I just waiting until the last minute, then I wrote a post about being lazy. And it got deleted. Here’s the short version.
Being lazy may be helpful. Take some time to recharge after a stressful situation.
Being lazy for no particular reason isn’t good. Get back to work!
And don’t forget to forgive yourself if you slip up, like I did with this post.
Today Joe Rogan announced that he’ll be moving his podcast exclusively to Spotify by the end of the year. People say the deal was over $100 million.
I love this move because it’s in full support of free speech and no censorship. For a few years Joe and his producer Young Jamie have been navigating strict, limiting YouTube community guidelines. Joe also has friends (like Alex Jones) who’ve been deplatformed by cancel-culture inspired companies.
But a move to Spotify is a slap in the face to YouTube. What happens when one of the biggest channels on YouTube leaves? Well, a lot less ad money. A lot less attention.
This is how business should be done: honest people with thoughtful voices gain attention, then they make decisions that align with their values. Joe Rogan is an American who respects the Constitution. More power to him.
Many more will follow suit. Uncle Joe once again leads the charge.
What would I do? If you loved yourself, what would you do?
Since graduation, the days have seemed unproductive. Maybe I need a short break from work, or maybe I need a better schedule. Most likely it’s both.
In Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life, he shares perhaps the most helpful question you could ask to get your life back on track. And it’s simple: What could I do today to make life better? Then do that thing today. Then ask again tomorrow and do that thing tomorrow. Soon you’ll be miles ahead of where you are now.
What if we combined these two questions? How much could life change if each day we asked: If I loved myself, what would I do today to make life better?
Well, I know how I’m going to get back on track. Will you join me?
Citizen Cope is an underrated artist. He makes more than music–he makes feelings. His song If There Is Love was stuck in my head today. The chorus goes like this: “If there is love, I just want to have something to do with it.”
Today’s homily was about love, too. Our parish priest (and my friend) Fr. Francesco was explaining God’s love. We are imperfect and we mess up. It’s hard for us to love God or others, but God loves us anyways. Unconditionally.
That’s a powerful message, but I keep thinking the Church is missing something when it comes to love. The two main commandments are to love God and love your neighbor. But what about loving yourself?
People think self love is narcissistic and selfish. That’s not true. When you love yourself, truly and deeply and unconditionally, it’s all you need. Your love becomes self-fulfilling; in no time, if your love is overflowing, you have no choice but to share it with others. That includes God.
If you love others without loving yourself, your love will run dry. You can’t sustain it, or at least I never could. Loving yourself is the key to loving others. Period.
Lately I’ve been thinking about this a lot. I’m thinking my life’s mission may have to do with spreading this message far and wide: Love Yourself First, then Love Others. If there is love within you, love will flow from you.
Last month I chose to train for a marathon. Today I made a running schedule for the next 4 weeks and I’ve made a vow to stick to it.
The schedule is simple: run three days in a row, take a day off, repeat. I’ll also be lifting and doing yoga, but the running part will be most of my energy expenditure.
I’ve tried committing to schedules before and it never really works. So have you. This time I decided to make a vow to myself, a deep and intentional promise that I will not break. Exceptions are not welcome.
I want to finally become a man of my word. I want to set out on a mission and complete it, not just design it. Consistency and grit will be my guiding stars. I’m going to treat this like I treated my Division 1 athletic career – I ran whether I felt like it or not.
I’m getting back on the horse. This running schedule will become second nature, and soon I’ll be the runner I always dreamed I could be.
Or I’ll fail. In that case, I’ll get back up and keep going.
I’ve studied for 16 years to get to this point: college graduation. My entry way to the real world. Permission to use what I’ve learned and make life better for everyone.
I’ve studied for 16 years to realize I don’t need anybody else to give me permission to live my life. I can give myself permission, and I could have all along.
I’m deeply grateful for my education, but I’m more grateful for my love of learning. That’s more powerful than a piece of paper. That’s more enduring than a commencement address.
To the Class of 2020: you don’t need a commencement to make change happen. You just need courage, conviction, and the desire to learn. The rest will unfold when you give yourself permission.
Søren Kirkegaard was a 19th century philosopher. He thought about death a lot, then he died abruptly at the age of 42. He believed humans need a sense of meaning to live a happy life. But he also knew that having too much meaning was crippling.
