DOBBS V. JACKSON for Dummies (Part 3 of 5 : "Rights")

Play it safe.

A brief review -- 

Part 1. Conscience is annoying. 

Jiminy Cricket represented that part of an incomplete persona, the part that relentlessly tweaks our moral compass. He irritates our inchoate spirits, urging us, never stopping until that moment you take a chance, opening your heart to being "real."

Conscience is self-knowledge. With it, you objectify yourself, and you recognize the possibility that, "Hey, maybe I can expend some energy thinking a thought, maybe two, maybe more - discerning whether certain propositions, certain thoughts, words, and actions are inherently right - or wrong."

Part 2. Culture, on the other hand, is one of the primary exogenous forces that shapes the thoughts, feelings, and to be sure, significant opinions affecting humanity. It lends credence to the rules under which we choose to live.  

To minimize the impact of art, music, literature, architecture, animation, language, sports, etc., on human experience, will lead inevitably to crass forms of mechanistic materialism. Without the reflectiveness and introspection that culture imposes on human relations, society gets stranded in a brutish, ugly, milieu, where Truth and Beauty are nullified. Without the synergy of human culture, your existence is limited to self-defense and the cinders that remain after your life is consumed. Culture transmits human essence, thereby counteracting loneliness -- and insanity.

"Complaints of violins become my only friends."

                                        --- Anberlin, "Paperthin Hymn"

***

DOBBS FOR DUMMIES: PART 3

The period of time between 1973 and 2022, during which Roe v. Wade was "deemed" valid constitutional law, is a classic "Lesson of the Past." Yet, saying so in 2023 seems so mundane. Routinely, we read that famous George Santayana meme/quote extolling the "lessons" which must be learned so as to avoid recurrence, so as to avoid repeating those many epic human failures, 

These historical failures always come after a period of hubris. That once profound and conscientious quote ("We must learn the lessons of History!") is, in the Internet Age, reduced to a bland platitude on Reddit message boards, shit posts by Twitter trolls or LinkedIn comments. 

And obscure lawyers' blogs.

That once thoughtful admonition, a great philosophical precept, has fallen victim to the Mandela Effect, and either we have forgotten what it means, or we no longer have the courage to explore what it really, truly means. We may express the platitude, but hell no, I ain't listening to some stupid "Boomer."

Don't you agree? 

Santayana's famous maxim is often quoted on the internet, but rarely applied in educational discourse, less so in political commentary, whose primary aims are mobilization and provocation, not persuasion from thoughtful historical perspectives. Which leads to my point:

What "lessons of the past" are part of the abortion rights debate?

I have some bad news for you.

The literal Latin for "religion" (re: "back" -- ligere: "to link") is about . . . .

THE LESSONS OF THE PAST!

Thus, to "link back" is to revisit those precious lessons.

"Whatever means possible."

                    -- Malcom X

Living in the U.S.A., it is easy to take "Rights" for granted.

Because I do not want to wander in the weeds of highly technical jurisprudence, let me try to put this thought in the most reductionist terms to start this discussion of abortion "rights."

In Part One, I emphasized THE NAME OF THE GAME IS TO EXPLAIN. So this is the simplest way I can explain the Dobbs case, which tackles the legal question of whether a "right to abortion" exists under the Constitution of the United States of America.

In American law, as I have grown to understand it, almost every legal relationship between parties, and the eventual formal resolution of their rights as to each other, can be analyzed in two-fundamental steps. Call it the "Legal Rights 2-Step." It is a dance as old as the first human dispute over dinosaur bone leftovers.

First, ask yourself who are the parties, and what are the facts regarding their actual interaction? Formal written agreement? Informal understanding? Customary past practices? For example: Spouses.  Mothers and Fathers. Siiters and Brothers. Aunts and Uncles. Landlords and Tenants? Employers and Employees? Citizens and States? Masters and Slaves? OK, some relationships are harder to define and account for than others. You get it. The nature of the relationship will define (and limit) the nature of the so-called "right."

Second, you must identify with as much specificity as possible, each parties "rights" AND DUTIES. This is the catch. To be validly enforceable, every legal right whether created, or inherent, requires a corresponding duty, or else that right is vitiated. 

