Day job and family has kept me busy this week, so not a lot of time for photography and writing. I've been helping my daughter learn to cook (Actually, I just drive her to the store so she can buy ingredients and then I eat what she cooks. I get the easy part.) 

We were at Wal-Mart, I noticed all the bare shelves. Like you, I've been noticing this for quite some time. I'm over 50, and this is a new phenomenon in my lifetime as an American. It harkens back to stories my grandparents told me of their childhoods, and it makes me uncomfortable to ponder it.  I don't like it. Not one bit.

​One can debate why this is happening, and I'm sure the reasons are complex. It's the baby formula that truly disturbs me. It hits me in a place only a parent can understand. The lack of outrage by the American people, and lack of urgency by our government, disturbs me even more.
 
I wandered around Wal-Mart and took a few photos of the bare shelves. Inventories were thin on many shelves that weren't completely bare. However, one section had shelves almost overflowing. Its that same section that never seemed to run "dry" even during the height of COVID lockdowns. 

No baby formula. Plenty of booze. 

It's just a snapshot in time, a few photos taken during one visit to a supermarket. ​I'm not sure what that says about us as a culture, maybe nothing. I just can't quit thinking about it.  You can draw your own conclusions.

See you next week. 

#babyformula #shortages #rationing #walmart #economy 

Since the Baby Boomers entered the world in the years immediately following World War II and were old enough to snatch the microphone from the Greatest Generation, they proclaimed how different they were from all who had come before. They heralds of the Age of Aquarius, the Real Thing. The Boomers came of age in the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of our species, following the bloodiest and most savage war in the history of that same species. They knew they were smarter than their parents. They knew they would usher in world peace, right the wrongs, and make everything fair and equitable. In retrospect, it didn't quite turn out that way.    Like their parents, the Boomers did great things and had glorious failures. However, they weren't truly any different from those who came before. 

The 20th Century was different. Vastly different. It was the century that changed everything about humanity, and nothing. The Greatest Generation set the century in motion, but the Boomers were stage center for most of it. They WERE the children of the 20th Century. Greasers and Sock Hops gave way to Hippies and free love, and that gave way to Yuppies and bottled water. During the height of their reign, they created the 1970s, which forged the modern culture we live in today. They even invented the concept of the "Generation Gap." 

The term "Generation Gap" is a modern construct. In the millennia before the Industrial Age, little changed from generation to generation. It is only as result of breakneck technological change since the late 19th century that our humanity has definable mile-markers to record the pace of change within a human lifetime.  The broad-brush strokes our culture uses to paint and label an entire generation aren't necessarily accurate or fair. Generations are made up of individuals, no different than those that came before, only exposed to a different set of circumstances. Same fallible humans, same rules of behavior, only with new toys and trapped in the prison of their own time. Baby Boomers weren't any different from the Greatest Generation, they only had a different starting point and faced different circumstances. The Gen-Xs and Millennials were the same, too. However, I think this might be changing. 

Gen-Z, or whatever culture is labeling those who follow next, are truly different. The technology that surrounds them isn't just changing, its changing them. Boomers and Gen-X's birthed the Information Age. Those who follow are being assimilated by the Information Age, transformed in every way imaginable into something truly new. It's happening now.  You are seeing it.  Humanity is on the cusp of permanently  changing: mentally, spiritually and physically.  ​Some of it is happening by circumstance, your children are becoming it mentally and physically wired. Yet, it is also beginning to happen by choice. 

If you're under 30, you were practically born holding a personal electronic device (PED). All of this device usage is changing us. German researchers found too much smart phone usage actually shrinks parts of the human brain. This damage is similar to effects of drug-addiction.  In children, this rewiring is more pronounced, and may forever change how a child will  develop into an adult. Hungarian researchers found children who spent at least 15 minutes a day on a PED for over a year processed information differently than children who barely even used a PED.  Device-wielding kids tended to see small details first, and seemed to miss "the big picture" when it came to problem solving. Being mired-in-minutia wasn't the only change in PED-using children.  Screen time also affected happiness in teenagers. A San Diego University study found that happiness rose steadily with screen time. 