Fr. McNally once told me that if I want to make an impact, I shouldn’t try to make an impact.
Life is a duality and life is a balance. You and I both want our lives to be meaningful. We want to have lived for something, and we don’t want to be forgotten.
But if our lives mean too much, if we’re too important, then that sucks the fun out of it. Being serious helpful at times but mostly a trap. Living is for love, laughter, and happiness, not existential angst over whether or not we’re doing enough to bear the burdens of humanity.
If you want to live a meaningful life, don’t get caught up in meaning. If you want to make an impact, don’t try to make an impact. Live and learn and love and grow. And don’t forget to laugh.
This is my term paper for my Christianity and Evidence course. The topic is the philosophical basic for the Christian belief in Resurrection of the Body. It’s pretty theological and intellectual, so read at your own risk. (P.S. I got an A 🙂
N. T. Wright’s argument for the bodily resurrection of Christ is compelling, providing substantial evidence for the philosophical framework of Christianity. But for Christians, Jesus’s resurrection is the beginning of the story. An essential tenet of Christian faith is that the faithful will resurrect on the last day, just as Jesus did. This belief was controversial from the beginning among disciples and nonbelievers alike. None demonstrated this dissonance better than St. Augustine when he commented, “On no point does the Christian faith encounter more opposition than on the resurrection of the body” (CCC, 996). Though a significant point of contention, this doctrine deals with a future event (the end of the world) rather than a past event; because of this, questions about the resurrection of the body classically fall under eschatology rather than philosophy. Wright’s abduction argument fails to address this issue in great depth, restricting any claims about the bodily resurrection of believers to discussion of 1 Corinthians 15. For the sake of this argument, let’s suppose Wright’s conclusion is true. After considering this and exploring evidence from multiple disciplines, I will attempt to demonstrate that belief in bodily resurrection is logically sound and extends benefits to those who accept it. Indeed, this precept provides meaning to the Christian life while increasing comfort, hope, and an urgency to live a meaningful life. To begin this discussion, the origins of resurrection belief must be explored.
Resurrection has always been a radical concept, largely because it seems to oppose the laws of nature. Though the tradition was promulgated by first century followers of Jesus, it has Jewish roots and was most popular among the Pharisees, a major group during the time of Jesus. The Jewish people had been victims of oppression for thousands of years, but the Pharisees held that one day oppressors, both Jewish and foreign, would be overthrown by a revolt of resurrected righteous believers (Wright, 2003). All Jews believed that creation was good (Gen. 1:1–2:4a); however, the world God created is filled with choices. Some people chose to live a life pleasing to God, while others rejected God and lived for their own gain. Resurrection meant that, somehow, those favored by God would one day rise from the dead bodily, overthrow the selfish, oppressive rulers, and live in the glorified city of Israel (which was in the created world). While there was no consensus throughout Judaism, this tradition stems from interpretations of various Old Testament texts. Such passages include the psalmist’s soul being saved from Sheol (Ps. 49:16), Ezekiel’s account of dry bones coming to life (Ezek. 37: 1, 14), and the accounts of persecuted Jewish leaders receiving their bodies again (2 Macc. 7). Though these passages can be understood in different ways, they are the original inspiration for belief in bodily resurrection.
In essence, Jews who believed in resurrection believed all righteous people would rise at once and lead a revolt. This perspective shifted when people started believing in Christ’s resurrection. The best accounts of the early Christian view on resurrection are within Saint Paul’s epistles, specifically 1 Corinthians 15. Paul’s resurrection accounts clarify concerns among early followers, namely that resurrection will be bodily, transformative, and have some continuance of personal identities (Mercer, 2017). As opposed to Jewish belief, the Christian understanding became that Christ was the “firstfruits”—the first portion of harvest, sacrificed to consecrate the rest of the harvest—of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20ff). So Christ rose first, and all others would rise, as he did, during the second coming of Christ, the consummation of history (CCC 1001). Though Paul admits the how of the resurrection is cannot be fully known, he describes what he believes the “resurrection body” will be like. He compares the resurrection body to a seed, maintaining that our earthly bodies, which are sown in rebellion to God, will be transformed to “spiritual bodies” (in Greek, soma pneumatikon) that will be raised in harmony with God (Wright, 2003). Paul believes that our resurrection must logically follow Christ’s, for God showed that it is possible and we are made in His image, both earthly and spiritually (1 Cor. 15:49).
