When the media started promoting Meatless Mondays as a way to make a positive environmental difference, it didn't bother me as every day is meatless around here. Well, except for our stock of cat food. But Paperless Mondays? Another matter altogether.

Going paperless by going digital is also widely touted as the environmentally responsible choice. Maybe it is. We all have to weigh the pros and cons of our individual choices and I outlined a number of the cons to living digitally in a recent post. Threats to national sovereignty and opening the door to malicious cyberattacks, cyberbullying, loss of privacy and copyright protection, inattention to the fullness of real life as we key in PINs, walk with our eyes fixed upon mobile phones and other electronic devices, and so on and so forth. The power of writing something down in our own handwriting, atrocious as it may be, is not equal to that of keying in a 140-character, off-the-cuff remark that may haunt tweeters and their survivors for generations to come. All of which may strike you as ironic and even hypocritical, as here I am blithely tapping letters on to a laptop screen. But I digress.

What prompts today's entry is the fact that the Ottawa Citizen (along with some other papers in the same chain) have decided in their wisdom that we don't need a real, honest-to-goodness newspaper on Mondays any more. Nor do they need to reduce their subscription price accordingly because after all, we've got the e-paper! All I can say is e-gads! I hope they haven't reduced the wages they pay to their carriers either, who now get a well-deserved 2-day break from putting the paper in our box at 3AM!

On alternate Mondays, my partner and I get up early to go and buy a 2-week supply of groceries during the store's quiet hour (once reserved for health care workers and senior like us) from 7 to 8AM. But that means we don't catch all of Ottawa Morning on CBC Radio and now we can't even scan the headlines on The Citizen before we set off, or after we get back. Yes, I know. These are paltry considerations compared to those of folks who can't afford regular meals or even a permanent place to lay their heads at night. But dammit, it's disrupting our whole day-to-day routine!

Remember the whole thing of thinking globally and acting locally? Well, the discontinuing of the physical newspaper, along with other editorial decisions (also made globally, or at best nationally) have seriously undermined our ability to act locally. For example: movie listings have disappeared from the physical newspaper and even the e-paper. If we're considering going to a movie, we have to remember what all the cineplexes in town call themselves these days and then check movie times individually. Local businesses rarely advertise in the paper these days, probably realizing the futility of spending the money but failing to reach their target audience. But they're definitely suffering. We no longer get a TV guide with the paper, nor a weekend magazine. Classified ads are a shadow of their former selves. We still get some puzzles and comics but it's pretty generic now. And the comics have gone full-colour, but don't even credit their creators!

Along with all of the above, we've lost most of the even more locally focused papers like Metro, 24 Hours, 24 Heures, Dose, Rush Hour, etc. I guess we're lucky to still have a TV station with local news; people in smaller centres are probably not so fortunate.

You might say that globalization is a good thing: we want a world that's fair to all and an economy that, like our planet (and beyond), has no sentience of national and regional boundaries. But each of us is an individual. Our eyes naturally glaze over and we become overwhelmed if faced with huge numbers and tales of doom. We despair if we feel there's nothing we can do as individuals, families, groups of friends or neighbourhoods. Canadians of my generation will remember ventures like LIP (Local Initiatives Program) and OFY (Opportunities For Youth) that rewarded community-based, grassroots action. Will we ever get back to that mindset?
Today instead of a throwback Thursday, I'm going to do a kind of throw-ahead Thursday. Our local newspaper is asking people to write in and briefly describe what their "new normal" will look like, or what they would LIKE it to look like once this pandemic is a distant memory.

So here's what I hope for, tempered by what I think we can realistically expect.

You know that old adage, "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"? I don't think anybody will come through this totally unscathed, even if their own and their family's health are not directly affected. I would hope that most of us have learned to be kinder and more compassionate than we may have been previously, and that we will be more appreciative of what we have. I think we are coming to understand, in a more heartfelt way, the value but also the fragility of our lives. Many of us have reassessed our goals and priorities over the past several months. Some of us have had ample time to take stock of our lives. As for those stressed-out folk fighting a sometimes losing battle on the front lines? It's probably fair to say that somewhere in the back of their minds, their psyches are busily taking stock FOR them and once the day-to-day and minute-to-minute crises have ended, these people will find themselves at a fork in the road, making decisions about what to do next.