The bilateral requirement between rights and duties is what propels the Law toward Justice. Rights and duties, together, are the elements supporting moral authority and encouraging societal acceptance of particular judicial decisions. 

Claimants always assert that a certain "right" exists, and has been violated, however, there is often little or no acknowledgement that the legitimacy of said right rests upon a corresponding duty. That failure to recognize, identify, and accept the "duty," or the "responsibility," which validates a claim of right is the reason those claims so often fail. Ultimately, I suspect the discussion of those required "duties" explains why the Court ruled that no "right" to abortion can be found in the Constitution. 

Proper Balance

 

An elementary legal principle becomes controversial and disputable in the context of abortion because the single most distinguishing fact is that another human life hangs in the balance. 

 

That is the life of the child.

 

It's probably best that I just shut up for now. A good nutshell version should leave you wanting to explore more, anyway.

 

Know this -- the single most irrational response in abortion rights conversation is to say that if you concur with the Dobbs holding, you are somehow "anti-woman." I happen to LOVE women. Ask anyone who has successfully fulfilled the role of  husband and/or father over multiple decades whether conjugal "rights" with his/her spouse requires any corresponding "duties."

 

Simply put, any discussion of "rights" means -- it works both ways. 

 

That is what we call "right."

***

 

Finally, we should examine, in a nutshell, the methodology employed by the Court to reach this conclusion, i.e., that there is no constitutional "right" to abort a child. I'm among those lawyers somewhat terrified at the prospect of having to defend my home from left-wing loonies storming my neighborhood, simply because I happen to study law, and hold deep respect our written Constitution.

 

So it's like this, like it or not, quick and dirty. Here is why there is NO Federal "right" to abortion:

1. THE ISSUE PRESENTED: 

 

    Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are constitutional or not?

    Holding:  Pre-viability prohibition of abortion is constitutional.

2. CASE LAW - SOURCES:

    Any ruling for or against the existence of an abortion right in the constitution must be based on     an examination of the reasoning and analysis used in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey v. Planned     Parenthood (1992).

3. ABORTION RIGHT - SOURCES

 

   All constitutional rights must necessarily derive from: 

    A. The actual language of the Constitution - abortion clearly does not.

 

    B. The fundamental interest in Liberty, substantiated by due process rights inferred from the               14th Amendment and the 1st through 8th Amendments - determined by the Glucksberg and Palko tests.

 

    C. Glucksberg: is the right "deeply rooted" in the history and traditions of the law?

 

    D. Palko: is the right implicit in the concept of "ordered Liberty?"

 4. THE LESSONS OF HISTORY - Application of the Glucksberg and Palko tests

 

    I read these tests to be intertwined, not severable components, but each is useful to define the other. In other words, the lessons of history, clearly examined, help answer the question of whether abortion is a "fundamental" constitutional right. 

 

    The presumption is that "ordered Liberty" is a desirable aim.

 

    If you are an anarchist, then, obviously, the history and traditions of the law implicit in the concept of ordered Liberty, are irrelevant to YOUR believe in the existence or non-existence of legal rights.  To ignore the lessons of history, pretty much renders social experience and the pursuit of Reason in human discourse as intrusions into your little hermeneutic shell. Duty be damned.

 

    As far as their appication, Justice Alito gives a truly intellectually fascinating examination of the law of "quickening," which was the historical legal occurence before the term "viability" came into common parlance.  In general, and overwhelmingly so, it was always a crime to kill a baby, whose life and "personhood" was all the more recognized with its "quickening" in the womb.  All you Moms and Dads who have ever felt a baby's kick know the "quickening."

 

    Regartding the history and traditions of the law, the Court's opinion is that the Roe and Casey rulings, upon which the abortion right has rested, made no serious effort to apply the lessons of history. 

 

    The fundamental flaw of Roe is that it completely disregards hundreds of years of legal history, and conjures up a legal right that had previously been seen a crime. This error would have been made even outside the bounds of American jurisprudence, as historically, nearly all legal regimes found abortion to be a crime.

 

    Casey made even less effort to examine the roots of abortion law, and even undermined the attempts made in Roe to judicially legislate the boundaries of permissible abortion.  It was admittedly a missed opportunity to overrule Roe in 1992, and in the Court's view, is now recitfied with Dobbs.