Information technology might be unintentionally changing the next generation, but what if they want to be intentionally changed? We've seen the rise of body modification and trans-genderism.  Body modification is evolving beyond tattoos, piercings and even sex-change operations. ​Now enter the "trans-humanists." We entering a time where people are beginning to cybernetically modify their bodies

Robotic and computer augmentation of the human body and mind is becoming more common and more advanced. From sophisticated prosthetics to computer chip implants, humans are beginning to alter their own evolution. Much of this has been driven by medical necessity, such as helping amputee victims and those paralyzed, Now, it is taking on a  cosmetic and voluntary element.  Long speculated about in science fiction,  The next generation is apparently moving toward embracing TH. Why? Well, why not? If one can readily change physical appearance and  genders, what physiological or cultural barriers remain to changing the physical essence of one's traits as a species? 

Body modification comes in many forms. Perhaps the easiest and most accessible form is cosmetic body alterations. Body alterations have existed for thousands of years, and often have cultureal and religeious significance, such as neck elongation and circumcision. Body alterations are usually not transhumanism, but transhumanism is always a body modification. Body alterations such as tattoos and piercings, logically may become a gateway to greater modifications.

​ In 2017, John Hopkins University found up to 42% of all adolencence already had a tattoo or piecing, and over 50% were interested in getting one.   The growing phenomenon of extreme body alterations crosses the line into transhumanism.  While mostly cosmetic and having no practical purpose, extreme tattooing, implants and appearance-altering surgery, and self-mutilations have the effect of physically distancing an individual from their traditional humanity. Some may argue the effect is intentionally dehumanizing. Cosmetic body modification is only "skin deep", but is perhaps symbolic of deeper changes in the modern culture. " If a generation is so open to cosmetically altering their bodies, how much farther would they go? Another gateway concept into transhumanism is transgenderism. 

Transgenderism is defined as one feeling different than the gender they were born as. A transexual is a transgender who  chooses a sex-change surgical procedure. Sex changes are body alterations, and not transhumanism. However, they are indicative of a growing acceptance of permanent body changes in our culture. In 2019, over 11,000 Americans underwent sex change operations. This is growing by almost 15% per year, and by 2030, the gender-reassignment industry will be approaching a billion-dollar market. Gender fluid is a term unheard of only a few years ago, and now is now a way of life. 

Body appearance and sexual identify were concepts that, only a generation or two ago, were rigidly dictated by culture and considered permanently assigned at birth. Now the fluidity surrounding these concepts are embraced and celebrated.  Appearance and gender are plastic, temporary concepts changed at individual whim. So why not the concept of "humanity" itself? 

TH comes in many forms, and science fiction has explored many of them, from cybernetics to genetic engineering. Now speculation has become reality. Many of these enhancements and changes can be seen in medical fields, but as the technology advances and becomes more affordable, it is spreading into the consumer market - and then it becomes a choice. 

Choices become new realities. Medically, genetically and cybernetically altered humans will live longer, be stronger, faster, more intelligent than those who have come before. They will simultaneously exist in the real and virtual worlds. They will become specialized and highly differentiated as we branch out into the solar system. These changes will happen earlier in the human lifecycle, perhaps even before birth.  Humanity may even split into new species. 

This is happening now.  Transhumanism and the "Age of Humanity X" is rising. Soon we will be defined as versions associated with alterations, and not the time period we are born to. What they do, the history they experience, and how they see themselves will not only be associated with shared culture and history, but by their similarities and differences down to their core being.  There may even come a day (a day many who are reading this blog may live to see) where a future generation may no longer consider themselves human at all.  We ourselves become the AI. We may become "The Rise of the Machines." We ourselves may become the alien invasion, or our own saviors. 

It all begins with a simple choice, and then the generation that follows truly is different than what came before. 
#cyborg #transhuman #transhumanism #human #humanity #essay #transgender #trans #bodymodification #generation #generationgap #genx #babyboomer #millennials #genz #bookofbobafett #bionics 

I used to teach pilots to fly.  I'd always ask my student pilots the same question, "Do you want to be a pilot, or do you want to fly?" Most didn't get the question, so I rephrased it in the words of the immortal fighter pilot Colonel John Boyd, "Do you want to do something, or be someone?"

This is a lesson, a concept so profound, I dearly wish I had learned in my youth. If you're looking for a label, a status symbol, you will never be truly fulfilled as a human being. If, on the other hand, you are seeking a path to self-fulfillment and personal excellence, you will be a happier person. The titles and labels will occur as a result of that journey, not as a goal. I would tell my students that if they were chasing a label, I couldn't help them. If they were choosing a path that would lead to a love of flying, then I could help them along on their path.  Then I would flick my fu-man-chu  and ask them to snatch a pebble from my hands (if you got that, then you are old as dirt, too.)

