On Donald Trump

"Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half."
-Gore Vidal
Before I begin this post, I'd like to clarify a few things. First, I would like to remind you that disagreements are welcome here. It is perfectly acceptable for you to comment on the post or on Facebook expressing your disagreement, provided that you do so in a logical manner. That is to say, don't type, "you're wrong," type, "here are my reasons for disagreeing." There should be reasoning behind what you say. Saying "you're wrong" doesn't convince anyone. Next, I would like to address any potential concerns stemming from my opening quotation. There shouldn't be any, but you never know. After all, Gore Vidal was a Democrat. Some Republicans would discount my entire post based on that quotation. But if we make the assumption (for the sake of argument) that Democrats are a bunch of idiots and don't know anything, then we can bring into play the saying that says, "even a broken clock is right twice a day." Finally, I would like to clarify what this post will be covering. I will not be addressing Donald Trump's policies or background. I will be addressing first his temperament, and then his popularity. While his policies and background may be relevant to the conversation in general, they are not relevant to this post. Just in case they're brought up in the course of conversation, I'll make the assumption that his policies are good and that his background is bad. Both of those could be argued for or against in various ways, but I'm not mentioning those to convince you, I'm just putting a starting stance in place for the sake of context within following conversations.

First, we'll look at his temperament. This is the most controversial aspect of his campaign, bringing him extreme amounts of both popularity and hatred. If you are reading this post, you clearly have access to the internet, so I'm going to assume that you know at least the basics of who Donald Trump is and what his personality is like. When he entered the race for the Republican nomination, he was an instant success because of his straightforward way of speaking. I've never been good with names, faces, or people in general, so I originally didn't know who he was. (In fact, the only candidates I knew on either side before the first debates were Hillary Clinton and Ben Carson.) As I saw his candid manner, I started to lean in his direction, thinking that the only way to change the way the nation is headed is to speak the truth regardless of people's feelings. (After all, the idea of truth trumping feelings, pun intended, is something that I try to hold to in my day-to-day life.) However, my thoughts on Donald Trump's attitude quickly changed as time went on. His way of speaking is very blunt, which some see as good, and others see as bad, but I would contend two things about his temper.

The first would be that his temper has a different purpose than people think. Or should I say, a different backing. There are two potential reasons for speaking the truth when it conflicts with somebody's feelings. The first reason is because you care about the truth. The second is because you don't care about people's feelings. Donald Trump's reputation is for caring about the truth, but when we look at his comments, is that really true? While we can't read people's hearts, we can look and see if a person's actions are consistent with what they say. Do you speak the truth with a purpose, regardless of feelings? This would exclude things like insults. Insults don't have a purpose, or anything to be gained. They tear people down, but that's it. Someone who speaks the truth for the gain that it brings wouldn't insult people. Insults aren't a fight against political correctness, they show that the person speaks the truth because they just don't care about people.

My second contention regarding his personality is that fighting political correctness isn't unique to Donald Trump. Let's assume for the sake of argument that my last point is wrong, and insults are a fight against political correctness. Plenty of people have been willing to insult Donald Trump, and he hasn't been very fond of it. Aren't those people, who were willing right from the start to insult Donald Trump before it was even popular, fighting against political correctness just as much? There are a few candidates on the Republican stage who haven't attacked Donald Trump. Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, in spite of occasional attacks from Donald Trump towards them, have not struck back. I believe that they recognize the difference between insults and fighting political correctness. See, Donald Trump has a reputation for standing up for the truth, but he's not really speaking out on political issues any more than other candidates are. What sets him apart from the others is only his insults.

Finally, I would like, once more, to make the assumption that my previous points were incorrect. Let's make the assumption, for the sake of argument, that Donald Trump is the best candidate on either stage, and that he would be the best choice for president. If that's the case, he still can't win. "But Jared!" you say. "He's at the top of the polls! Why do you say that he can't win?" He's at the top of the polls in the Republican field, but look at how much hatred he's getting at the same time. Look at how many Republicans hate him. I've seen any number of articles talking about large groups of Republicans threatening to boycott the general election if Trump is the nominee. The common response to that is, "they're not true conservatives! They're a bunch of idiot liberals!" Again, let's make the assumption that that's true. If even registered Republicans wouldn't vote for Trump, then how could he win a general election? He could easily win the nomination at this point, but the assumption tends to be that if he's nominated, he'll get the support of the Republican party. That's how it typically works. I'm sure that many Republicans would support him, but many wouldn't. And what about the independent vote?