That's the more macro picture. There are some more specific things I'd like to see happen too.

In Canada, I'd like to finally see a universal basic income for every adult Canadian citizen. And in fact, that is definitely on the agenda of the federal Liberals at the moment. I'm hoping it won't go the way of the Liberal promise to get rid of the first-past-the-post electoral system. We shall see.

I'd like to see more of a "Man is the measure of all things" society. Human-scale, walkable, public transit-rich environmentally conscious cities and towns. But to accomplish this, we need to be conscious of people's habits, of the things people DO do rather than just what we think they OUGHT to do. For example, it's one thing to say that everyone should travel by bicycle instead of private car ALL THE TIME and no one should EVER smoke or eat junk food or do anything that's bad for them - but that's just not going to happen! So what do we do instead?

We need to make it easier for ordinary everyday people to do the more desirable things, at least a good portion of the time, and to feel their efforts are being acknowledged. Less of the carrot and the stick; more of the incentives and deterrents, without actually outlawing most popular activities. Provide as much in the way of information and social, consultational and educational opportunities as possible and let people make up their own minds about how they will proceed.

Politically, we have so many levels of government in this country and things can end up being very polarized. What doesn't always work well is executive federalism, where the Prime minister meets with the Premiers or the Health Ministers or the Finance Ministers of the provinces and territories (and lately often with indigenous leaders, which is at least a step in the right direction). Individual Canadians feel very much excluded from the process as in fact they are, with no MP or MPP or local councillor or other constituency person to represent them.

But there are many issues that transcend party lines. I'd like to see more collaboration between politicians of different political stripes. All-party committees, special committees, public consultations, even more good old-fashioned constituency work on the part of our representatives at all levels.

I know I've lapsed into generalities again here, but I'll close with one specific example. While I'm unlikely to vote Conservative any time soon, I definitely applaud the private member's bill of our local Conservative MPP, Jeremy Roberts, which aims to get rid of the nonsense and aggravation of changing our clocks twice a year. And good on him for seeking collaboration with Quebec and New York State!

Of course, we'll need to backtrack on that message of changing the batteries in smoke alarm and CO detectors at the same time as we change the clocks! I wonder what they do in Saskatchewan?
By the end of 2021, the feds plan to ban a lot of the more common single-use plastic products such as bags, straws and cutlery:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/single-use-plastics-1.5753327?cmp=rss

Overall, I think it's a good thing to be aware of how we are using plastics, the risks (or benefits) in terms of health and practicality, and what the wider repercussions might be for the environment. But an outright ban? I'm not so sure.

I can certainly see the point of stores charging a fee for plastic bags. And frankly, I think the fee should be higher and the plastic bag more durable. How many times have you had a plastic bag break on you and your groceries splattered across the parking lot? What are the total financial and opportunity costs of that, especially in pandemic times when you think of the hours lining up outside the grocery store, the replacement cost for the lost groceries, the depletion of your personal energy morale and dignity, and so forth?

Then there are those plastic bags in the produce section (which so far they don't charge for), which I struggle endlessly on my own (since these days it's one shopper to a household) to pry open with arthritic fingers and sometimes give up on in disgust, resulting in still more waste!

Then there's the health care industry. Disposable needles, tissues, masks and other supplies may be more hygienic and eliminate time and energy (human or otherwise) spent on sterilizing them for re-use, but they mean more stuff in the landfill. Does anyone have a clear and disinterested picture of when it's better to follow the environmental 3 R's vs. when we should go with the one-time use?

If we're going to eliminate single-use plastics, we need viable alternatives to be readily available. I'd love to see us go back to the days of paper bags in grocery stores and growlers or other bottles more readily available in beer and liquor stores. We do still use waxed paper around our place and we reuse plastic wrap and bags as much as possible. And of course, some plastic or plastic-like baggies are compostable too.