The title "pilot" was just a milestone along the road, not the destination itself. So are the labels "author" or "musician" or "photographer" and why doctors use the term "practicing medicine." Attaining a title or  label always leads to the perplexing personal question, "Now what?"

Back in my Underground Book Reviews days, I once attended a writers' conference hosted by a major university, where I encountered a memorable individual. He was not a only a writer, but also an English professor.  It was his opinion there were way too many writers, most of which had no talent and wrote awful books. He felt there should be a way to keep these independent authors from publishing, because they made it more difficult for readers to find the good authors like him (of course).  He was dead serious. It never occurred to him that he may be among the ranks of those great unwashed hordes of terrible independent authors. They shouldn't have an opportunity to publish, but he should. The professor had a point, albeit a twisted one. 

Someone once said talent is cheap. My life experience teaches me this is true. My life experience also teaches me  information is cheaper.  If something is made or distributed with a click of a mouse, its cheap.  The Information Age has dramatically lowered barriers to entry for creators and artists of all genres. In other words, its made content creation cheap.  Anyone with a internet connection and a word processor can be a writer. Anyone with a smart phone and a Tik Tok account can be an influencer (whatever the hell that is).  Anyone can create. The barbarians have crashed the gate.  That means there is a lot of crap out there. Go browse Youtube and Tik Tok and you'll find crap content. You'll also find much more mediocre content. You might even find  a few gems, but you have to wade through the slush pile first. 

This is simply a fact of life in the 21st century. We are saturated by information every minute, every hour, every day. There are no more real gatekeepers for information.  If you're a writer or a musician you know this better than anyone. Writers learned this first when Amazon and Kindle came along. Now with the advent of streaming services like Spotify,  musicians have followed writers down this over-saturation path. Long gone are the days when getting published meant something.  There are still traditional publishers, but even their books are harder to sift through. There are far more books in print and digital than ever before. The title "author" is cheapened by being so common, so accessible. To this I say, so what? Because it is the act of creation that is truly precious. The experience is priceless to the writer themselves. 

It goes back to the question: Do you want to do something, or be something? The act of creation can be a reward unto itself. In fact, it MUST be the reward unto itself if one wants to endure and improve.  No one reads books to get famous, we read for pleasure and information. Writing can be the same. ​

I take my inspiration for being a writer from several musicians I know in local bands.  They practice regularly to continually improve their art, and are always striving to be better. They play in the same local club circuit to the same enthusiastic crowds.  They have day jobs to pay the bills. They play for the love of playing, for the experience of playing. Stardom isn't their goal. They are musicians, not rock stars. Create. Improve. Repeat. This is the way. This is the bedrock from which everything else springs, whether that results in commercial success, or simply your next gig or independently published short story compilation. 

Labels are cheap. Information is cheap. Talent is cheap. The journey is priceless. Do something. Embrace that something with all your heart, passion and energy. Immerse yourself in your art, and you shall transform and become something. 

#writing #creation #publishing #kindle #amazon #contentcreation #writersjourney #content  #selfimprovement #anyonecancreate 

"On a mountain of skulls, in the castle of pain, I sat on a throne of blood! What was will be! What is will be no more! Now is the season of evil!" - Vlad the Russian, Scourge of Ukraine. 

I had a little fun with Photoshop last night.  Putin sucks.

​See you next week. 
#ukraine #putin #russia #ghostbusters #ghostbusters2 #humor #comedy #war

At Heaven’s gates ye shall be judged. At Hell’s gates ye shall be fact- checked.​

​Concerning Facebook Fact Checkers

Know-it-alls are often right, and sometimes, fact checks are correct. Let's get that out of the way up front.  The post in question could clearly be mistaken, have bad sources, or was direct misinformation (or disinformation).  However, a bad post is a good excuse for disingenuous fact-checkers to stand upon. In my opinion, positive examples of fact-checking are the exception, not the rule. Social media fact checking is too easily abused and used for propaganda. Even when fact checks serve the truth, I think fact checking on social media is a bad idea because it can too easily be abused in its own right. Let me explain.  

Here's how  fact checks often work, and why they are bad for Facebook. 
 
