Three ideas are compelling me these days:
Work
Focus
Discipline.

This poem is about the meaning and experiencing life when the choice is made to abandon the overwhelming stifle that would take over our life and make it so the abundance of experience and life is missed.

So it is.

There are many ways to die.
And many ways to live.
—————

Shake off this sadness, and recover your spirit
sluggish you will never see the wheel of fate
that brushes your heel as it turns going by,
the man who wants to live is the man in whom life is abundant.

Now you are only giving food to that final pain
which is slowly winding you in the nets of death,
but to live is to work, and the only thing which lasts
is the work; start then, turn to the work.

Throw yourself like seed as you walk, and into your own field,
don’t turn your face for that would be to turn it to death,
and do not let the past weigh down your motion.

Leave what’s alive in the furrow, what’s dead in yourself,
for life does not move in the same way as a group of clouds;
from your work you will be able one day to gather yourself.

~ Miguel De Unamuno ~

Yes.
I came across this a moment ago. As if in answer to what I need to do next.

START CLOSE IN

Start close in,
don’t take the second step
or the third,
start with the first
thing
close in,
the step you don’t want to take.

Start with
the ground
you know,
the pale ground
beneath your feet,
your own
way of starting
the conversation.

Start with your own
question,
give up on other
people’s questions,
don’t let them
smother something
simple.

To find
another’s voice
follow
your own voice,
wait until
that voice
becomes a
private ear
listening
to another.

Start right now
take a small step
you can call your own
don’t follow
someone else’s
heroics, be humble
and focused,
start close in,
don’t mistake
that other
for your own.

Start close in,
don’t take the second step
or the third,
start with the first
thing
close in,
the step you don’t want to take.

~ David Whyte ~

(River Flow)

I wrote the following as an email to friends as something of a spontaneous response to this article.

I think the essential rudiments of our Constitutional government are under a strain nearing the breaking point. What was intended to be open and subservient government – as exemplified by the Bill of Rights, is again, under attack by those who find the liberty offered to citizens and the limitations imposed upon power to be distasteful as well as a violation of the natural order of things.

I believe we need a call to return to the original moorings provided by the constitution. I dont mean some fundamentalist ‘original intent’ doctrine by which we are supposedly unable to think a thought that the founders didnt. Rather a wise comprehension of what the constitution represented: An attempt to form a ‘more perfect union’. Not perfect, but laying down the antecedents of liberty and freedom. Specifically the notions of citizen, and power distribution to the lowest level possible, and the tension of opposing voices so there would be a constant check and balance of power.

But what happens when all the supposedly naturally opposing forces that are supposed to organically provide a balance of power all align on the same side? Every system has within it the seeds of its own destruction. Sometimes called unintended consequences, there are fundamental incompatibilities built into every system that will eventually insure its demise.

This flaw in the American constitution is this unintended, indeed, unimaginable condition where Congress would cede its power and charter to oversee the executive to the expediency of position and not having to make hard choices; where the press would be owned, nearly in entirety, by corporations whose interests more closely align with the government and not the imperative to inform the citizenry. Where the notion of citizen itself is subsumed into a more bland, but palatable ‘consumer’ state.
When this combination of factors align in this configuration there is little left of the possibility of government by the people for the people.

And now we have the balancing possibility of the internet and all it represents as a by-pass to the systems of power and communications that have been established. From the point of view of the power systems it is a breach. One that must be staunched.

It is sadly ironic that Lieberman would be the standard bearer for this effort. As recounted below….

——————————-

There is a constant tension between the governors and the governed. Who gets to say what, and when, and who decides.
Behind this article, and Lieberman’s efforts, is a very real pressure to abandon the power reduction/sharing structures of the constitution.

It has been there from the beginning, the “ruling class” (ref N.Chomsky) has always chafed at this “experiment” (A.Lincoln)

It has been well said, by Gobbles (there he is again!) as well as being one of the main themes/lessons of 1984, that to keep the population (are we citizens yet, or just population?) under control you need to keep a constant state of low level agitation and fear.

Before we had the Russians. Now we have terrorists. Neither were “true” in the way they have been used.