Belief in resurrection is drastically different the from pagan convictions at the time, with the Platonic hypothesis of an immortal soul continuing in a disembodied afterlife being the predominant idea (Rausch, 2008). Plato’s dualism generally held that the material world inhibits the accessibility of the world of the forms. This concept of devaluing the material world—and even seeing created reality as evil—was adopted by the gnostic tradition as well (Brown, 2017). Acceptance of a non-material afterlife has sustained popularity throughout history, including early Christianity. In fact, Wright argues that Paul believes in a two-stage afterlife: a spiritual afterlife with God after death, and a bodily resurrection at the end of time (Wright, 2003). Joseph Ratzinger, one of the most prominent eschatologists in the modern age, contends that this first stage isn’t merely the continuance of our once corporeal existence; rather, one’s soul transforms into a new creation (Gavin, 2017). So, in a way, the Christian belief in resurrection is an amalgamation of previous traditions. It honors the goodness of the material world, hoping that the faithful can one day enjoy the fruits of creation once again. At the same time, it accepts Plato’s world of the forms and the possibilities of a disembodied, spiritual reality after death.
This progressive revelation of resurrection is important. It posits that early Christians didn’t merely adapt Jewish interpretations of resurrection, but they developed a mature, thoughtful concept about afterlife existence. However, though Paul’s accounts are thorough they are eschatological in nature and based more so in faith than reason. Luckily, philosophers like Saint Thomas Aquinas have considered resurrection of the body. Montague Brown’s analysis of the Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians can shed light on how this belief, namely the philosophical basis for bodily resurrection and transformation, can be logically established.
Grounded in Aristotelian physics, Aquinas’s life work was to justify how the Christian faith can exist in the natural world. One point of dispute between Aquinas and Plato is the relation of body to soul in the human being. Plato postulates that the body hinders the soul, while Aquinas argues that the body is good for the soul because it allows for the soul to seek, learn, and grow within the human community (Brown, 2017). He furthers this discussion by holding that the soul isn’t one’s primary substance, but the individual is. Put in another way, the soul is a part of one’s body: just as I use my eyes to see, I also use my soul to direct my will (Brown, 2017). The body, too, is an intrinsic part of the individual. Aquinas claims that human beings are rational animals, unique throughout creation because we possess an intellect and a will. This dichotomy—a rational animal that has a body and soul—is the very essence of humanity (Brown, 2017). Justification for resurrection comes when Aquinas details the soul’s separation from the body after death. Though the soul transcends the body after death, it exists in a state where the individual, which exists as a unity of body and soul, is not complete, not in full actuality (Brown, 2017).
Aquinas proposes three reasons why this separateness cannot exist forever, eventually concluding that there must be a reunion of body and soul through resurrection. First, Aquinas deems this separated state to be unnatural, and no unnatural state can exist forever (Brown, 2017). The body has allowed the soul to express and discover one’s individual identity, so a soul devoid of its body—its mode of being—is imperfect and unnatural. Secondly, Aquinas talks about happiness. He says that complete happiness cannot be generalized to a population but must concern the individual (Brown, 2017). Aquinas argues that happiness is the pursuit of God, so complete happiness would be union with God, something only possible in death (Aquinas, 1975). Because of this, an individual’s complete happiness can only exist if that individual shares life with God as a complete person, both body and soul. If just of the soul continued, happiness would be incomplete. Aquinas’s last justification for the resurrection considers final causality. An individual makes decisions in life through free will, so the individual (body and soul) should be held accountable for his choices if there comes a time of final judgement (Brown, 2017). In all three of these arguments, Aquinas shows that the unity of body and soul within the individual points to bodily resurrection as a necessity for afterlife existence.