Someone anonymously reports a post, usually a public post. The post will usually concern a hot-button issue, like COVID, global warming or a prominent political figure. It will likely be a popular post, something going viral with lots of re-posts. Sometimes is a link, sometimes a meme. A Facebook approved, yet somehow "independent" fact checking organization, will then flag the post, and then provide a link you can follow that explains why the post is false, mostly false, a half-truth, out of context, or whatever label they choose to use.

In the end, that is really the objective – to flag the post. By labeling the post, the fact checkers have achieved their goal, which is to soil the post before anyone even reads it.  The objective is not for the reader to follow the link, at the other end of which is supposedly enlightenment and truth.  Fact-checking is a perfect tool to marginalize one's opposition. It is, unto itself, the perfect information warfare tool. 
 
If one follows the link and reads the fact-check, then things get muddy. Often times, the post isn't wrong, its merely "out of context", or one minor element in the post is flagged as incorrect, but the rest of the pertinent information is likely correct. Often these fact-checking organizations go through great intellectual contortions to negatively label a post. Bottom line - it is the label that is most important, not the fact-check itself. 
 
My favorite bad fact check is the “circular logic” fact check. These usually occur with posts that take issue with government policy, a government official, or a government agency. The author will provide ample and credible evidence and cite their sources to support their stance against said policy, person or agency. After it’s been posted and gains traction on Facebook, the fact checker strikes and labels the post. Why? Not because the information is necessarily false, but because it opposes  government sources or policy. Never once does the fact checking agent entertain the concept the government might be wrong, nor do they try to validate the poster's sources. Instead, the fact checker merely points back to the very official government source the poster disputes in the first place. The fact check is nothing but a glorified “because they say so.” This circular logic, merely pointing back to the original authoritarian source instead of analyzing the new data, isn't fact checking and it isn't journalism.  This is propaganda by proxy.  This is information warfare. 

 
Here’s another reason fact checking is bed. Even when a fact check is right, it leaves a bad taste. It belittles the reader, and makes assumptions about their ability to analyze what they see and think critically. I suspect the poster doesn't begrudge the independent fact checker. They begrudge Facebook. The factchecking, right or wrong, is blamed on platform, not the fact checker. Right or wrong, I think it hurts Facebook's image and thereby hurts Facebook itself. In the end, fact checking has the opposite of the intended effect, and makes the platform look biased. It makes it look Orwellian. 
 
In my opinion, it’s better to have no fact-checker than even a good fact-checker. Drop the fact check, Facebook. Let the people decide. We want a platform, not a know-it-all. 

#facebook #censorship #freedom #freeexpression #internet #freespeech ​

The opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not represent any organization or group. If you have been triggered, you may vent and rage below in the comments section. ​

If you enjoyed this blog, please like the post and leave a comment or if you're feeling brave, share it on social media. This platform is my entire advertising budget and is how I share the word on my books. Also visit my Facebook, my author page and check out my fiction books here book here.

A reader of my latest novel, “The Bastard Gods” made a comment about a word I used. The reader said the word “savage” was offensive. This was news to me, so I decided to look it up on Dictionary.com. Here’s what I found:

 ​Savage [ sav-ij ]
1. fierce, ferocious, or cruel; untamed: savage beasts.
2. Offensive. (in historical use) relating to or being a preliterate people or society regarded as uncivilized or primitive: savage tribes.
3. enraged or furiously angry, as a person.
4. unpolished; rude: savage manners.
5. wild or rugged, as country or scenery: savage wilderness.
6. Archaic. uncultivated; growing wild.
 
There it is, definition number 2. According to Dictionary.com the word savage has officially been declared, deemed, labeled, and designated as offensive. So what does that mean?
 
Offensive [ uh-fen-siv or, for 4, 5, aw-fen-, of-en- ]
adjective
1. causing resentful displeasure; highly irritating, angering, or annoying: offensive television commercials.
2. unpleasant or disagreeable to the sense: an offensive odor.
3. repugnant to the moral sense, good taste, or the like; insulting: an offensive remark; an offensive joke.
4. pertaining to offense or attack: the offensive movements of their troops.
noun
1. the position or attitude of aggression or attack: to take the offensive.
2. an aggressive movement or attack: a carefully planned…offensive.
 