Now, again, perpetually, the newest means of sustaining liberty – the structure of the internet, which has the potential to fulfill Madison’s(? or was it Jefferson) requirement of a free people to be informed (And as I wrote in a different post, that the government be open and transparent, and the citizenry have rights of privacy… not the other way around); Now that institution/function (of the i/net) is under sever attack.

And now, again, from this (insert many bad words here) piffling little man Lieberman.

It is apparent to me that the deep understanding, hell, shallow understanding, of the nature of information, communication, liberty and free speech et al… is ill understood. And therefore easily abandoned by the population; not citizens… citizens understand these things.
For example: this line here Lieberman defended himself in a response letter, saying, “the peril here is not to legitimate dissent but to our fundamental right of self-defense.” reveals the fundamental breakdown of thinking and more formally the breakdown of the logical/philosophical structures of liberty as erected by the constitution. And again the point and the question is raised: by what measure do you judge an expression to be ‘legitimate’ or not. According to….? You Mr. Lieberman? Maybe Mr. Cheney could decide for us… so we could be relived of the burden of actually having to think…. (I rant. ….)
He thinks you can have liberty by imposing limits. He (nor bushco, nor any of those neocons who hold these pernicious tenants) does not understand the relationship to positive outcome of free speech requires the possibility of bad free speech. Hell, the ACLU gets this, defending neo Nazi’s whom they abhor at the idea level, but whom they are compelled to defend at the level of being able to express those ideas, regardless. (Or… Maybe they do understand .. and that would be a separate line of discussion!)
Understanding, to complete the point, that the battle is not won by suppressing the idea, but by exposing it and having better ones!!
And of course, one of the main reasons trying to have freedom by restricting freedom doesn’t work is because….. who decides? And that re-enjoins the power discussion. And that gets us back to the constitution vs. all the other forms of ‘who gets to decide’. What is proposed here, then, is not simply a “stop the terrorists” but “start the reification of power to me…”
(This is a complex point, of course, with many aspects. But here is one observation I make on these processes: The ruling ideal in the times of creating the constitution was expressed in preamble [ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution], was to create a ‘more perfect Union. There was a vitality and a compulsion to make something positive, a looking forward to possibility.
It seems to me that the ruling ‘Zeitgeist’ today is fear. A restriction, a regression, a xenophobia to retreat within. We seem to be at the juncture of making an irrevocable choice whether to proceed to develop our nation, our constitution, our place and relationships in the world on a predicate of fear.
Thus stupid foreign policy adventures like war (and as gore vidal talked about – and orwell predicted – perpetual war for perpetual peace), bush in israel making his standard bland dull witted assertions; and also our commercial adventures; as well as our lemming-like rush to have ’security’ all the while not realizing we are being herded into prison cells. I am referring to the Jane Jacobs division of the commerce and guardian functions…We are funding, for example, Blackwater, to save us. And look how that worked out in NewOrleans, not to mention the horrors of Iraq. Privatizing the guardian function. With hardly an ripple of understanding that this is the first and an essential step toward fascism…. [see how complex and interwoven all this is...!!! The nature of systems. The requirement now is to comb all this out, and hopefully make it more understandable, and actionable.])

[ -- as an aside, I like B/O's take on this in his race speech--- it wasnt perfect in the form finalized at the time, and they knew that. But it was 'more' perfect than before. And -- systemically -- it had the provisions for change embodied within it. And in so doing would continue to become 'More Perfect'. BTW... From a systems perspective this is why it works!!! Also, from a Taoist pov, it also it why it has the potential to fail. Because the machinery for change embedded in it can be hi-jacked by people and forces whose intent is toxic to freedom. The only remedy to this is the congress, and the people. But what if they are complicit? ref Jean-François Revel: How Democracies Perish, and Alexis DeTocqueville. ]