These defenses add merit to the theoretical possibility of bodily resurrection, but Aquinas must still deal with the questions Paul raises in 1 Corinthians 15, specifically how and what kind of body. One of the main objections to the resurrection of the body is the lack of an efficient, natural cause to restore body to soul. To this, Aquinas agrees that there is no natural cause; rather, resurrection can only occur through divine power (Brown, 2017). Nature doesn’t create the same thing twice, so just as God creates each soul ex nihlo, He will so recreate each union of soma pneumatikon to soul ex nihlo (Brown, 2017). The specific how and what kind questions of the resurrection cannot be known by human reason but are based in the faith in God’s power (CCC, 1000). If God raised Jesus in a glorified body, he is also able to raise humanity in this way. Because God is full actuality, God is anything that He can be and God does anything that He can do (Aquinas, 1975). So our resurrection is an effect of, and is made possible by, Christ’s. To summate the remainder of Aquinas’s justification, we must reconsider two aforementioned points: that creation is good and that humans have free will. Aquinas contends that creation is good, but because the first humans freely chose themselves over God, death entered the picture (Brown, 2017). It’s only at the consummation of history that creation’s full goodness can be restored and the potential of humanity can be actualized, all through the resurrection of the body.
So far, based on the acceptance of Wright’s argument, I have discussed the historical and philosophical evidence that suggests bodily resurrection is plausible. At the very least, it can be logically justified on the grounds that Jesus was raised from the dead bodily. The conversation to follow will be about what this belief means for the Christian faithful. To better grasp the significance of this belief, we must explore both the eschatology of the end times and what philosophers have to say about death as part of the human experience.
Before going any further, I must state the obvious: people are afraid to die. Human consciousness allows us to be aware of the life we’re living and to question when that life will end. What is the meaning of life? is one of the most important human questions. Most of us want the answer to inspire hope, but for many, asking this unanswerable question yielded a great deal of despair. When Søren Kirkegaard sought the meaning of life in the 19th century, it made him so distressed that he identified existential angst as a prevalent human problem (O’Brien). Kirkegaard supposed that having this angst about life and your inevitable death can be a good thing, for it can spur you to live with a sense of urgency. Later in the 19th century, the esteemed novelist Leo Tolstoy had everything a man could want in life, but sustained a profound crisis of meaning. He was on the verge of suicide when he discovered what he believed made life meaningful: the faith of unlearned, working-class people (O’Brien). These people lived in humility and kindness, and a deep connection with their passion was enough for Tolstoy to continue living.
The work of these two men suggests that life may need meaning to be bearable and that the imminence of death can ignite one to live with urgency and purpose. For Christians, the meaning of one’s life is deeply interwoven with what happens when we die. As these events are in the future, they fall under eschatology where the four last things—death, judgement, heaven, and hell—are theorized. Though seemingly daunting, these four last things provide personal and communal hope to the faithful. Christians are encouraged to desire death because it means union with Christ in some form in the afterlife (CCC, 1010). A final judgement means that what was done on earth, both the good and the bad, matter, all counting amidst God’s justice (Ryan, 2017). Lastly, heaven offers promise to those who lived for God while hell helps Christians understand that it’s not too late to take responsibility for their shortcomings (Rausch, 2008). But if these last four things were merely for the soul, they would be imperfect, for the full expression of a human being is the union of body and soul. So stands the Christian belief: bodily resurrection enables the continuance of individual identity in a way that a disembodied afterlife couldn’t support. At the same time, the soma pneumatikon promised in resurrection consoles believers into considering that the suffering endured on earth will be worth it in the end (Rausch, 2008). Indeed, the resurrection promises to bring humanity to its fullness and make persecution whole.
For the Christian faithful, death is to be rejoiced in. Paul’s letter to the Philippians accounts, “For to me life is Christ and death is gain” (Phil. 1:21). Likewise, St. Theresa of Avila declares, “I want to see God, and in order to see him, I must die” (CCC, 1011). Death means union with the creator through a resurrection with and in Christ, but this doesn’t mean that life on earth is meaningless. On the contrary, Christianity holds that earthly existence is a chance to secure eternity with God through righteous living, generous loving, and compassionate stewardship. If Christians lived with the regular remembrance of why they are living—for the eventual share in the resurrection with Christ—then this belief would have tremendous power. A global community that honors the goodness of creation, accepts the suffering of life, and applies meaning to daily interaction has the power to change society at large. This radically improved reality is what belief in resurrection of the body could mean if Christians fully believed it.