 

    Thus, after a serious, tedious, application of the lessons of history, through the tests established in prior cases (Glucksberg and Palko), the only conclusion the court could reasonably find was this: 

 

CONCLUSION: THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION IS NOT DEEPLY ROOTED IN THE HISTORY AND TRADITIONS OF THE LAW, AND IT IS NOT IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY.

    

OK, time for a musical interlude.

 

Hit "PLAY" and see you next time.

 

One Thing Leads to Another

Start here.

For you lawyers, do you recall this classic case study from Torts class? 

Palsgraf vs. Long Island Railroad Co. 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928) is legendary because Judge Cardozo's analysis of proximate cause reinforced one of the basic elements required in order to plead a valid cause of action for liability on the grounds of negligence. But back to my point, since I refuse to walk back into those weeds planted in my brain during those hellish indoctrination rituals called "law school" and "bar exam." 

Let it suffice to say that chasing Truth down rabbit holes is a journey full of surprises, and you never know where gritty, honest research will lead you. The Newtonian paradigm is gone. Quantum Mechanics and the Butterfly Effect are real things. Dark Matter and String Theory rule science. 

For now.

I simply wanted to discuss the problem of Factions in a large republic (link here!). 

But, in a momentary lapse of reason, during the course of my study, I had a flashback -- yes, another 80's song (no, not "Take On Me"). This one is by The Fixx, called "One Thing Leads to Another." 

Good tune. May be worth your time (3:12 duration). Press "Play," and pay attention to the lyrics.

Or not.

So back to the problem of dealing with Factions, what they are, and how Madison thought we could handle the problem of factionalism within a large republic such as ours. A Faction is a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

In Federalist 9, Hamilton needed to address the ideas of Charles Montesquieu, a French Philosopher whose prinicipal work, L'Esprit Des Lois, is one of the greatest works in the history of political theory and in the history of jurisprudence. Madison's Federalist 10 was a sequel to Hamilton's Federalist 9.

See? One thing leads to another. 

It started with Federalist 10, a proper study of which necessitated that we retrace the origins of the debate back to Federalist 9, which led to a recognition that Montesquieu's work set the foundational precepts. This sequence of connected historical sources led me to thinking about how so many apparent effects have unacknowledged causes. That led me to realize the legal importance, and occasional futility, of finding proximate causes, which was the key issue in the Palsgraf case. For me, the whole discussion of proximate cause reconciled musically, to The Fixx.

Simple Minds Need Complex Stimuli

Boomers, I've said it before and I'll say it again -- gettin' old ain't for sissies. 

Brief history lesson: The Federalist Papers were published under the pseudonym "Publius," and were written to persuade American Revolutionaries that a "federation" of sovereign States was, for many reasons, the best course of action to form a government in the late 1700's. 

After we defeated the British, a world without kings became possible. The ideal of human Liberty now superceded the "divine right" of inbred dilettantes. Uncharted aspirations and claims that were made, written, and signed by our nation's wisest elders on July 4, 1776, could now become manifest without monarchic suppression.

"Equal Rights Under The Law!"

Now to the problem of forming that government. Montesquieu advocated Separation of Powers doctrine as a way to address the problem of factions, however, he also contended that the theory would fail in large republics. He thought large republics, such as that proposed on the North American continent were prone to fall into despotism due to their sheer size, and therefore, the cannibalistic nature of factionalism would not be contained. As a sidenote, he was also an early adopter of the notion that climate (!) has a substantial influence on the human society.

Beginning with the formal title, Madison responded:

"THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED

THE UNION AS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST DOMESTIC FACTION AND INSURRECTION"

Now that title appears to be written in English, and because I am a natural, native, English-speaking American citizen, I am empowered to understand (as you should) what the author is saying. 

Literally. Today. Year 2022.

I mean, WTF did we go to school for? To learn to drink? Was it to learn how to woo a spouse. And by "spouse," I mean that person you married who has a different chromosomal composition than yours. 

But I digress.