We used to have a jurisprudence that recognized this as well. It was embodied in the form : ‘better to allow some criminals go free than to convict an innocent man.’ The system, if allowed, will correct itself. The true criminal will be exposed, and will be caught. If not this time, then the next, and the innocent man is spared.
We are turning this proposition on its head. Now anyone who seems to have a criminal look, driven by our fears, [reference many Twilight Zones and other movies, books, stories where the "other" is hated just for being different... And 'justice' is meeded out of our fears and reaction not reasoned inquiry ... Another example: The Oxbow Incident.] is taken for ‘questioning’.
And… why would you resist if you have nothing to hide? If you are not guilty? (This line of reasoning and its consequences was fully exposed by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in the work ‘The Gulag Archipelago’. ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago).
And then there is the example of how this is played out in our ineffective so called airport security. Ineffective, yes, for the stated purpose. But quite effective at sustaining that low level agitation required…. What, for example, could be more demeaning and therefore controlling than to subject people to stupid and irrelevant little humilities – not quite enough to protest, almost having the feel of reasonableness, but with a niggling sense that this entire apparatus is really not doing anything meaningful at all. And for all that, creating a very real hierarchy of governers/subjects – and to such petty and unthinking trogs as is the common tsa examiner… ‘just doing our job’. All creating an environment of unconscious capitulation to the proposition that “we know better than you do”. Big Bro indeed! (and… referring to other conversations, can you imagine this post being written in Newspeak? Cant be done. Thats the point.)
And you know what happens when you give unthinking people power and a mission to uphold. (ref The Lucifer Effect/Zimbardo. and even more horrifically Hitler’s Willing Executioners”) .
But then, again, this upsets the Constitutional balance of power. We are not supposed to be required to constantly defend our innocence. That is the intent of the 4th Amendment ( .. and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause… ). To extend the point: The government is presumed to have unlimited power and resources which must be restricted from being unleashed on the citizenry. In only well defined ways is this power allowed to be used.
As that restraint to harassment is removed we retreat from not only the ideal, but the actual facts of Constitutional Governance.
What replaces it? Not a better form, that is for sure. It is surely a historical verity that what comes next is a form of totalitarianism, either in tyranny, or fascism, or royalty (in the case of England 1600’s post Cromwell) or some other form we have not seen yet. (But will surely be an amalgam of these astringent forces…Something akin to the world of 1984 if we don’t pay attention.)
——-
Anyway, I see I have again gotten carried away! It is, I suppose, my morning writing. My original purpose was simply to show you this article and the structural deficiency of the thinking that is increasingly dominating our public square.

Part of my purpose, might be/should be? to assess this issue as well. What is it that we want to save? What is it that we are so intent on changing? And changing into what?
Part of our place in these times of potential opportunity might be to uncage systemic principles in a way that does real work in reclaiming the ground lost to the flood tide of the recent administration’s encroachment on the rudiments of liberty…

On the occasion of the release of the report where the intellegence, such as it is, was adjudged by the Senate Intellegence Committee to be profoundly in error. Especially how it was used by the administration to propel the country into a predetermined war.

I read the complaints of the republican minority on the release and was moved to write a letter in response. Senator Bonds’ Press Release Here

In short I cannot believe, but of course I do, that those so-called leaders who defended and enabled “Bushs War” are now are lining up to defend their actions in the terms of denial. Having just watched the film “Judgement at Nuremburg” I am again struck by how leaders who knowingly capitulate to expediency and dont make waves, dont stand up and do their duty in the moment for which the moment calls for them to do so; I notice that when they get exposed they invariably retreat to the defensive lines of “How could we have known?” , “We didnt know, nobody did”, “There was nothing I could do”, and/or “We didnt know it would come to this, that it would work out this way”.

The movie closes with a profound, powerful retort to all this whimpering and craven justification: “The moment you first sentenced an innocent man to death it came to this.”.  In this case, the case of going to war with all of its attendant horrors, the first time these men and women voted to support the administrations lies and predetermined decisions to go to war… it came to this…..

Here is a profound idea with profound consequences: Party Unity. And that being the phalanx behind which this war was foisted upon the world.

I just read your press release pertaining to the Intelligence Committee report. In there you accuse the Democrats of playing politics with the process, and complain about being cut out of the process.

And it just strikes me as incredibly ironic, and a bit hypocritical when I recall how the Intelligence committee was run under the Republican leadership. Among the many problems were just these things about which you are complaining.

Except, the consequences were so much more profound. You do not need a litany of the horrible consequences of the decision to go to war; it is well known. You either know it and refuse to acknowledge it. Or you don’t, in which case it seems you are too obstinate, or/and distracted by party affiliation and priorities, to acknowledge even basic facts.