Donald Trump's lack of political correctness stems either from a love of truth or a neglect of people's feelings. Many believe the former, and many believe the latter. Because so many believe the latter, he won't be able to win a general election unless he changes his stance. With that in mind, it would seem prudent for his supporters to pick a second-favorite candidate that may have a chance of actually winning the general election.
"Working with him was sort of like trying to defuse a bomb with somebody standing behind you and every now and then clashing a pair of cymbals together. In a word, upsetting."
-Stephen King

A Christian's Christmas

"If you don't know history, then you don't know anything. You are a leaf that doesn't know it is part of a tree."
-Michael Crichton
It's the most wonderful time of the year! Winter is here and New Year's Eve approaches! Ah, the music, the lights, the chill in the air... And, because I live in southern California, I also get to celebrate the rain! It truly is a lovely time of year. But as Christmas approaches, it's time to take a look at this popular holiday. In particular, I'll be examining how the holiday relates to Christians. As with the last time we looked at a holiday, we'll begin by looking at the history. And once again, I've looked around to try to determine the exact origins of the holiday. While nowhere is entirely consistent, there are some things that seem to match across my various sources.

Many people are aware that Jesus wasn't actually born on December 25th. (In fact, our calendars may even have the wrong year set as zero AD, but that's something else entirely.) While the Bible doesn't mention the specific date of Christ's birth, we are told about shepherds keeping watch over their flocks by night, which wouldn't have happened in winter. Some sites say that He was likely born in the spring, while others say He was probably born in the fall, but they all agree on one thing: December is out of the question. When we take that into consideration, it seems like almost any other day of the year would be a better choice than December 25th for celebrating the birth of Jesus. So why did we pick this day? To answer that, we go back to the original holidays celebrated during winter.

Saturnalia, the most commonly mentioned holiday when looking at the history of Christmas, was a paganistic ritual in Rome taking place from December 17th to December 25th, or possibly even for an entire month. Through a number of articles, I think I've been able to pin down the basics of the celebration. One source says,
"Saturnalia was a hedonistic time, when food and drink were plentiful and the normal Roman social order was turned upside down. For a month, slaves would become masters. Peasants were in command of the city. Business and schools were closed so that everyone could join in the fun."
Another source claims,
"During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration."
This source goes on to describe a tradition in which the Romans would choose one enemy of the Roman people to represent the Lord of Misrule. They would force him to indulge in excessive amounts of food and various other pleasures, before brutally murdering him at the end of the festival, believing that this would cleanse their civilization of evil. During the festival, offerings and gifts would be brought before the god Saturn to win favor with the emperor. (This author also mentions, with citation, several other traditions that I'll not mention here due to their gruesome nature.)

While this seems to be the main holiday that provides a root for Christmas, various other holidays have been mixed in. One holiday involved people bringing trees into their houses, decorating them extravagantly, and worshiping them. And it seems that in Scandinavia, the Norse celebrated Yule beginning on December 21st and lasting up to twelve days.

How is it that these holidays became what we now know as Christmas? Many theorize that the early Catholic Church decided on this date specifically because it coincided with Saturnalia. While they renamed the holiday Christmas (Christ's Mass), the Church did little else to reform the holiday or change its traditions. This gave the members of the early Church an excuse to participate in the paganistic rituals, and at the same time eased the conversion of many pagans, since they didn't have to leave behind their favorite holiday. One change that did seem to take place was that the humiliating, disgusting, and/or fatal roles were now filled by Jews. It seems that during that time, many Jews were abused, murdered, maimed, and raped in the name of Christmas.

