is going to put a dent in your marijuana budget, go ahead and download one of my stories for free.

There’s a Loophole for Every Law

27 Mar

We all get frustrated with our elected officials and really hate professional politicians. So someone brought up the standard refrain: “We need term limits!” The problem is–like any law–there’s a loophole.

The problem with elections is that people tend to vote for what is familiar–that’s why signs are important for political races. If you’ve seen their name several thousand times before Election Day, you’re more likely to vote for them, even if you know nothing about them. Incumbents get reelected constantly, because they have greater name recognition–after all, you’ve seen them before. The US Congress has a 91% retention rate among its members. So term limits are the solution to stopping professional politicians.

Except they don’t… and we have evidence that they don’t. We focus on the national assemblies so much, but the great thing about America, is that we have lots of little “experiments in democracy” that we call states. For the sake of amusing myself, let’s call it “minor league politics.” No two states work the same. Nebraska has the only unicameral legislature in the country (established in 1937), every one else has a state senate and house of reps, just like the national government. Texas, Maine, Arizona, and Wyoming have “citizen legislatures,” where the members only serve part-time. Because people have called for term limits for decades, some states have implemented them, with… interesting results.

Let’s take Maine, which passed a term limit referendum back in 1993. The poster child for this push is John L. Martin, who had been the Democratic Speaker of the House for 18 years (at that point). The referendum kicked him out of his job the following year, but six years later, he served for eight years in the state senate, and is currently serving for six years back in the House of Representatives. Why? Because these “citizen politicians” found a loophole. The law says you can’t serve more than eight years in consecutive terms in any branch of the legislature. So he simply jumped to the Senate, then jumped back to the House. This is also the case in Ohio, where you can only serve two terms in any one branch, and many of these full-time politicians simply jump from one branch to the other with their party’s blessing.

I hear you say, “the limits aren’t the problem, it’s the way it’s written!” So here’s where I both praise and degrade my home state of Arizona. We also have term limits–no more than three terms in EITHER house. Also the state senators serve two year terms, same as the house reps. Okay, problem solved, right? No–what that means is that no particular politician gets enough experience or clout to be independent of their party, so the political parties actually have more power, and it encourages lockstep thinking.

It also forces these part-timers to think about higher office, and think less about doing their job there. We have a multitude of state offices that are elected, none of which are term limited. In fact, George Hunt, the first governor of Arizona, served seven terms… and the only reason those weren’t consecutive, was because he was appointed Ambassador to Thailand just to get rid of him. That is certainly not a worry today, because governors are more likely to run for US Senate, or get picked up as a cabinet secretary. Even Governor Hunt (mocked as “King George VII”) was only sent to Thailand to prevent him running for US Senate!

So although everyone says, “We should throw all the bums out,” voters also say, “But my congressman is great!” Term limits doesn’t solve the problem. Politicians write the laws, and therefore, they’re the ones best suited to take advantage of the loopholes. So what is the solution? Simple–vote for the challenger, even if what they stand for disgusts you. Because if you keep turning out dysfunctional legislature after dysfunctional legislature, even the stupidest politician is going to get the message. “Oh, we need to do something.” And that’s the most important lesson our elected leaders need to learn.

But I could be talking out my back end here; what do you think? Could term limits still work? Let me know in the comments below! Then after that, pick up one of my books. Or if $1.99 is too rich for your blood, download one of my stories for free!

Rules for Thee, Not for Me

27 Feb

It used to be great to be a celebrity–you could drive drunk and the cops would escort you home without a ticket. Well, this new reality has come home to politicians in the United States–that you can make a rule and think it doesn’t apply to you.

Before I start blasting both parties, let’s start with a recent celebrity who made the news: The Boss. Now I’m not a Bruce Springsteen fan. I kinda like his music and I -really- hate his insufferable political rants. It must have been the Vietnam War when we started caring what politics a movie or rock star had. (Sidenote: Vietnam vets STILL hate Jane Fonda.) However, I have a problem when a park ranger decides to make an example out of Bruce by daring to defy his orders. He took one shot of tequila–still below the legal limit–and then got on his motorcycle. But because the ranger specifically told him to not do it, this woods cop got his butt hurt, he arrested him.

What I find even more insufferable is that this happened in November, and some a-hole decided to use it to blast him for his super bowl ad in February. I kinda liked the ad, but when I realized it was the Boss talking, I thought, “How are we supposed to meet in the middle when you claim loudly that everyone to the right of Trotsky is evil?”