Look, writers are accountable for the words they utilize. But conversely, a reader is NOT entitled to ascribe to a writer thoughts and ideas not at all supportable in the words expressed in writing. Some may call this form of constitutional/statutory interpretation a curse. I disagree. It would be more precise and correct to say that holding words to the users meaning is a "spell." Deviate from the word, you deviate from the spell. The constitution is a covenant, a spell structured to maximize Liberty (for ALL), by recognizing natural democratic processes, but limiting their reach, in order to counteract and suppress tyrannical leaders, who desire to implement their factional, numerically justified aims, regardless of their adverse effects. Unchecked factions lead to injustice and they are the fatal flaw of direct democracy. Thus, our Founders, through the words "We The People," called for and eventually ratified A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.

Why? Because words cage thoughts.

Publius creates the argument. Whether you think it valid and logical, or misleading and fallacious, the contention is that the Union of States are a SAFEGUARD, a protection, a precaution, an answer, a bulwark, if you will, literally against domestic factions and insurrection.  

Please note the correct usage of "literally."

Whether from the loony left or stenchly conservative right, it is literally indisputable that the Founders saw the creation of our Union (as constituted and ratified among the several States) to be the ideal answer to the problem of political factions, which are the early formative stages of mass psychosis. (Hello, Mr. Hitler)

Despite our large geography, and the cacophony of Tweets, the melting, snowflake tears claiming that THEIR particular untethered rights should prevail over others more wisely and virtuously considered, Federalist 10 shows how we avoid the mistakes of past civilizations and transcend the fate of past governments that descended into centralized, totalitarian, madness, like the current one, surrendered to the whims of senile, insane, child-molesting, sock puppet, power-hungry, criminal creeps of a certain faction. You can guess what THEIR letters stand for.

"I'll circle back you on that."

I'll drink to that. 🍺

 © 2022 by Roy Santonil

Don't Dream. It's Over. (2022 Update)

Start here. 

What a difference a dot makes.

OK, Boomer, do you remember this MTV hit by the band Crowded House? 

That song, "Don't Dream It's Over," used the same words as those in the title of this post. Because we are speaking and writing in English, spacing and punctuation rules are less strict than many other languages. Unless we practice writing in Far Eastern or Cyrillic characters, we don't have to bother much with diacritical marks, where, for example, the French circonflexe (the little hat) means the difference between jeune (young) and jeûne (fast). More on foreign tongues later. For now, let's just agree there's a place in the world for old and slow.

One dot, one period, one space bar, one programmer's keystroke, and POOF!, meaning changes. A glitch occurs in the matrix, and hordes of weasels begin to libel and slander your character. What's worse is they openly criticize your hair color and tan lines.

Meaning is interpreted through a reader's preconceptions. So if a single dendrite misfires in the synapse between pen and paper, between thought and expression, the message is too often received bereft of the writer's intended meaning -- a variant of the writer's idea, if you will. One fat finger fault can lead to a divine comedy of misunderstanding. As the eminent writers Page & Plant once put it:

"Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven." 

Other times, fortunately, the reader or listener indeed "gets it." 

And the messenger lives.

The original song meaning, as I heard it, was one of uplifting encouragement, a hopeful message in the face of numerous and divisive intrusions. The artist is telling you in so many words, "Don't give up. Keep on going, even when you are surrounded by idiots trying to separate you from the bonding spirit of family and friends. Despite forces rending your true soul from your original self, despite day to day annoyances like fixing the hole in the wall, towing your car, rumors of war and waste, despite all that, they won't win. The world comes in, like a deluge to build a wall between us, but they won't win.  

There is Freedom within, there is Freedom without. 

Play.

 

But then --- one dot and one space --- and the message changes. Punctuation turns something once promising and hopeful into a sad anthem of disillusion and finality. We boomers, we've been there and done that.

IT'S OVER. 

Don't dream those dreams . . . of long-haired hippies . . . of chimeric Lennonist utopias. 

Get back. 

To life. 

Get back.

To what is real.

Put simply folks, in order for us boomers to mature gracefully, we must own our generational bias. Step up to your chronological demographic. Challenge the invaders, embrace your misanthropy, your latent liberal racism, your depleted sexism, and hilarious homophobia. Recognize those so-called social injustices of which you have been accused wrongfully, and sometimes, accurately. Pay them no heed. And if you are game, prepare yourself for an occasional slice of humble pie. 