I suppose that means “savage,” in the context of use in my novel, is repugnant in a moral sense. Well, good. It’s supposed to be. The characters who utter the word use it in its full repugnant  glory. These fictional  characters negatively describe cultures and peoples they believe are primitive and beneath them. They are complex, flawed and sometime very nasty characters, and the word is appropriately used for the situation.  Pray tell, what word would they use if not “savage”?

There was a time when the dictionary didn’t pass judgement on words, it merely explained them. When did Dictionary.com take it upon themselves to start making value judgements on words?  In fact, that’s exactly what this article from Dictionary.com does. Here’s an excerpt from the article’s opening, “…It’s very important to be mindful of words that were originally or historically used in very offensive ways. Here’s a list of words with hurtful histories that may have you thinking twice about your word choice.” What the author of this article fails to mention is most people have no clue what the ancient origins of these words are, only their modern (and benign) meaning. They weren’t considered offensive until someone went out of their way to make them offensive. Time is considered the Great Healer, and time has healed these words and phrases, making them palatable and useful. They now have different contexts which enhance and enrich the literary landscape. Their dark origins were lost and now irrelevant. What Dictionary.com has done has intentionally poisoned them. ANY word could be considered offensive, it merely takes the right situation,  context,  perception, and someone to complain loud enough. If you dig deep enough into the etymology of any word, you’re likely to find negative context in its past use or origin.
 
How does the process work?  Do the Offended take their petition before some kind of Word Tribunal, where the anxious and entitled wring their hands and tremble at each utterance of an abominable word? What power they must feel when they strike down each word and phrase! There is no power greater in the modern world than that of the Offended.  In the past, if one did not agree with a word, a thought or a book, one merely didn’t read it. Now it must be labeled and targeted for deletion.
 
“But they aren’t banning the word, they are just labeling it as offensive,” you say.  You’re right, they aren’t banning it. They are cancelling it, which is worse. If an organization like Dictionary.com publicly stated they were banning a word, there would be an outcry.  No, they merely stained it. That’s all it takes these days.  Every writer who submits a book to an editor will have their word choices questioned at best, stricken at worst. No publisher wants to get labelled as racist or “-phobic.” They don’t want hordes of Twitter denizens calling for boycotts or even worse. Platforms like Amazon will de-platform. It’s not worth it. Just go along and get along, and everything will be alright. Editors will push back and writers will self-censor. We’ve seen it before. 
 
It’s brilliant, really. If you try to ban a book, legions of activists from the right and left will descend upon you. No one bats an eyelash these days when you ban a word. It’s actually better than book banning. Words matter because words are the basic building blocks of thoughts. Words are the computer code of the sentient mind. Delete words, delete thoughts. 
 
One still has freedom of speech, but less words with which to do it. Oh, you can still theoretically use offensive words, but you will suffer the consequences. What kind of consequences?
 
Cancellation. We’ll cancel your job, we’ll cancel your book, cancel your show, cancel your reputation. We’ll dox you, de-platform you, marginalize you and perhaps threaten violence. We’ll do whatever it takes to get you to shut up. Don’t use the words if you know what’s good for you.   
 
That’s not political or intellectual discourse, that’s a threat.  Actually, no, that’s not entirely accurate. It’s only a threat until it is acted upon, then it becomes an attack. Don’t believe me? Go back and look at the definition of offensive, but this time as a noun:
 
1. the position or attitude of aggression or attack: to take the offensive.
2. an aggressive movement or attack: a carefully planned…offensive.
 
Labeling, cancelling, deleting, banning, doxing, marginalizing…these are modes of intellectual warfare and on my list of offensive words.  When words and phrases, and those who write or utter them, are destroyed under the guise of “offense,” it is a war on thought itself.  Such behavior breaks the spirit of the 1st Amendment, if not always the letter. 
 
Labeling, cancelling, deleting, banning, doxing, marginalizing…these are repugnant things in the moral sense, abhorrent to good taste; insulting.  Offensive. 
 
They are savage, as are those who practice them. 

#savage #Labeling #cancel #cancelling #cancelculture #deleting #banning #ban #doxing #dox #marginalizing #marginalize #bookburning #davechappelle #censorship #censor #snowflake #NPC #politicallycorrect 

We were expecting a new baby and my lovely bride’s nesting instincts kicked into high gear. She didn’t want to bring a new baby home to a dirty house, so she called a maid service and told me to take the kids and get lost for about four hours.