Over the years, the traditions surrounding Christmas seem to have died down, and yet, they're still here. We still give gifts, and put up Christmas trees, and celebrate Christmas in general. Most of our traditions come from pagan rituals, and yet we make an effort to "put the Christ back in Christmas," ignoring that December 25th is one of the days least likely to be the actual day of Christ's birth. Many, upon being confronted with this information, answer that "this isn't what it means anymore," or, "that's not what we're celebrating." I respond to this in two layers.

The first layer asks if it is glorifying to God to celebrate Christmas at all. One author makes the rather extreme comparison between Christmas and Hitler's birthday. While the effects of Christmas certainly weren't on the same scale as the holocaust, the point remains. If traditions of joy and happiness arose on Hitler's birthday (or rather, specifically because of his birthday) over the course of many generations, wouldn't it be seen as irreverent at best? If we could travel forward to that time and people brushed off protests with, "that's not what it means anymore," would you really be convinced? In the same way, while the history of Christmas doesn't draw close to the horrors of the holocaust, it still has a disgusting and bloody history. This history is now ignored, but it's still the history of this holiday; it isn't some unrelated thing that happened to be on the same day hundreds of years ago.

The second layer asks, are the traditions that we still have glorifying to Christ? Even if we were to continue to use this day to celebrate the birth of Christ, how does a Christmas tree bring honor to Him? How does mistletoe, or holly, or Santa Claus glorify God? Even if we take these at face value and ignore their history and origins, do they bring about anything good or beneficial? Aren't we called to be set apart? Does a Christmas tree help us witness, or a red bow, or presents, or any of the other modern traditions? I would go so far as to say that Christmas has the potential to even hinder witnessing, as many atheists will look at the history of Christmas and see Christians as idiots for thinking that this is when Jesus was born.

Some places I've found say that the Bible even condemns birthday celebrations in general (though this may be a bit of a stretch). But if we're going to celebrate His birth, why do we celebrate it on one of the days that is least likely to have been His birthday? Because everyone else does it? And because this day has been commonly referred to as the day of His birth, do we ignore that the day was chosen not because they thought it was His birthday, but because a paganistic ritual took place at the same time? And then why do we do nothing to set apart our traditions from theirs, but rather, adopt their traditions as our own? Jesus is the reason for the season because He is the reason for every season, but Christmas always has been, and still is, a pagan holiday with a thin coat of Christian paint.
"I am positive that much that passes for the gospel in our day is very little more than a very mild case of orthodox religion grafted on to a heart that is sold out to the world in its pleasures and tastes and ambitions."
-A.W. Tozer

Minecraft vs. Terraria

"What does it mean to be the best? It means you have to be better than the number two guy. But what gratification is there in that? He's a loser—that’s why he's number two."
-Jarod Kintz
I have a few larger topics planned for the upcoming weeks, so today I'm going to lean back and cover something smaller. You may have guessed what it is from the title. But just in case, I'll tell you anyway. It's Minecraft vs. Terraria. Minecraft Alpha was released in May of 2009, and then to Beta in mid-December, 2010. It passed one million purchases in early January of 2011, having been advertised mainly (if not exclusively) through word-of-mouth. In May of 2011, (the day before the anniversary of Minecraft Alpha) Terraria was released. Minecraft was updated to version 1.0 in November of the same year. Because both games are block-based sandbox games, a lot of competition has arisen between their fans. Supporters of Minecraft often claim that Terraria is a sad ripoff of Minecraft, while supporters of Terraria say that Minecraft is superior to Terraria by only one dimension, and no gameplay aspects. So, I'm going to go over the differences and similarities between the two games. (I will not be offering an opinion as to which is better, because I've played both games, and therefore would be able to pick categories to judge that would benefit one or the other.)

Both games are, as has been previously stated, block-based sandbox games. In other words, there isn't really a specific story. The world is made up of various blocks that represent different objects or items. You can mine and place these blocks at will to customize a house, piece of art, or whatever you want. Because these games are similar in this respect, many have chosen to compare them. In a way, they are very similar. However, there are differences that set them apart. Let's examine them in the order of their original release, meaning that we'll look at Minecraft first.