In the end, I don’t mind celebrities getting away with rule breaking because their actions don’t affect me. I don’t buy the Boss’ music, I don’t go to his concerts, I don’t fund him–but enough people do that allow him to rant all he wants. He gets to do that. Politicians thinking they can do the same thing DOES disturb me, because these people DO affect my life.

Take Gavin Newsom, governor of California, who has maintained the highest level of lockdown in his state due to the COVID outbreak. I’m not here to argue whether that was a good idea; I know that Gavin thinks its stupid because he decided to go out in public, in a large group of people, unmasked. He supports keeping public schools closed for “safety,” because it doesn’t apply to his daughter, who goes to a private school which has been open. The rules for you people, who don’t how to run your lives, but Gavin is smart enough to run his own… so why should he follow the rules that he himself wrote.

Hypocrisy runs on both sides of the aisle, say when Senator Ted Cruz decided to take his Cancun vacation while his state froze and had unbelievable power shortages. Now you might say that Ted is a US Senator and really doesn’t have much direct action that could help his constituents, but he could have been on the phone, bugging the president, and making an effort to help them. I don’t need him to fly back to Texas and hand out cups of soup, but staying in his office in Washington would have sufficed.

But to go on vacation is really tone-deaf. Plus there was the lame excuse of “oh, I was just escorting my daughter.” Sure, once you get to Cancun, the resorts are like little fortresses, and they’ll be safe, but your daughter has a daughter has a mom that could escort her just fine. Were you gonna jump back on a plane to Texas? Hell, no–so own up to it! Say, “I planned this trip to Cancun months ago and I’m going to go. I can call the president from there!”

But that looks bad and it should. You can’t preach against gay rights and then have gay sex in an airport terminal. You can’t send elderly folks back to infect their nursing homes and then claim you are a paragon of leadership. Own it and let the voters decide if you’re the person they want to represent them.

Okay, I’m off my soapbox, but what do you think? Did I hit both sides equally? Should politicians be accountable to the same laws? Let me know in the comments below!

The More Laws, the Less Justice

20 Feb

Yesterday I wrote about stupid signage, which I think speaks to a deeper trend in American society. There are those who believe that we just don’t have the right laws on the books and those just wish those laws would leave them alone. Where do you stand?

I think you can guess where I stand from the title of this post, but let me be charitable with those who don’t think like me. Take that water quality standards legislation I mentioned–why doesn’t every state have Oregon’s standards? You should be able to eat 6 ounces (175 g) of fish per day without getting sick. Completely agree–however, the moment you write that into law, there are consequences. After all, “there are no solutions, only trade-offs.”

Say you are a PRP (potentially responsible party) who dumps pollutants into the water. Although you could–in theory–be a local business or light industrial, usually the EPA only goes after big companies. So that factory has a choice. In order to comply with the new standards, the factory will have to start storing the waste in 55 gallon barrels, and then find a new hazardous waste dump to store it at. You can’t keep it on your own premises for more than 90 days. That costs money. Does the cost mean the price of our product has to go up to pay for it? Are the fines for pollution cheaper than price to pay to responsibly dump it? Does the cost of the pollution make the factory not profitable? If you’re not making money, then there’s no point keeping the factory open.

So Oregon may face a problem–if you lose a factory, you lose the taxes that factory paid, and the hundreds of jobs that factory created. And you get VERY angry voters. Guaranteed, Baja California don’t care about water quality. And if you’re trying to build a new chemical factory, Oregon is not going to be your first choice. So state legislators have to decide how to balance the environmental quality versus economic development.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt talked about the “forgotten man” when trying to sell his New Deal to the American people:

These unhappy times call for the building of plans that rest upon the forgotten, the unorganized but the indispensable units of economic power, for plans like those of 1917 that build from the bottom up and not from the top down, that put their faith once more in the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid.

FDR’s speech, April 7, 1932

But who pays for these grand plans? I hate to turn to a Yale sociology professor, but a hundred and fifty years ago, soc classes were a lot different:

As soon as A observes something which seems to him wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X, or, in better case, what A, B, and C shall do for X… What I want to do is to look up C. I want to show you what manner of man he is. I call him the Forgotten Man. perhaps the appellation is not strictly correct. he is the man who never is thought of…. I call him the forgotten man… He works, he votes, generally he prays—but he always pays…

William Graham Sumner, The Forgotten Man, 1876

In the modern world, no one is truly independent. What happens in China affects Oregon. The entrepreneur living in Portland has the choice to set up his business across the river in Vancouver, Washington if the laws are more favorable to him. States and countries compete for businesses because they need the tax money. And if Citizen C can’t get a job in Oregon–or pays too much in taxes–he can move somewhere he can pay less and still work. So I don’t believe you can legislate yourself into a utopia, because the smart man will always find a way around them.