Same goes for the kids out there. Romantic ideals are dead.  

Don't dream. It's over. 

Let Truth be your Master, not pixelated myths from the Reagan era. The Eisenhower era may be okay. Either way, past presidents become dead presidents, but your Time is always your Money. Isaiah 11:6

Remember the Hank Hill cult meme? 

The Liam Neeson warning?

It's over.

Face it. 

EVERYONE DISCRIMINATES. (but not everyone is prejudiced).

To discriminate is to select. Discrimination has been vilified, though merely an expression of intent.

Prejudice OTOH assumes facts not in evidence. It's an infantile state of mind, a sort an inverse Dunning-Kruger situation, where a person jumps to conclusions with faulty logic or false facts. Or narcisstic hubris. (Hello, CNN)

Well, the music break is done.

It's been so long since I'd seen the ocean, I thought I should come to California. As is so often the case, the best expression about my trip borrows from well-known lyrics. 

Watch the video (3:58) and see. We can ALL see through the corporate bullshit -- it's over.

You may let them in, but we won't let them win. 

Hey now. Hey now.

Subscribed yet?

 

 © 2022 by Roy Santonil

VIDEO -- "Mexican Reggae" (1977 - Live Version)

Start here. 

I'm visiting the Golden State right now. So this message is pre-programmed.

Singing starts at 2:10.  "Mexican Reggae" was a tentative description of the song before the group settled on "Hotel California." There is no real Hotel California. The building on the album cover is in fact the Beverly Hills Hotel on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles. 

I lived in Los Angeles from 1988 to 1991. Growing old ain't for sissies.

"Some of the wilder interpretations of that song have been amazing. It was really about the excesses of American culture and certain girls we knew. But it was also about the uneasy balance between art and commerce."

-- Don Henley, 9/11/07

On a dark desert highway, 

Cool wind in my hair, warm smell of colitas rising up through the air.

Up ahead in the distance, I saw a shimmering light.

My head grew heavy and my sight grew dim.

I had to stop for the night.

There she stood in the doorway 

I heard the mission bell. I was thinking to myself,

"This could be Heaven or this could be Hell."

Then . . . she lit up a candle and she showed me the way 

There were voices down the corridor, I thought I heard them say:

Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place (such a lovely place)
Such a lovely face
Plenty of room at the Hotel California
Any time of year (any time of year) you can find it here

Her mind is Tiffany-twisted, she got the Mercedes Benz. 

She got a lot of pretty, pretty boys, that she calls friends.

How they dance in the courtyard, sweet summer sweat.

Some dance to remember, some dance to forget.

So I called up the Captain, "Please bring me my wine."

He said, "we haven't had that spirit here since 1969."

And still those voices are calling from far away,

Wake you up in the middle of the night just to hear them say

Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place (such a lovely place)
Such a lovely face
They're livin' it up at the Hotel California
What a nice surprise (what a nice surprise), bring your alibis

Mirrors on the ceiling, the pink champagne on ice,

And she said, "we are all just prisoners here, of our own device." 

And in the Master's chambers, they gathered for the feast.

They stab it with their steely knives, but they just can't kill the beast.

Last thing I remember, I was running for the door 

I had to find the passage back to the place I was before 

"Relax," said the night man, "we are programmed to receive."

"You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave!"

© The Eagles 

Don't give up. DON'T EVER GIVE UP.

That'll do, pig.

IN THE BEGINNING . . . 

there was "WIT, GUN, and STEIN." That was the title of my first blog. 

Some of you already knew that.

WGS existed from January 2009 to March 2011. 

In it, I mixed blood, sweat, and tears, with golf course and music reviews. Sometimes, I tried to be funny.

Not much is left of WGS, other than the internet way-back machine archives, which means some but not all of the internet, lasts forever. 

Some of the internet just dies. Notwithstanding the grandiose experiment in literary expression and political polemic, I feel successful in having conducted my verbal excercise, working through variously apt sub-titles, patching together broken phrases, just to say: "Hey. Words mean things."

For example:

 WGS -- "3 Things You Will Need For The End Times"

As it turns out, the reference to  "End Times" was a bit melodramatic. Too early, perhaps?