Whatever truth there may be to your accusations about the process of “republicans being cut out of the process” of making this report, it is overwhelmingly counterbalanced by the profound error originally perpetrated.

In the time of the making of these decisions to go to war we needed reflection and insight, not party based rallying around a cause.
If, now, in order to get some semblance of the truth of the errors upon which this war was engaged out and into the public square, it requires that the republican’s on the Intelligence Committee be denied the ability to continue to perpetrate their obfuscation and delay then so be it. We saw how this issue was handled under the previous administration of the Intelligence Committee.

The country needed something more of the Congress than we got in those days of choosing to go to war. It was not, as those who would like to try and justify their capitulation to party discipline and the political expediencies of the moment, a requirement that we attack Iraq. These assessments from the Intelligence Committee establish once and for all that America was railroaded into this disastrous action. And that, in significant part, due to the complicity and willful ignorance on the part of the Senate and the Senate leadership at the time.
The clear and egregious complicity of Senate Republicans to capitulate to the Bush Administration on political grounds, completely ceding their constitutional role of “advise and consent” to the political imperatives of party unity did not serve this country well. Nor for that matter, ultimately the party.
I would wish that you, Senator Bond, would reflect outside the limitations of party requirements to never admit a mistake and see that maybe something seriously wrong was done here. And from that position we could all join in the assessment of facts and then the process of healing and learning.
Sincerely
Michael Beaton

Historical Article Here

This is a photograph of the event I wrote about here.

Obama Rally in Portland, OR, originally uploaded by Tom Turnbull.

My article on this event…

When Hillary made this comment about the assassination of RFK I was incredulous. I wrote the email to some freinds below. Some of them responded that she was tired and didnt mean it. And I took that as likely. Now, it seems there is a major response to this event along the lines I first was impacted.

I think that there is a certain value in the length of the campaign. It has revealed the degree of Clintons’ political mind and tone deaf sense of impact of what she does and says. It is too familiar and similar to the current occupant. The length of this campaign seems to have pressured these qualities into the open.

I saw the video of the quote, and then of the apology in the grocery store. It is just as telling to look at her body language, and actually what she says.
My take on the original quote is that it actually does not fit the context. It can be construed, but it doesnt fit syntactically, and logically it doesnt seem to make sense. In what sense does the fact that RFK was killed in June have any relevance to her extending the campaign into this June?

Olbermann says it best, and most strenuously…
————-
Some links:
New York Times
This contains a couple of video links about this instance.
————-

(original thoughts)

That she would even think, much less say this is (see below)
at the least stupid beyond belief.

it is insufficient to me that she says “sorry” and especially the mealy mouth version of “if my …”. What do you mean IF!
such a weasel wording, that especially doesnt fit in this instance….

it makes me wonder if this isnt what she has been hinting at all this time when she says “… who knows what may happen …”

but to make it explicit what has been going around that B/O is a target is unexcusable to me.

some say the long campaign has been good as a way of toughening up Obama.
I say it has been good if it has the affect of showing the deeper stripes of who Clinton is.

She is increasingly showing herself to be unfit.
Not only for what she knowingly does and says. I dont know if it is better that she didnt intend it, if we take her at her word, or not. either way it reveals something. and it doesnt look good from my pov.
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. – Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton quickly apologized Friday after citing the 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason to remain in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination despite increasingly long odds.
“I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever,” the former first lady said.The episode occurred as Clinton campaigned in advance of the June 3 South Dakota primary.

Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don’t understand it,” she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race.

Clinton said she didn’t understand why, given this history, some Democrats were calling for her to quit.

Her remark about an assassination during a primary campaign drew a quick response from aides to Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama.

“Senator Clinton’s statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

As of now HRC reminds me of Capt Queeg out of touch and clueless as to what she is doing even as she demands nothing is wrong and she is in the right. Or maybe more like Sméagol. She seems to be so intent on winning that she is willing to take down the party and all other structures in the quest for “her precious” ring of power. Maybe, likely, even ruin her political life in the process.

Whatever the metaphor is, or the right story that reflects it, it does seem to me that Hillary is now in a headlong myoptic lunge for a prize that, if she even could get it by some subterfuge, will be worthless. She will loose to McCain.