However, I only see this from my perspective. Like I said, I like clean water too, but there’s a reason why the national standards are so low–because they’re trying to not kill business while saving the environment. But do you think? What am I missing in this argument? Let me know in the comments below!

Why use two words, when you can use several?

19 Feb

From the “none of us are as dumb as all of us” department, I happened to see this post and smiled. Recently, I’ve had to endure a lot of environmental legislation, so someone thinking that “no fishing” wasn’t encompassing enough puts a lot more faith in humanity than I do.

Contaminated fish IS a serious problem. Trust me, I’ve seen so many different diagrams about how pollutants accumulate in the bodies of plankton, which then accumulate in higher amounts with fish that eat the plankton, that accumulate higher in creatures that eat the fish (including us). The point being that most fish that you pull from your local rivers are not safe to eat… or at least, not safe to eat a lot of it.

So… how safe is safe? The national water quality standards for eating fish (to avoid pollution) in the US is 17.5 g. Most of my readers outside the US would think, “Damn, that’s small,” but although scientists use the metric system here, most Americans don’t. My mind (and most voters) don’t know from grams, so I would transpose that into ounces. Seventeen and a half ounces seems perfectly fine–and it is–that’s 500 grams. So when setting the water quality standards, most people would just shrug at 17.5 g and move on.

It took a lot of work by environmental groups to educate the public that 17.5 g was NOT acceptable. The most effective way is the dinner plate graphic that I show here. When you see the amounts of fish on your plate, suddenly it makes a lot more sense. They used that information to convince Washington State lawmakers to change the standards. And if you happen to be tribal or Asian or urban poor and feel the need to fish to add more protein to your diet, this is a major concern.

Which brings us back to that overly verbose sign–someone thought “If we just say, ‘No Fishing,’ then someone will say, ‘Well, I used a bucket, that’s not fishing, right?’ So best to cover all bases.” They didn’t go to the obvious “Some idiots won’t read your sign.” I remember when I lived in Virginia Beach, Virginia, I was walking along the canal and saw someone taking old chicken wings and using them to bait crab traps. There was a sign that said “no fishing” within easy sight distance. This fisherman didn’t think, “Why don’t I just fry up this chicken?” No, he said to himself, “I want crab and I don’t care how I get it.”

Eating crabs or fish from the Elizabeth River probably wouldn’t hurt if you did it once in a while. If you did it all the time, you’re gonna start losing hair. So why use two words when you can use several? Because people are trying to avoid frivolous lawsuits. There’s nothing on the bottle that says you can’t use Gorilla Glue on your hair, but if you took a moment to think about it, you wouldn’t.

I should go into a rant about “poorer but wiser,” but I should save that for another post. But what do you think? Are you start fishing off the city pier? Should we be stricter about water quality so you CAN fish off the city pier? Should we have any signs at all? Let me know in the comments below!

“I’d probably bear false witness.”

31 Oct
.

Yesterday, I was questioning how useful the Declaration of Human Rights in the modern world. Today, I wanted to play with this idea further – what if mission statements were law?

I’ve been thinking about this as part of a sci-fi university; it’s a story idea for NaNoWriMo. Imagine that when space exploration was about to expand, a UN commission met to come up with rules for the proper and equitable use of new worlds. On Earth, we’d laugh about it, and do what we’re going to do anyway. But what if the programmers decided to put those UN rules in the software, so that the new colonists, like it or not, would have to follow it or their tech would fail. Not so funny now, huh?

Article 1 of the DoHR

So apart from the UN rules (which are based on the US Northwest Ordinance of 1787), I thought, wouldn’t it be funny to have the Declaration of Human Rights included in the programming as the law of the colony. This instantly got me thinking of a West Wing quote (because the best ideas usually come from there), which goes:

Sam: Leo, did you know that there’s a town in Alabama that wants (to make the Ten Commandments into law)?
Leo: Yes.
Sam: What do you think about that?
Leo: Coveting thy neighbor’s wife is going to cause some problems.
Sam: That’s what I said. Plus, if I were arrested for coveting my neighbor’s wife, when asked about it, I’d probably bear false witness.

The West Wing, Take Out the Trash Day (2000)
Sucks for you, spaceman.