Not everyone agrees on the environmental footprint of paper as opposed to plastic though. I found this briefing note from 2011 quite interesting:

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/documents/raise/publications/2011/environment/3611.pdf
Sometimes during a major crisis such as a world-wide public health pandemic, the armed forces are called in to provide much-needed assistance. Other times, they're sent out to sea to play war games, as with the RIMPAC exercise currently underway in the Hawaiian islands. Is this really the best use of our naval person-power? Here is the Canadian government's official position on it:

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/operations/exercises/rimpac.html

Others see it differently. Not only do they question the validity of the primary rationale for this biennial exercise but they also point to a whole host of environmental, health, human rights and other concerns. See, for example, this opinion piece by Tamara Lorincz:

https://www.saltwire.com/opinion/local-perspectives/tamara-lorincz-navy-war-games-put-our-oceans-and-public-health-in-peril-483577/?location=nova-scotia

The unintended consequences of the RIMPAC exercise are far from insignificant. I found it doubly baffling that this biennial ritual did not even begin until the early 1970s: not, as I would have suspected, when our country was at war but during a time of relative optimism and prosperity.

Rather than saying "The show must go on" even during a pandemic, albeit in a shortened and more limited format, I'm thinking we should instead view this international emergency as a golden opportunity to cancel events like RIMPAC and refocus on more pressing matters.
I'm starting to wonder how all the Covid-19 safety measures now in place would be interpreted by archaeologists hundreds or even thousands of years hence. What would they make of the little footprints and directional arrows on the floors of businesses and workplaces, the litter of used masks and PPE, the plexiglass shields and individual face shields, the public signs indicating all the buildings and park facilities that are closed and urging people to maintain a distance of two metres, six feet or whatever the case may have been in various jurisdictions and in various languages. What sort of fossils will they find?

Already there are (to me) relatively modern articles of civilization that scarcely exist any more except in museums: iron lungs, film-based cameras that use anything other than 35 mm film, 8-track tapes and reel-to-reels and the devices that were used to play them - even an old-fashioned telephone or a wind-up analog watch or clock!

Our attitudes towards artefacts, both recent and ancient, seems to have changed too over the course of my lifetime. We have that ecological trio: reduce, re-use, recycle and I think we've seen a fair degree of uptake on the first and third of those. But reusing and as-is re-purposing? Maybe not so much. Is it just coincidence that it feels right to use a hyphen (a more archaic-seeming punctuation mark) when I write "re-use" or "re-purpose"? I think not.

As my generation gets into downsizing, we are realizing that is little market - even if we just want to give them away to a good home - for the treasures of yesteryear. I think it was last summer or perhaps the fall that one house in our neighbourhood put a perfectly good piano on their front lawn with a large sign on it that read "FREE". It was quite some time before it was gone and to this day, I don't know if they got anyone to take it or just gave up (and either brought it back inside or had someone haul it away to the dump).

There's a glut of surplus clothing out there too - goodwill shops will usually take them although it seems only a small percentage of that gets re-sold or re-used. Ditto for books (especially textbooks, old dictionaries or encyclopedias) and magazines. The paper is recyclable so they can go in the blue box - but it seems a shame. And giveaway weekends and special waste depots have simply not happened during the pandemic.

Ah, the ecology of a pandemic or perhaps just of our modern age. All rather sad, but there you have it!
Friday was Climate Strike day, with MEC and LUSH closing for the day and thousands converging on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, while in Toronto Greta Thunberg shook her fist at Justin Trudeau and demanded he take more action to combat the climate apocalypse.

I recently heard about micro plastics in, of all things, teabags! I don't think any of the ones we have are affected and in any case, we often use loose tea instead. And we don't use coffee pods either! Single-use plastics are being demonized, perhaps justifiably, but primarily in the form of plastic bags, straws and cutlery.

Now to some extent, I'm guilty of using all of these, although rarely do I use them only once before discarding them. Plastic straws? I rarely use them. Plastic cutlery? If I do use it, I clean it off and stash it in my purse, pocket, hotel room or medicine cabinet; sometimes they break in transit and then I check for a recycle symbol and blue-bin them. As for plastic bags, I don't routinely use them for retail purchases (I carry my own reusable bags) but when I do get them, they definitely get re-used, whether to keep library books out of the rain, to separate clean and dirty clothes if I'm travelling, to hold wet bathing suits and towels or to line the garbage pail. As well, plastic bags are now being accepted in the municipal green bin, although I don't think they're really being recycled - just separated out from all the guck that IS recyclable.

But there's one product in my life that definitely IS a single-use plastic: dental floss. And it's something I struggle with every time I sift through our waste for garbage day, determining which colour-coded bin to put things in. It gets tangled up in the human hair, pet fur, dust bunnies and floor sweepings which ARE recyclable and I dutifully strain it out.