I had planned a day in the park, but Mother Nature had other ideas. Cold rain and sleet pelted the city all day.  Then I had a great idea: I’d take the boys to the public library! I hadn’t been to a library in years and was looking forward to the experience. My kids quickly found books and quietly settled in for a good read.  Not possessing a library card, I headed for the front desk.

The bespectacled gentleman behind the desk kindly directed me to a table covered with application forms.  It was fairly standard – name, address, phone number, e-mail. I quickly filled out the form and signed my John Hancock on the bottom, signifying my understanding the library police would find me if I was late returning a book. 

I returned to the desk where the same gentlemen carefully inspected my form.

“Would you like internet access, sir?”

“Yes, certainly.” 

“Then you’ll have to fill out the back, too.”

“Oh, okay.” I flipped the form over. With the exception of a question asking what password I wanted and what level of internet access I desired, the form was almost identical to the front. 

I went back to the table and wrote in a password I could easily remember and checked my desired access level. I returned to the gentlemen behind the counter, who inspected the back of the form. 

“You need to write down your name, address, phone number and e-mail address.”

I was a little perturbed, but didn’t show it. 

“All that information is on the front of the form. Do I have to fill out the name and address information again?”

“Yes, please.”

“Ah...okay.” 

A few minutes later I was back with my library card form, both front and back completely filled out. 

The diligent municipal civil servant carefully eyed both sides of the form for well over a minute, turning it over several times and strumming his fingers nervously.  I was getting nervous, too. Did he know about all my overdue books from 4th grade? 

“Sir, I need your full middle name on this line.” 

“That’s my legal payroll signature block. Why do you need my full middle name?”

“I’m sorry sir, but that’s our policy. I need your full middle name.”

I sighed and added the rest of my middle name to the initial. 

“On the back side, too, please.”

Keep your cool.

“Okay.”

Once again he studied the library card form. Chewing on the end of his pencil, he flipped the form back and forth. 

“I need to see a picture ID.”

I pulled out my active duty military identification card and handed it to him. He didn’t give it a second glance and handed it back to me. 

“Do you have a driver’s license?”

“Why yes, I do.”

“May I see it, please?”

“Why? Won’t my military ID do?”

“No.”

Resigned, I pulled out my driver’s license. Being in the military, I had a different permanent home of record than my current duty assignment.  Since I renewed it in the mail, my license had no picture. He looked at me, looked my drivers license, back to me, then back to the license. 

“This is out of state and doesn’t have a picture.”

“I’ve been stationed here for almost three years. I’m rather fond of my photo on my military I.D, would you like to see that one again?”

He handed my license back. 

“Is this address correct?”

“The one on the front or the back of the form?”

Alarmed, he quickly turned the paper over, then shot me a nasty look - smartass. 

I smiled. 

“Do you have something with your current address on it?”

“Yes, you’re holding it.” 

“No, I mean something official.” 

I fumbled through my wallet. Funny, but nowhere among the countless unpaid credit cards, membership cards, and receipts did I have anything with my current address on it. 

“No, I guess not.”

“I’m sorry then, but I can’t issue you a library card.” 

Here I stood, able to produce two legal forms of ID, one of which was the ID card of an active duty military officer in the armed forces of the United States, and I couldn’t get a public library card. 

“You’re kidding, right?”

“I don’t kid about things like this.” 

“Let me try this again,” I said calmly, “What do I have to do today so I can get a library card and check out some books for my kids so they won’t go home heartbroken?”

I really think the guy wanted to help. It was either believe that or strangle him. 

Looking out the window at the downpour he smiled and asked, “Did you drive here?” 

After running through the parking lot in the pouring rain, I returned with my car registration; definitive, legal, soggy proof I actually lived where I said I lived. With a self-satisfied smile the Dewy Decimal Defender presented me my library card like a war medal.  I looked over my shoulder hoping someone was taking a photo for posterity. 

“Is there anything else I can do for you, sir?”

“Actually, yes there is,” I said, stuffing my new library card in my wallet next to my soaked automobile paperwork. “Get a job at voter registration.”

***
​
If you enjoyed this blog, please like the post and leave a comment or if you're feeling brave, share it on social media. This platform is my entire advertising budget and is how I share the word on my books. Also visit my Facebook, my author page and check out my photography book from America Through Time, "Abandoned Wiregrass: The Deepest South's Lost and Forgotten Places." ​