If you actually look past the prologue, some of these could be put into law without too much difficulty. Others, not so much. For example:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 1 of the DoHR

How do you act in a spirit of brotherhood? I’ve seen brothers beat the crap out of each other as well as hug.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 13 of the DoHR

Let’s say that our enlightened settlers don’t believe in the death penalty -and in my universe, there’s no jails – then exile is the highest level of punishment. If you can’t refuse them to return, what’s the point? I guess this is where it runs in conflict with Articles 10 & 11: Public Trials, but you could argue that Article 29 (2) creates a necessary “limitation” on these rights and freedoms.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 25 of DoHR

After a while, children can stop listening to their parents. After all, if Article 12 says “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home, or correspondence,” then a teenager can say, “Screw you, Mom, I’m going out tonight. That’s where the “special care” rule would probably apply, but it does bring up the legal question.

Like I said, this is part of the problem with mission statements – if they aren’t intended to be binding, then what’s the point? It’s great and inspirational, but if someone says, “What about my right to happiness?!” They need to be smart enough to realize that the Declaration of Independence is not a law – it’s a statement of grievances with an action at the end.

I’m going to have a lot of fun with this during NaNoWriMo. But am I missing the point? What do you think about the DoHR? How would you program/sabotage future colonists? Let me know in the comments below!

Thirty Articles

30 Oct

I don’t like mission statements. No one reads them, you spend hours on them, and people make the mistake thinking they’re important. After WWII, the United Nations was transitioning from a military alliance to a replacement to the League of Nations, so they wrote their own, called the Declaration of Human Rights in 1947. Important, yes, but are they useful?

When you’re working on a story idea, your mind goes to some weird ideas. Since my day job has currently dealt a lot with international law, naturally I’ve been reading a lot of conventions and declarations by the Conference on Weed Wackers, or the Protocol to Stop Bad Things Ever. Before I did this, I condensed International Law into one sentence, “This is the law agreed by all countries, until one of them decides not to.” As I learned, this is not precisely true. Now I’ve learned “this is the law as we enforce it.” India can sign the UN Framework on Climate Change in 1992, and the Paris Accords in 2015, but it’s up to them to enforce it. They did create the National Environment Policy (NEP), but I’m not sure how much the policy has been translated into law or action. Having lived in India, my guess is… not much.

Here’s Eleanor Roosevelt, former first lady and generally considered all around smarty, with the copy of the declaration she helped write when she was at the UN at its founding. So we’re trying to transition from a post-war world and get nations to sign on. So instead of NATO, whose mission statement was “let’s keep the Soviets from conquering Western Europe,” the UN was trying to say, “Let’s create a fair and just future. Don’t you wanna be a part of that?”

And it worked! The problem was this was just a declaration, not a law, not an agreement… NOT international law. The Virginia House of Delegates can pass a resolution that the Republic of Vietnam flag is the only Vietnamese flag that can be raised in Virginia (and they did), but they didn’t pass a law enforcing it. This was to appease the Vietnamese exile minority in that state who obviously gave a lot of support to a state legislator.

Nothing like Turkish law books. At least, I -think- these are Turkish law books.

Okay, I hear you saying, so where are you going with this? Why I hate mission statements like this is because people think they have the force of law, when in actuality, they don’t. Take a minor example – I used to work for a giant insurance company, and my job was to be a secretary in Projects… all the IT programs that this company had going. This particular project wrote up their mission statement which had a two sentence statement basically saying, “This project is to maximize efficiency with the widgets. These widgets allow us to help our company grow more profitable.” You know there was a meeting where someone was upset that the widgets weren’t doing something, and even though the tech monkeys explained to this executive why the widget couldn’t do something, this executive pointed to the mission statement and said, “I don’t see how this maximizing efficiency.” We didn’t either, Chuck, but you wanted to use your damn personal iPhone for business purposes, so we had to create the security protocols for it. (shrug)

So the Declaration of Human Rights was used in the same way. I read Sharing the Land of Caanan by Mazin Qumsiyeh, which was the only non-raving version of why the Palestinians should exist as a country. Usually both Israeli and Palestinian arguments involve long-winded historical and religious statements which read like rally speeches, but this one avoided all that. However, even then, he would fall into “But the UN Declaration of Human Rights says…” and I would roll my eyes, because he obviously didn’t get the memo that the DoHR is not law, it’s just a bunch of flowing words.

Later on, when my wife started diving deep into indigenous rights and philosophy, she pointed out, “It’s not that they believe they’re law, it’s just one of the few weapons they have!” In other words, Mr. Qumsiyeh is just saying, “You guys say that you believe that everyone has the right to nationality – why don’t you recognize the Palestinian Authority’s passports?” He knows the DoHR is not law, but he’s using the weapons he’s been given to make a firm and coherent argument to a jaded world.