Minecraft is a game of exploration, building, and survival. Beginning with nothing, your first task is to punch a tree. ...Yes, you read that correctly. (Or rather, I assume you did. If you thought that it said your first task is to punch a tree, you read it correctly.) Many blocks can be mined or otherwise harvested by punching them repeatedly. Other blocks require you to use special tools. You can use your wood to craft a workbench, which will allow you to craft armor, a furnace, a sword, a pickaxe, and a vast number of other items. You craft items by putting the correct ingredients in the applicable positions on the crafting table. Monsters appear at night and in caves, and most players build a base or home to keep them at bay. Minecraft has been praised for its diversity and wide variety of options. Several difficulty settings and gamemodes are available, including peaceful mode, which removes all monsters, and creative mode, which gives you access to flight and an infinite number of almost every block in the game, allowing you to build massive structures and creations. In addition, Minecraft includes a complex wiring system called redstone, allowing users to automate a vast number of functions in the game.


After Minecraft, of course, came Terraria. Because this game was similar in many respects to Minecraft, people instantly began comparing the two, even going so far as to call Terraria "2D Minecraft." Terraria includes similar gameplay features such as mining, crafting, and building. However, Terraria is not at all identical to Minecraft.


Terraria is a game of exploration, survival, and advancement. You spawn in a forest with a shortsword, an axe, and a pickaxe. You will use these tools to harvest the materials you need and make a shelter to keep you alive throughout the night. When you make your first house, an NPC (or, Non-Player Character) called The Guide will move in with you. He gives you various tips about the game. If you make more houses, more NPCs will move in. The Merchant provides simple items used for exploration, such as torches, rope,  and arrows. The Nurse will heal you when you're hurt. The Goblin Tinkerer will reforge your items to give them different (hopefully better) stats. As you upgrade your weapons, armor, and even how many health points you can have, bosses become available for you to fight. If you defeat them, you get loot that allows you to become even stronger and fight the next boss. About halfway through the game, you can defeat a very particular boss that, upon being defeated, will upgrade your entire world. Terraria has several different types of difficulty settings. These determine how your character's death affects the game, how hard enemies will hit, and what types of enemies will spawn. Defeating this midway boss will upgrade your world to "hardmode," allowing new monsters, ores, and bosses to spawn.


The games are certainly similar in some respects. Both include a blocky world where monsters spawn at night. Both involve mining ores and upgrading your armor. Both include a minor fishing feature (with Terraria's being a bit more developed) and a wiring system (with Minecraft's being far more diverse and complex). However, this is as far as people really go when they compare them. Minecraft is extremely diverse, allowing for mods, texture packs, and custom maps. It has command blocks, redstone, and a lot of features centered around creativity. Terraria, on the other hand, has a vast number of weapons and tools. Hundreds, if not thousands, of unique items that each have a different function. Rather than the upgraded armor just giving more defense, you also have to question benefits about speed, strength, etc. You can equip accessories that will grant you new abilities. Unlike in Minecraft, your tools and weapons don't degrade over time, meaning that you don't have to keep crafting more. It has a lot of features centered around combat.

Terraria and Minecraft are similar in some respects, but while Terraria may have been inspired by Minecraft, it didn't copy it. Each is a different game, with a different emphasis. Minecraft uses flight for creativity, and doesn't allow you to take damage in creative mode. Terraria uses flight for combat, allowing you to equip a pair of wings and fly for a limited period of time. Each game has a creative side to it, and each game has a combative side to it, but Minecraft has always been more about, "what can you make?" while Terraria is more about "how far can you go?" The games are similar, and yet, different, and therefore, can't be truly compared. However, there is a bigger question. What does the comparison gain you? If Minecraft is better, what do you get for being right? If Terraria is better, why does it matter? If a comparison will have some benefit, then go for it. But if not, then why does it matter if team green triumphs over team yellow?
"Comparison is the death of joy."
-Mark Twain