The work of Wright, Aquinas, and a number of other philosophers provides evidence suggesting the bodily resurrection of human beings could happen in the future. Indeed, if God rose Jesus from the dead then he could raise ordinary humans at the appointed time, too. I find the evidence presented in this paper to be significant and substantial for belief in bodily resurrection, but not conclusive (no prediction of the future can ever be stated with certainty). Because this is a future event, it requires belief more than intelligent philosophical reason. As philosophers of death would conquer, it is acceptable—for the betterment and bearableness of one’s life—to make existential conclusions based on faith once given enough thought. This is often the only way forward given questions of meaning and death. Coupled with Wright’s argument for the resurrection of Jesus, faith in the resurrection of the body seems reasonable and helpful, if not comforting. In the end, belief in bodily resurrection can inspire in one a sense of urgency to live a better life, a personal hope for one’s individual continuance after death, and a deepened appreciation for the goodness of creation. If Christians around the world came to a consensus on this philosophically sound belief, the power of Christian witness may be enough to bring lasting change to society.
This was my final exam essay for my Food in American History course. I reviewed course material and crafted a 1500 word essay about how industrialization of food processes and systems has distanced Americans from their food. This essay may not be for you, but it is if you want to learn about the effects of the industrialization of food. (P.S. I got a 98 🙂
As the American system of producing, distributing, and consuming food has advanced throughout the country’s history, so too have American perspectives about food. This global shift can be attributed, in large part, to industrialization. While new methods of growing and transporting food came out of necessity during wartime, key inventions to accelerate production arose from the capitalist principle of improvement. Indeed, in time reapers, cans, and chemicals turned the American farm into the American factory, while crop surpluses increased the need for new products and fresh marketing strategies. Grocery stores changed how food was purchased, automobiles changed the accessibility of restaurants, and the television changed how family dinners were shared. All the while, the American public was slowly becoming distanced from the food on their tables. Food that was once grown in backyard gardens and by neighborhood farmers—food that people knew—was progressively phased out by unfamiliar but welcome packaged foods. As industrialization has produced more food and more opportunity for the country, it has come at the cost an unsustainable, fragile food system that is hidden from the public eye. To better understand how this shift happened and what can be done to ameliorate it, the gradual changes throughout the American food system should be examined.
When considering the production of food, there are two major ways that industrialization changed the food supply: advancements on the farm and innovations in the factory. Since its inception, the United States has had abundant land with rich soil. To spur the land’s cultivation, Thomas Jefferson’s proposed the ideal of the independent yeoman farmer who could supply for himself and contribute to his community (Class Notes, 2/3/20). These small farmers working on land grants ignited the early economy; however, the introduction of new, expensive technology steepened the barrier to entry. The McCormick reaper of the 1830s was the first mechanical advancement, allowing farmers to reap fifteen acres a day instead of two (2/3/20). This expensive machine—and others like it—created a divide between the industrial farmer and the yeoman farmer. While prosperous farms flourished, unsuccessful farmers had to find other means of sustenance and purchase their food instead of growing it.
Luckily, a surplus of crops like wheat lead to innovations within factories, creating a new sector for jobs. Flour was now mass-produced at a large mill instead of by small farmers (1/31/20). At the same time, advancements in food preparation tools and appliances such as the cast iron stove created new opportunities for women cooks. Making meals and baked goods was now easier but more complicated, so cooking itself became a skill. While women worked in the kitchen, men were now able to seek out jobs in factories, thereby furthering the Industrial Revolution (1/31/20). What began as a boom on the farms ignited brand-new avenue for processed food products, thereby creating a market that rapidly expanded the economy.
This same theme of increased agricultural production followed by the invention of novelty foods appeared again in the beginning of the twentieth century. Perhaps the most significant agricultural development in history came not from the United States, but Germany. Working at separate times on the same concept, two German scientists, Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch, discovered a way to turn atmospheric nitrogen into absorbable chemical fertilizer (Pollan, 2004). The 1909 Haber-Bosch process essentially mechanized the farm, making it a system of inputs and outputs as opposed to a balanced ecology (3/30/20). Because farmers didn’t have to wait for essential nutrient restoration by fallowing, crop production skyrocketed. Key chemical companies like Dow and Monsanto entered the fold, furthering the industrialization of American farms (2/19/20). A greater abundance of crops like wheat, corn, and soy led to the boom in processed food production. Companies like Heinz, Campbell’s, and Pillsbury grew rapidly because of their investment in continuous process production (2/21/20). Though an abundance of inexpensive processed foods, widespread hesitancies about adulteration still lingered. To mitigate these worries, food marketing grew to persuade consumers of the safety and health of processed foods (2/21/20). In time, these foods became the norm in American society, furthering the distance between farm and table.