Rachel Maddow makes a serious case for this scenario and what is actually happening with the Clinton campaign.

I address it here, in my Ideas have Consequenses blog because I believe that the most important next thing that we have to do is re-organize our political structures, starting at the top. I dont believe that the president is everything. Only that the office and the power of the president sets the context for what is possible. In a very real way the president we have is a reflection of the people and the state of the nation. This makes the presidential race an important and compelling idea to me. One with radical consequences as we have seen, about which I have written about prior.

I happen to think Rachael Maddow is a top political analyst. She makes a compelling case about how McCain wins if Clinton is not out of the race before the rules committee meets. In the second hour of the Rachael Maddow Show on 5/21/08 she presents her case. I think it is worth hearing.

The only significant disagreement I have with her is that she is still holding a position that either Barak or Hillary would be agreat president “just pick one”. I think it is long past time now to hold that position. Hillary has shown a deeper flaw about who she is in relationship to power that is reminicient of what we have experienced these last 8 years. More can be, and no doubt will be written about this aspect of the race and about Hillary in the future. In summary, she has proven in this campaign that while she may be competent at many things, there is something that is off. Something that will perpetuate the old ways of political dynamics when what is needed is a profoundly new way.

Power delusion, and the consequences of it are not the in the sole province of Republicans.

I think we are watching tragic theatre play itself out before us. We should be paying attention.

Some links…
The show can be gotten from iTunes Podcasts. (Search for Maddow) or maybe here.
http://www.green960.com/pages/maddow.html

Click Here for the blog post…

I didnt think it was possible to be more ignorant about history and its consequences than the current occupant of the White House.   But…inexplicably, here is a sycophant who exemplifies the igornance that makes up the belligerance of the american right wing.

This is on the occasion of Bush calling Obama an appeaser before the Israeli parliment.

I saw Barak Obama in Portland on Sunday. I do not normally get caught up in shouting and crowd dynamics. And this event was no exception. But I was moved. Deeply. Quietly.
I found myself about 30 yards off the main stage watching, watching closely. And listening closely to what was being said. While Obama spoke the obligatory crowd pleasing lines it was notable to me that he did not seem to be trying to whip up the crowd into emotional frenzy. In fact it seemed the opposite. A couple times the crowd wanted to get into the “Yes we Can” chant. Obama seemed to let it run its course and then proceed w/ his remarks.
Not that I have anything against the emotion that people are feeling. I tend to want what is underlying the emotional outbursts. I want there to be substance to support it. In this case I felt it was there.

Clinton, and others, have tried to cast Obama as having “just words” “he has only given a good speech”. I now understand better why they need to try and detract from the power of Obama’s oratory. It is not like so much political speech, full of vacuous thought, full of promises and non sequitur thoughts designed to appeal to a predetermined crowd. Obama actually talks in full paragraphs, with thoughts that hold together across the entire speech. It is not simply a collection of applause lines or attack lines. He actually engages the issues we are facing in a way that evinces an understanding of this simple maxim : You cannot solve a problem at the level at which the problem was created.

My first take on the speech follows.

Basic takeaway : His stump speech is smarter, more intelligent, logically cohesive, as well as inspirational and meaningfully hopeful than the best, thought out positions of the others candidates. Or any politician I am aware of for that matter. Reagan is held out as a “great communicator”. I never have understood this, never really feeling that much of what Reagan communicated was worth hearing. As a communicator I would posit Obama is orders of magnitude better than Reagan. And… he has the added benefit of actually communicating something that calls to our “better selves” while not eviscerating what it means to be an American.

It seems that Obama has the power to hold this position of transformation. I have never heard a political candidate make the case that what he is offering is not pre-molded answers but a process by which we may affect change for the better.
Now it will be up to the country to decide if we have drunk a full cup of the bitters and ready for such a change. Or if it will take another quaff, and another round of drunken stupor, for the citizenry to get it that the course America has followed for so long, (insert lots of detail here), and that has been especially manifest in the horror that has been this BushCo Administration, is fundamentally flawed and in need of deep systemic change.
We have to begin to think again as citizens bound together in some essential way that is deeper than our epicurean pursuits and our silly infatuations with flawed beliefs like “we are number one” or/and “they hate us for our freedoms”.