Open to Infections

"Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out."
-G.K. Chesterton
 I'd like to begin with one of Zeno's Paradoxes. This paradox claims that we cannot reach any location. His reasoning is as follows. Before you can get someplace, you must get halfway there. After that, you must get halfway to your destination once more, and again, and again, and again. The space inbetween you and your destination can be divided in half an infinite number of times, and thus, you can never reach your destination. I am aware that technically, the majority of an object is made up of empty space, so think of this rather as the negative field from the electrons in your fingertips touching the negative field in the electrons of your destination, rather than actually bringing yourself into physical contact with a wall. Alternatively, you could think of this as a location on the ground that you can never reach. However, Zeno's paradox goes further. In order to get halfway to your destination, you must first get halfway to the halfway point. And before that, you must get halfway to that point, and to that point, and so on. Because these distances can be divided infinitely, we, effectively speaking, can't move anywhere. Rather disappointing, no? I liked motion. Unfortunately, it seems to have been proven impossible. I guess that's the end of that. I know that this post has only been a paragraph so far. There's more that I'd like to say. But seeing as how motion is impossible, and I must move my hands to type, this will be the end of the post. I won't be able to say anything else. Fare well, and may you have pleasantly motionless lives.

...You don't seem convinced that motion is impossible. I can't even see your faces from behind this computer screen, but I can still tell that you're not convinced. That's how unconvinced you are. Good. Zeno's paradox is stupid. It doesn't work. We can see that it doesn't work. We know for a fact from our day to day lives that it doesn't work. And yet, can you prove it wrong? I have seen an explanation from Aristotle saying that it doesn't work because it takes a shorter amount of time to travel a shorter distance, so when you divide the distance, you're also dividing the time. This may be true, but you can divide the distance infinitely. You can go down to a molecular level and still divide that tiny distance in half. What is the smallest distance in existence? Not the smallest measurement, but the point where we no longer move smoothly from one place to another, but instead just "teleport" from one location to another, as if we're pixels on a screen?

Here's my point with Zeno's paradox. I can't prove it logically wrong. I'm sure that there's a mistake in it. I know that there's a mistake in it. I know that it's logically wrong. But I can't prove it. I understand that it's wrong, but I don't understand why it's wrong. So, shouldn't I believe it, because I don't see how it could be wrong? No. I'm not that openminded. Openmindedness is good, to an extent. But there's a point where your mind is so open that you'll let in even pure idiocy. I believe that to seek the truth accurately, a certain amount of stubbornness is required. I refuse to believe Zeno's paradox, and would continue to do so even if everyone around me were to affirm it and speak it as truth. Why? Because it's worthless.
"One word, Ma'am. One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one more thing to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things- trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."
-Puddleglum; C.S. Lewis (The Silver Chair)
Bear something very important in mind: I don't reject Zeno's paradox because it makes me feel bad, I reject Zeno's paradox because it has no value. If it were true, how would it affect my life in any beneficial way? If the truth is worthless, then there is no value in believing the truth. These are not my feelings or my emotions speaking. It is only reasonable to reject what seems reasonable if it has no value. Now, I do believe that the truth tends to be fairly evident. For example, I can see that I can move. I don't fight Zeno's paradox in spite of the overwhelming evidence showing me that I cannot move. I can see the evidence against Zeno's paradox. Zeno's paradox was thought up in spite of all that we see, and yet even though we can see contrary, I can't explain it away. Some would say that because I can't explain it away, I ought to believe it, but because it has no value, and because I can see otherwise, I see no reason to do so.

We must not be so openminded that foolishness like Zeno's paradox is allowed in. And yet, we must not ignore the truth based on what we feel. We don't look at the truth and decide to believe otherwise because it makes us feel bad; rather, we look at what some claim to be the truth, and refuse to accept it because not only can we see otherwise, but it would be worthless to believe it if it were true. They say that we must examine it to see if it checks out, and yet, I see a basic summary as enough. Any more than that would be a waste of time, because even if I found that everything I had previously believed was a lie, even if I found that I really can't move and I'm trapped in one spot, what would be the value in the truth if that were the case?