Apparently there are alternatives out there at a price, like silk or bamboo, but they don't seem to be readily available on the shelves of grocery stores or pharmacies.

As Kermit says, it ain't easy being green.
Ever since I can remember (maybe even since the paper began), the Ottawa Citizen has put the slogan "Fair Play and Daylight" at the top of its Editorial page. But I've never been sure quite what it meant.

Fair play is certainly important, in the newspaper business as in any other. You don't want to be guilty of libel or promoting hatred; and if you're going to credibly express one point of view, presumably you have to at least have considered some opposing viewpoints before rejecting them for one reason or another. What about daylight? I suppose one function of journalism is to bring to light important issues that some stakeholders would like to shut in a dark closet; another might be to shed additional light on issues of which many of us may be only dimly aware.

Which brings me to the broader issue of daylight, quite apart from the Citizen's slogan. And specifically, Daylight Saving Time. I haven't really researched the matter much, but my understanding is that DST was first introduced during wartime, when street signs were all taken down to confuse the enemy and blackout regulations were in effect after dark. And I believe that during at least part of World War II, Double Daylight Time was introduced to further hoard and make the most of those scarce and precious daytime hours. But is this kind of semiannual time-switching still relevant today?

When I was little, we basically had six months of Standard Time followed by six months of Daylight Time. We changed the clocks on the last Saturday of April and the last Saturday of October. A couple of decades later, it was decided that we should switch to daylight time on the FIRST Saturday in April, but keep the same date for switching back to standard time. So in effect, it was daylight time that was now "standard", since we were on it for nearly seven months of the year. When the U.S. decided to move up daylight time to March, and so-called Standard Time into November, we meekly tagged along. So now, we "spring" ahead before spring has arrived even OFFICIALLY(i.e. at the vernal equinox), let alone actually (which around here is usually several weeks later)! We have a mere four months or so of "standard" time followed by eight months of daylight time.

Strangely, it seems that during these decades, people have been steadily shifting towards doing things earlier in the day, so that the whole point of daylight savings has been thwarted. People start and finish their work-days earlier than they used to. Instead of 9-to-5 or 10-to-6, it's 8-to-4 or 7-to-3. Kids typically used to begin their school day at 9 AM; now many of them start at 8:00 or even earlier. So on bleak March mornings after the clocks have changed, young children and teens are staggering bleary-eyed out of bed and off to school when it's still dark outside!

There is ample evidence out there that constantly shifting back and forth, as well as being forced to be up and about in the dark, has a detrimental effect on our circadian rhythms, our eating and sleeping patterns, our mood, and so forth, and makes us all more accident-prone as a result. So why don't we all follow Saskatchewan's example and call a halt to this madness?

This evening at 8:30 PM EDT, we (along with other participating cities in other time zones) are being encouraged to turn off the lights and play board games by candlelight to observe "Earth Hour". While I sometimes yearn myself for a simpler, more unplugged way of life, I'm sceptical that observing Earth Hour is going to do much of anything to conserve energy or save the planet. I mean, if you really want to save energy, why not just go to bed at 8:30 tonight?

Oh wait, I remember - it's because then we'll be wanting to get up too earlly tomorrow, when it's still dark out!
Back in 1976, I was living in London, Ontario, and studying to become a librarian. There was a bulk-foods store in town called "Grains, Beans and Things", where I discovered the joys of purple loosestrife honey.

Fast forward to 1992. I went back for a reunion and GB&T was still there (though in the process of moving to a new but nearby location). There was a sign in the front window exhorting customers NOT to feed the squirrels because they were a nuisance. And the purple loosestrife honey was long gone.

Some time in the 1980s or 90s it became decidedly politically-incorrect to be a fan of purple loosestrife. "It's not a native plant! It's an invasive species! It has no natural predators! It will choke out our wetlands and leave death and destruction in its wake!" So what did they do about this monstrous purple bogeyplant?

Well for one thing, they imported some beetles from somewhere in Europe and under cover of darkness, deposited them in purple loosestrife patches to gorge their little hearts out. Hmmm. I guess non-native beetles are okay as long as they are fightng the good fight against a domestic menace.