I am hopeful, but cynical. I live a contradiction. I am aware of the basic goodness and desires of people, the American people. I am also aware of the powers and forces and individuals who lie in wait to destroy what would destroy them. And they have their hands on the levers of power, money, communications.
It is amazing to me however, that even though that is so, there is still the possibility for hope, and for change – change at a deep structural level. It lets me know that as formidable as the masters of the status quo are there is something that they do not own, that is not fully under control. It is from this, whatever that is, that something deeper, more integral, more essential will, if it will, if it can, emerge.

My favorite line in the speech:
We will close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus. And say no to renditions. Because you will have a president who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and who will obey the Constitution of the United States of America.I don’t want to just end the war. I want to end the mindset that got us into the war. I’m tired of the politics of fear that uses 9/11 as a way to scare folks rather than a way to bring us together. I don’t like it in our own party, I don’t like it in the other party.

In these two lines Obama has made the essential case: The constitution is the essense of what makes America America. Without it we become only another failed republic tending toward a new tyranny…. as we are now. And that it will take a change in our mindset in order to affect change.
He does not promise it will happen. Only, and this is key, that if we, the citizens of America will embrace the notion of citizen once again, that promise that has been America may once again emerge. Maybe even in a more transcendant incarnation.

Maybe we can retreat from empire and become less militaristic and more holistic in our foreign affairs?
Maybe we can transcend the essential racism that has been in our deep psyche from the beginning, and has been a profound hinderance to our ability to function at the level of our principles.
Maybe we can begin the process of being ruled by something more positive, more true, more substantial than fears. Fears stoked by demogauges who know better, and use the knowledge for their own purposes.
Maybe we can recover from this financial precipice we find ourselves perched on. But it will take a systemic transformation akin, though different, to the social contracts that came out of the Great Depression.
Maybe we can do it before we immerse ourselves in another , more horrible global Great Depression?
Or maybe not.

But these are the propositions that are before us now.

What is certain is that to continue the path currently charted will be to proceed, pell mell, to a certain destruction. It is long past the time for vacuous promises that hardly last longer than the reverberation of the sounds of the words with which they are spoken.   It is time for a commitment to a thinking that is different.   A thinking that is motivated for a real comprehension of what it is we face, and propelled by a profound and essential desire to live true to “the angles of our better nature.”

I know this post needs a good editing,  and I will do that in subsequent posts.  For now this is meant only as first thoughts on a moment that, to me, was seminal, and which seems to presage what seems to me to be a major choice point that we, as citizens of this country, have now come to.

What has happened, even over the last 8 years, has happened. Now what? There is a choice that must be made. And will be made one way or another. Even trying, again,  to not choose, or make a default choice of the known;  even trying to hold fast to the well worn creeds of the past – our racism, our unsubstantiated beliefs, our formidible ignorance, our memories of world dominance, our lust for war as opposed to transformation, our lazy desire to have someone else figure it all out – just dont mess w/ my football game, or whatever drug of choice used to dull us to the consequences of our national choices; still a choice will be made.

I hope we choose well. And for better reasons than we have in the past.

A link to a news report.
Excerpts from the speech

As a final note:
When have you ever heard a politician in recent times appeal to the constitution in such a profound way. And more, to recognize its authority. And to rever it as something to be upheld in the present tense, not as some historical but anachronistic idea.
Not since Lincoln have I heard such language from a presidential contender.

“We are now gathered to see if that nation, or any nation so constituted can long endure….”

There is a need to find this way of personal integrity stitching our days “each to each” in a simple seeking, and becoming.
This is an idea with deep consequences for personal satisfaction and happiness, as well as the predicate for being effective in the world in those things we care about “out there”.
Now…making the distinction of what are those things that do and do not matter…. That feels like life work.

Let’s take the time and try to find,
what real life has to offer.
And maybe then we’ll find again,
what we had long forgotten.
Like a friend, true ’til the end,
it will help us onward.

The sun is high, the road is wide,
and it starts where we are standing.
No one knows how far it goes,
for the road is never-ending.

It goes away,
beyond what we have thought of.
It flows away,
Away like flowing water.

~ Benjamin Hoff ~

Originally Found here…