There are times when we must be close-minded. I do not say this to encourage you never to change your mind, or to stick to what you believe nonsensically. Rather, we must not be deceived into leaving the truth simply because somebody knows his way around with words. We must ask ourselves, is there any value to the truth if what this person says is true? If yes, then it's an important topic. But if their statement would cause the truth to be worthless, then a brief summary is enough without an in-depth analysis. After all, why do we seek the truth in the first place, if not to glorify God?
"The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."
-G.K. Chesterton

Next Week: On Habits

 "The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken."
-Samuel Johnson
I was once in a class called Great Books Tutorials. As one might expect, the class revolved around great books and literature (except for one time, when our reading assignment was to look at a painting. We enjoyed that assignment.) At the end of each lesson, our teacher would finish up by saying, "Next week, we'll be looking at [book and idea that it covers]. You are dismissed." We learned this rather well, and it began to affect us.
After we'd already taken the class for a few years, I and a classmate were sitting in our Sunday School class. Our teacher went over the lesson for a bit, and then said something familiar. "Next week, we'll be looking at [section of the Bible and topic that it covers]." I and my classmate put in our bookmarks, closed our books, gathered our things, and stood up. I think I even went so far as to push my chair in. We stood there for a few minutes, listening to our teacher continue the lesson. Eventually, he looked at us and said, "We're not finished yet." We sat back down and opened our Bibles and notebooks again.
What happened, of course, was that we heard the words, "next week." Those words, particularly in a classroom setting, told us that it was time to gather our things and prepare for the words, "you are dismissed."

This was an amusing little situation that happened once. Over the course of a few years, we had formed a mild habit. The habit wasn't anything important. It wasn't anything big or monumental or damaging. But it was still a habit. I think that people often confuse the idea of habits with addictions and/or routines. While the three are, of course, related, they aren't the same thing.
An addiction is something that you go to, whether literally or figuratively. You may seek it out intentionally, or hate yourself for it, but it's something that you choose, and have trouble deciding not to choose it.
A routine is something that happens on a regular basis. You have a set schedule for this particular action. It may be relative to something else, such as brushing your teeth after dinner, whenever that may be, or it may be at a particular time. It may even be on a specific day of the week, or month, or year. In any case, there's some form of scheduling and planning involved, even if you go through that schedule without dwelling on it.
A habit differs from these in that it's an unconscious action or reaction with no set time frame. You don't choose to do it. You don't schedule it. It just sort of... happens. Maybe it happens constantly. Maybe it happens as a reaction to something. But you don't even think about it.

Take, for example, a glass of wine. An addiction is somebody who finds themselves drawn to the glass. They keep staring at it. They want to drink it. They can't stop thinking about it. They have to force themselves not to drink it because they want it so much.
A routine is somebody who drinks a glass of wine every night with his dinner. He doesn't really think about it in general, but that's when he does it. He doesn't tend to drink wine outside of that time period; dinner is when he has a glass of wine.
A habit is somebody who is constantly drinking wine, and doesn't even realize it. He sees a bottle of wine on the table, pours himself a glass, and drinks it, but he doesn't choose the action consciously. If somebody told him that he shouldn't drink so much, he would realize suddenly how much he was drinking and set the glass down, and not look back. He doesn't care about the wine. But later on, he would pick it up again- not because he's drawn to it or desires it, but because he just isn't thinking about it, and that's his habit.

While addictions are seen as bad and routines are typically seen as good, habits can be either way. For example, when I would go to Speech&Debate tournaments, I would carry around a bottle of water with me and drink from it regularly. I didn't think about drinking from my water bottle. I would at one point notice that my bottle was empty and fill it up at the nearest drinking fountain. It was a habit for me to drink water. However, I also bounce my leg. It helps me think. I don't wiggle and squirm and fidget because I have decided that I want to do so, I do it without realizing it. I can stop if I think about it and focus on it. I just don't think about it.

While addictions are issues because we do think about them, and while routines have been set in place at some point, habits are more dangerous because we don't analyze how we behave when we're not thinking about anything. It just sort of happens. We can habitually perform a certain action, or think a certain way, or any number of things, but we ought to seek out our habits to learn what they are and whether or not they should be removed.
"We become what we repeatedly do."
-Sean Covey