Now fast forward another twenty years. Turns out, purple loosestrife is still out there, but it's only about 5% or so of the wetland. And the other species that they were supposedly killing off are still out there too. Perhaps that's in part because they stepped in promptly with those non-native beetles and addressed the national epidemic, but the general consensus amonst scientists these days seems to be that rumours of a weed-induced apocalypse were gross exaggerations.

And you know, I really don't understand this "non-native species" argument. After all, Canada is largely a nation of immigrants. If anything, its probably the native populations who have been treated as second-class citizens - to the extent that they even accept the concept of citizenship as non-aboriginals have come to define it.

Is it any wonder that there are sceptics out there who don't buy into the dire warnings about climate change and global warming? Now don't get me wrong. Certain things are measurable and quantifiable and I don't dispute them for a moment. But the devil is in the interpretation - lies, damn lies and statistics as the saying goes. Average temperatures probably ARE going up over time. The polar ice cap probably IS melting at a faster rate than it was. That doesn't necessarily mean that they will continue to do so at the same or at an accelerating rate. A few decades is a relatively short period of time in the vast history of the planet and the universe. And even if things do continue on their current course, it seems to me that the real problem is whether climate change happens at such a rapid and unpredictable rate that we are unable to come up with good-enough adaptive or delaying tools and mechanisms. As humans, we do have a few points in our favour that the dinosaurs, for example, lacked.

In some respects, it might of course be a GOOD thing if the polar ice cap melts and the vast desolate swaths of northern wasteland become more habitable. Yes, certain species would undoubtedly die out. Over time, others would evolve to take their place. That doesn't mean we should bury our heads in the sand and avoid dealing with the problems as we perceive them at the moment. The pure and applied research that we do now, the innovations and inventions and just plain wild or bizarre ideas that we come up with - some of them, anyway - will no doubt be of SOME use for SOME purpose at SOME time!
According to an article in today's Citizen, the City of Ottawa is only managing to collect about 2/3 as much green-bin recyclables as it is paying for. The author seemed to think that that means a lot of green bins lying fallow because the households they belong to are not separating their waste properly. I'm not so sure that's the case.

For one thing, many households undoubtedly do their own composting. We do, although we still put out a few things that would take longer to decompose in a small household unit - like pizza boxes and paper towels - or which we worry might pose a health hazard - used tissues, kitty litter, etc.

Beginning in November, the City of Ottawa will only collect garbage every other week, while the green bin collection will remain weekly (instead of reverting to biweekly as it used to do for the winter months). Okay, so we've had the stick. Now how about the carrot? Maybe they could catch fewer flies with honey than with vinegar, to use a dreadful mixed metaphor. Here are a few ideas they might consider.

1. EXPAND THE LIST OF ITEMS WE CAN RECYCLE - Before Ottawa became one big supercity, they used to let you put out used clothing in an ordinary garbage back tied with a scrap of cloth so its contents were apparent. The city would sort through these bags, donating the better items and recycling the rest for rags. Yes, there are charities which will pick up these items, but my experience with them has been less than positive. For example, one day when the charity was supposedly going to be in our area, I put out a bag in the manner prescribed, only to find out at the end of the day that it had not been collected. When I phoned the next day to inform the charity of the situation, I asked that they just let me know when they would next be in the area - at which point they got quite belligerent and said they wanted to pick it up THAT VERY DAY! Why were they in such a rush all of a sudden? Needless to say, if we had not been there to take back the uncollected bag, there would have been a security concern as well: potentially advertising to prospective break-in artists that no one was home!
Clothing is just one example. They also used to pick up used plastic bags, for example. I see no reason why they can't pick up diapers and feminine hygiene products, especially as kitty litter is accepted. And just how do they distinguish between cat waste (accepted) and dog waste (not accepted)? The mind boggles!

2. INSTEAD OF ONE-DAY HAZARDOUS WASTE DEPOTS, HAVE DOOR-TO-DOOR SERVICE
That way, if you're an environmentally responsible person who doesn't operate a car, you could also dispose of hazardous waste in an environmentally responsible manner on a regular basis instead of having to rely on someone with a vehicle. There would also be fewer vehicles on the road doing the transporting to often far-flung waste depots and that in itself means less gasoline used, fewer emissions, less time wasted, less private expense of the vehicle owner, greater compliance and less illegal dumping... and so on. Surely a win-win-win... situation!