Wittgenstein, get it?

Another sub-title was:  

• WGS - "A Golf Blog. Between Rounds"

And, frankly, it was that, first and foremost. But the work needed more, something more than the game of golf, which I love, but still, it required something more relevant to those with ears to hear.

I tried "You Have the Floor," and "Floor It." (above)

Nah. 

Finally, I ended up with

• WGS - "Too Old To Care. Too Young To Quit." 

Ah, the sweet spot. Just the right sub-title. Explains just what I am doing, and why I do it.

Dad's death in 2011 was an actual apocalypse ... for me and for him. 

And so ended WGS.

Yet my compulsion to write would not rest. 

Writers write because their visions are their release. 

I think, yes, in the long run, ultimately, writing is a process of self-editing. And every writer's raw material, the archetypes, the ideas, myths, their experience, and opinions, exist a priori. Then they are birthed for the world at large, for those with eyes to see.

Please, Sir, More Swill

Thus spake "English Swill."

My first resurrection as a content creator turned into something more polemical than WGS. 

The Swill began publication late in 2011. 

Concurrently, I was faced with the fact that the liberal stronghold of institutional learning were gaining influence in my personal life. I began writing with greater dismay, on topics related to my observations about 21st century American life, the stark differences between conservative and progressive politics, the rickety bridge between old and young, while trying to keep faith with humor, music, and yes, more golf.  I spent years stirring digital swill with English words. It was decent.

 "Wordsmithery -- At The Bottom Of The Barrel," 

By Christmas 2018, all my efforts to provide generational guidance crumbled under the sledgehammer of corporate media marketing and outright fraudulent deception (Hello, Congressman Schiff). I even tried to write rap lyrics, a vain effort to explain my thoughts about what constitutes proper American jurisprudence (damn you, Fox Network). Sadly, only (1) one post that was served from English Swill survived the corporate pogroms of the Trump years. 

But it was one of my favorites, a classic rant on immigration policy.

Anyway, the Swill dried up because well ... you know ... the President spoke for millions, if not billions, of U.S. citizens. 

Fast forward to 2022. 

All over the globe, for the last 23 months, there's been only one pervasive topic: the COVID. With this third effort (second resurrection) - BOOMERS ANONYMOUS - I plan to go far beyond the political shills, their sketchy fuckery; beyond the vast, innumerable scams put forth by the mainstream grift, the purportedly authoritative, sources . . . on and offline.  

If you are reading this, congratulations, you have ventured light years from the mainstream.

Together we sit perched and prayerful. It is the beginning of the end of Fauci's Folly, on the verge of 'the Great Awakening," or "the Great Reset," or "the Fourth Turning," or "the Quickening," or "the 5G rollout," "the Year of the Water Tiger," or even "Jewish New Year 5782," or just plain old 2022 C.E. 

I personally have found my home ... in the shade of the freeway ... and have filled in most of the missing colors in mine and my bride's paint-by-number dreams. Generational biases have been exposed. Becoming socially relevant is irrelevant to us.  

It's Time To Own It, Boomers.

But persist. Keep runnin' down the dream, take off those dark sunglasses, and mow that lawn ... taste the wine. Frankly, my dear reader ... there still a giant load of stuff to share, a lot of worldly crap that needs a response, even if it comes off as ... back-of-the-cereal-box philosophy. 

When the inter webs were born, some corporate media mogul said,

"Content is king." 

What he forgot to remember was that the medium is still the message. 

So. 

Here we are.

Every Internet Post in the World

We're boomers. We've got decades worth of content. We've earned it.

This is OUR safe space, and your subscription seals the deal!

Share with other baby boomers. Share with an intelligent millennial or even an open minded Gen X'er, if that's not an oxymoron.

Everyone on the internet plus their Uncle Bob wants you to Like, Share, Comment, and Subscribe to their shit ... ads nauseaum. 

(Spelling intended.)

I'm shamelessly asking you to do the same. 

Don't think of it as Spam. Think of it as Corn Flakes and Milk.

 And you may ask yourself, "Why should I follow your blog, 15ML?"

No reason. It's just goddamn social media! 

But remember ... here, kids eat free.

 © 2022 by Roy Santonil