Before further consideration goes into these consumer trends, we must take a step back and look at how industrialization has changed food distribution. Though early agricultural success fueled 19th century economy, the Civil War changed the course of food history. To feed Union battlefield soldiers, innovative factories began canning foods, especially meat (2/10/20). As new packaged, preserved foods fueled soldiers, railroads were being built, extending the distance these foods could travel (2/10/20). Preserved meat and railroad networks collided when the Chicago Union Stockyard opened in 1865. Here, live cattle and swine were shipped from across the Midwest to be disassembled and processed (2/19/20). Live animals were shipped into the stockyard and dressed meat was shipped out. This furthered the need for refrigeration cars to preserve butchered meat, an invention which would eventually lead to widespread distribution of not only meat but other fresh produce (2/19/20). These new distribution methods were very successful, increasing the possibilities for agricultural and economic growth.
Though impressive distribution allowed food to cross state lines, not everybody benefitted. Local butchers, family grocers, and neighborhood farmers suffered from more affordable processed food prices (2/24/20). Small operations that couldn’t compete with national brand giants were forced to close. All the while, though food was becoming more available and affordable, Americans were being further separated from their food supply. This distance furthered with the introduction of a new way to buy food: the self-service grocery store. With Piggly Wiggly leading the charge in 1916, chain grocery stores began opening up throughout the United States (3/2/20). These self-service stores were “Progressive;” no longer would clerks do the shopping, but customers were now able to choose between products by comparison shopping (3/2/20). As the aforementioned national brands competed with store brands, price became a crucial factor to buying behaviors. Local farmers couldn’t compete with grocery store prices, and affordability outweighed quality. Food became more accessible than ever before, though at a cost. Factory farms were producing more food than ever but with great impacts to the surrounding environment and the health of animals (3/30/20). Consciousness of this didn’t reach the public until much later. In fast-paced America, it was about more food being more available at a more affordable price.
Lastly the changing attitudes around food consumption must be explored. To be brief, the greatest change here was the progressive shift from family meals to “fast” food. The consumption of meals in the 19th century was largely centered around the dinner table. Generally speaking, while men worked in factories, women stayed at home. When the man returned from work, the family would unite with an intentionally prepared family dinner (1/31/20). Gradually over the next century, industrialization fragmented the dinner table, favoring convenience over home-cooked meals. The automobile boom synchronized with the emergence of fast food restaurants, making “eating out” a norm for Americans (3/27/20). Successful franchises like McDonald’s and White Castle worked to accelerate this shift. Simultaneously, frozen dinners entered the fold, furthering the ideal of convenience over complicated meals (Hamilton, 2003). Adding fuel to the fast-paced fire, the explosion of television in the late 20th century brought about TV dinners, a development which further split the dinner table (Buford, 2006). In recent years, services like Uber Eats and Door Dash further antiquate cooking and family meals. These changes make the overall trend evident: the more Americans buy into convenient arrangements that support the Industrial Food system, the less Americans care about where their food comes from.
Due to the industrialization of food production, distribution, and consumption patterns over the past 200 years, American society has lost touch with its food. That is, until recently. The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on just how fragile our supply chain. For the first time in recent memory, our collective society is thinking about the origins and implications of the food we buy at the store. This is a good thing. And this is why food history matters.
Without knowing how we got here, it’s impossible to know where we should go in the future. For instance, knowing how meatpacking operations began in the 1860s can shed light on the importance of supporting local farms to bolster food security. Likewise, understanding that frozen foods are a recent phenomenon can spur people to plan for what may happen if nationwide distribution networks shut down (i.e. learning how to grow food may be a helpful skill). If we use this moment of national crisis to educate ourselves about where our food comes from, perhaps we can reconnect with the land we have been separated from. The benefits would be a more sustainable agricultural system, a more stable distribution network, and a greater awareness of who is affected by our buying decisions. This can be the moment that reconnects us with our food. This can be the next phase in American food history, that is, if we’re willing to change.
Not a big one or one that’s filled with stuff. Forget making a difference or impact; I want to make art and leave it at that.
Everybody wants to help, but nobody asks who wants it. So we create problems and pay other people to solve them.
A good life is a small life where my house is in order. Your life isn’t my life, so I’ll stay in my corner.
Think small and be small, I’m not trying to show off. Because when the show turns off what’s left is what’s right here.