I guess I’ll have to explain how I’m going to use this in a future story in the next post, but I have to ask, what do you think? Am I too jaded? Do mission statements and the DoHR have a purpose in this world? Let me know in the comments below!

Arbitrary and Capricious

23 Aug

Recently I learned you can say the “F” word on the radio in Canada. Well, French-speaking Canada… and English-speaking after 8 pm… which got me thinking that many laws are pretty silly or rarely enforced. So… why do we keep writing them?

Easy answer: someone really wanted that law. One would think that it’s because of a specific incident, but often… no! It’s often in anticipation of an event. Unfortunately, it’s almost never in anticipation of a coming disaster or important issue, but rather something really, really minor. I’m not gonna bash Canadian law when there’s such good examples here in the United States! There’s a great Twitter feed for this called A Crime a Day, where the guy likes to comb through the US Federal Code and find obscure federal laws to break. Sometimes he has to stretch the crime to fit the code, but it’s still enlightening.

Harvey Silvergate wrote a book (I believe he’s quoting a judge) that points out that the average American breaks three laws a day. Why? Because no one… not even the lawyers, know what all the laws are. So here’s the frightening fact: You can be arrested and charged with a crime at any time for the normal things you do everyday. I’m grateful to live in a country where I don’t fear the police (and if you’re American, considering how many protesters are currently not shot, you don’t either) but as tensions get higher, that’s getting less and less certain.

I can go on many paths here, but my basic libertarian bent is “the more laws, the less justice.” Cicero said that two thousand years ago at a time when laws were literally carved into stone. However, it didn’t mean what we mean we say “carved into stone.” The law was still changeable; old laws that were unpopular with the current politics were chiseled off the Twelve Tablets (as their law was called). The reason you carved it into stone was so that everyone could see it in public, they could read the law, and no one could be in ignorance of what it said.

Penn Gillette is fond of saying, “Could this be solved with more freedom?” Even though I disagree with him on many things, I think the answer is usually “Yes.” We need to seriously cut down the number of laws that are on the books in this country, this state, this county, and the city. Often legislators put forward a bill just to get their name recognized… because that’s the only way to get reelected.

This happens with bills I’m even in favor of, such as my own Arizona senator (Krysten Sinema) passing The Legion Act which expanded terms of historical federal service. This allowed veterans of US Armed Forces who previously served in peacetime to be considered having served in times of “federal service” (not always a direct wartime) so that they can join veterans’ organizations which have that as a requirement. As a member of the Sons of the American Legion, I know at least two people directly this has helped.

But no one asked the obvious question – “Um, couldn’t these organizations have simply changed their own membership rules to let them in?” Of course they could! The Legion, the VFW, the Jewish War Vets, the Scottish American Military Society, et al… they all knew this was an issue! They could have fixed it a LONG time ago. Instead, they allowed folks who flunked out of boot camp to be full members, but people who served four years to not be, just because of when they served.

In the end, I fear most laws are “arbitrary and capricious,” (the legal term) and they are only applied when those in power want to make a statement. If we simplify the law, and give judges latitude to make decisions based on the situation (with proper appeals and checks when they don’t), we will have a more just society.

Of course, I could be wrong. Cicero was a terrible consul in the Roman Republic. What do you think? Tell me in the comments below!

BTW, if you want to know everything about swearing on the radio in Canada, a blogger did a great job of explaining it here.

American Legion Post 138

Damn Straight 138!

Tales from a broken doll

Short stories, poetry, musings and rambling.

The Cracking

"We have this treasure in clay pots ..."

Poteci de dor

"Adevărul, pur şi simplu, e rareori pur şi aproape niciodată simplu" - Oscar Wilde

Struggle Street

Mental Health and Well Being

O Miau do Leão

Uma pequena voz da Flandres

A Life's Journey

Little things matter 🌼

Dreamy_parakeet

A dreamer, who loves to muse her world and penned it down✍️ Each words in this blog lay close to my soul🧡

Harley Reborn

♠️Rip It Up & Start Again♥️

Talkin' to Myself

I'm listening

Nature Whispering

From Sunset to Dawn

Riverside Peace

The Official Website of Australian Writer Chrissy Siggee

I didn't have my glasses on....

A trip through life with fingers crossed and eternal optimism.

How to feel better

Another year, a decade or a lifetime - sooth your body eternally

Looking to God

Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. (Matthew 6:33)

ROBERTO ALBORGHETTI

We may see things that we don't even imagine.

Decaf White

No sugar