3. HAVE JUST ONE BIN FOR MIXED RECYCLABLES; LET THE CONTRACTOR DO THE SORTING
They do that already in Gatineau. The recyclers can then take whatever they can use and the City doesn't have to put together a ridiculously convoluted calendar of different collection weeks for differently-coloured boxes. Plus, the simpler it is, the better residents will understand it and the higher the level of compliance.

4. EASE UP ON POINTLESS BUREAUCRATIC RULES
You mustn't set out your garbage before 6 PM the evening before collection. Nor must it be after 7 AM (even, presumably, if it never gets collected before 4 PM). Containers must be removed from the curbside by 10 PM on collection day. Then we have all the restrictions on the containers themselves. For instance, it's technically against the law to have the lid attached to the container by a cord. Whoever put that clause into the Bylaw has obviously never had to stop the car to move lids that blow all over the road on a windy day!

I may have left school long ago but I still struggle with the 3 R's!!
What's the difference between a hoarder and an environmentalist? Well, I suppose it's a question of degree.

If you permanently stash your dishes in the oven, your plants in the bathtub and your tropical fish in the toilet bowl so that you can't answer a call of nature in the way that nature or modern civilization intends, then chances are you're a hoarder. But for the generations that remember the Great Depression or wartime and postwar austerity measures like rationing, and as a result are loath to discard things that can be repaired, renovated or repurposed, I'd say you were probably an environmentalist long before environmentalism entered the mainstream lexicon.

On March 31, an article in the Ottawa Citizen bore the headline "CAS removes children from hoarder's home". The alleged hoarder in this case was the children's grandmother, and the children consisted of a two-year-old girl and her two brothers, aged eight and eleven. All three children were seized earlier this year but the two boys have apparently been returned to their grandmother's care, while the girl is to remain in a foster home.

I would be curious to know why the boys, who had apparently been living quite happily with their grandmother for eight years before their apprehension, were considered eligible to return, while their sister was not. Frankly, I suspect it's because they were able to verbalize their wishes more effectively. Most two-year-olds are familiar with the word "no" but if you asked them to elaborate, few would be able to respond all that eloquently.

There is no word as to where the children's parents are in all of this, or even whether they are still living. Surely, though, a grandparent would in most cases be a good choice for providing some much-needed stability and continuity in these children's lives.

Or maybe not. But the point I would make here is this: WE'LL NEVER KNOW. Freedom of speech is not an absolute. Wards of state must not be named in the media. Child welfare cases are shrouded in secrecy. We have no choice but to fund the Children's Aid Society through our tax dollars (which, among other things, pay for that offensive series of TV commercials along the lines of "Meghan is YOUR Children's Aid!") Yes, I am sure they do some good things. But when they do not, when they ruin children's lives, just who exactly can be held accountable?
... if we don't leave them the Earth? A good friend of mine uses that as a tag-line on her e-mail signature block and although she may mean the question rhetorically, I think it deserves a thoughtful answer.

Simply put, the earth is not ours to leave them. Money, if we are lucky, may be. I would point to two other well-worn sayings. One is something like this: We do not inherit the earth from our forebears; we borrow it from our descendants. The other relates to money: You can't take it with you.

So we look after our world the best we can and the best we know how - it's the only world we have. We try to stay true to our values and we hope our children will adopt some of those values too. As for money, it isn't everything - though it may well seem that way to those who haven't enough to do what they want (or even need) to do. But it CAN buy some things that are of value, like books, music lessons, bicycles, sports equipment, not to mention higher education - it's just a question of where your priorities lie. Kids don't need tons of fancy toys and video games, for example, but they DO need to engage with the world - to play, to learn, to experience, to be loved. That calls for an investment of time, if nothing else, and most parents have to make some difficult tradeoffs balancing time in the workplace making money (where children are not necessarily always welcome)and time spent directly interacting with the children. Very young children live mainly in the present, of course, but their parents have to consider their future too.

So by all means, let's do what we can to preserve the earth. But money - well, it doesn't grow on trees, but I don't consider the root of all evil either. People will use some of their discretionary income to buy themselves treats and luxuries, of course - nothing wrong with that - but hopefully they will also put a portion of it towards making a difference in the lives of their descendants, their fellow human beings, and the other inhabitants of our world.

Profile

blogcutter

July 2025

S M T W T F S
   12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 10th, 2025 07:11 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios