Mrs. du Toit Weblog - WAP Version

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Ammo Day

It’s today, so don’t forget! Details here.

Oh, and it’s Kim’s birthday, too. Amazing coincidence, huh?

Posted by Mrs. du Toit on 11/19 at November 19, 2008 5:00 AM CDT
Musing | (0) View Comments

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Educating Your Children IX: Teenagers

I would probably do a better job writing this post if I were drunk (but I can’t drink anymore). It is only through a stupor that I could write this section with the proper degree of cynicism and honesty. It is in this post that I have to bring up the dreaded topic of IQ, and push everyone’s buttons.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are a number of things we can do to help a child achieve their potential. Nutrition and nurturing are facets of it. What is important to accept is that there is a fixed point, at the end of the potential line. We can’t get over that wall. We can and should try to get as close to it as we can, but there is a risk of diminishing returns if we keep slamming our heads into it.

It makes good sense to determine your child’s IQ when they begin their teenage years. What you do with that information, however, is what makes it a good or a bad idea.

Captain Barbarosa (Pirates of the Caribbean) regarding abiding by the Pirate’s Code: “They’re more like guidelines, really.”

History gives us a number of examples of determining a child’s fate during this period in their lives. It is no accident that the Jewish tradition sets manhood and entry into the club at age 13. It is not an accident that the eighth grade was the traditional stopping point of schooling, when a person’s life was at a crossroads. There is a kind of stability in a child’s development, once they get to this age. (I caution those who take exception to the generalities I’m referring to here, and take them as literal/absolutes.)

A child with an IQ of 75 is not going to medical school.

The average IQ of the population as a whole is, by definition, 100. IQs range from 0 to above 200, and among children, to above 250. However, about 50% of the population have IQs between 89 and 111, and about 80% of the population have IQs ranging between 80 and 120, with 10% lying below 80, and 10% falling above 120.

For IQs below 120, IQ is the best predictor of socioeconomic status of any psychometric measurement. In more complex jobs, IQ is better than even education or experience at predicting job performance. In her article “The General Intelligence Factor”, Scientific American Presents “Exploring Intelligence”, pg. 24, 1999, Linda Gottfredson states:

“Adults in the bottom 5% of the IQ distribution (below 75) are very difficult to train and are not competitive for any occupation on the basis of ability. Serious problems in training low-IQ military recruits during World War II led Congress to ban enlistment from the lowest 10% (below 80) of the population, and no civilian occupation in modern economies routinely recruits its workers from that below-80 range. Current military enlistment standards exclude any individual whose IQ is below about 85.”

“Persons of average IQ (between 90 and 100) are not competitive for most professional and executive-level work but are easily trained for the bulk of jobs in the American economy. By contrast, individuals in the top 5 percent of the adult population can essentially train themselves, and few occupations are beyond their reach mentally.”

“People with IQs between 75 and 90 are 88 times more likely to drop out of high school, seven times more likely to be jailed, and five times more likely as adults to live in poverty than people with IQs between 110 and 125. The 75-to-90 IQ woman is eight times more likely to become a chronic welfare recipient, and four times as likely to bear an illegitimate child than the 110-to-125-IQ woman.”

In his book, Straight Talk About Mental Tests, The Free Press, A Division of the Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1981, pg. 12, Dr. Arthur Jensen cites the following four IQ thresholds:

(1) An IQ of 50 or below. This is the threshold below which most adults cannot cope outside of an institution. They can typically be taught to read at a 3rd or 4th grade level. However, they cannot normally function in the customary classroom setting, and they require special training programs.
(2) An IQ between 50 and 75. At this level of intelligence, they generally cannot complete elementary school. Most adults will need smarter help in coping with the world.
(3) An IQ between 75 and 105. Children in this IQ range are not generally able to complete a college prep course in high school.
(4) An IQ between 105 and 115. May graduate from college but generally, not with grades that would qualify them for graduate school.
(5) An IQ above 115. No restrictions.

For IQs in these ranges, the influence of IQ upon socioeconomic status is dramatic. 31% of those with IQs below 75 were on welfare, compared with 8% of those in the 90 to 110 IQ interval, and 0% in those with IQs above 125. 55% of mothers with IQs below 75 went on welfare after the birth of the first child, compared with 12% of those with IQs between 90 and 110, and 1% of those with IQs above 125. Income is highly dependent upon IQ up to an IQ-level of about 125.

The table below (also from the above referenced site) provides some useful information for our purposes.

IQ Range	Frequency	Cumulative Frequency	Typical Educability	Employment Options
Below 30	>1%	>1% below 30	Illiterate	Unemployable. Institutionalized.
30 to 50	>1%?	>1% below 50	1st-Grade to 3rd-Grade	Simple, non-critical household chores.
50 to 60	~1%?	1.5% below 60	3rd-Grade to 6th-grade	Very simple tasks, close supervision.
60 to 74	3.5%?	5% below 74	6th-Grade to 8th-Grade	"Slow, simple, supervised."
74 to 89	20%	25% below 89	8th-Grade to 12th-Grade	Assembler, food service, nurse’s aide
89 to 100	25%	50% below 100	8th-Grade to 1-2 years of College.	Clerk, teller, Walmart
100 to 111	50%	1 in 2 above 100	12th-Grade to College Degree	Police officer, machinist, sales
111 to 120	15%	1 in 4 above 111	College to Master’s Level	Manager, teacher, accountant
120 to 125	5%	11 in 10 above 120	College to Non-Technical Ph. D.’s.	Manager, professor, accountant
125 to 132	3%	1 in 20 above 125	Any Ph. D. at 3rd-Tier Schools	Attorney, editor, executive.
132 to 137	1%	1 in 50 above 132	No limitations.	Eminent professor, editor
137 to 150	0.9%	1 in 100 above 137	No limitations.	Leading math, physics professor
150 to 160	0.1%	1 in 1,100 above 150	No limitations	Lincoln, Copernicus, Jefferson
160 to 174	0.01%	1 in 11,000 above 160	No limitations	Descartes, Einstein, Spinoza
174 to 200	0.0099%	1 in 1,000,000 above 174	No limitations	Shakespeare, Goethe, Newton

The table above gives us the outside edge of our wall--the potential of our children, based on their IQ. Expecting them to be able to exceed the wall is no different from expecting them to grow taller than their physical potential, for a girl to grow a penis if we wanted a boy instead, or to suddenly start growing blond hair, where their red hair used to be… just by trying harder. It isn’t going to happen, no matter how hard they try.

At this point in a child’s development is when it is often easier for someone else to make these decisions, because our role as a parent has to change. Until the teenage years, when an IQ test really is an accurate predictor of their potential, we’ve been akin to You can do it! Now our role and our job as a parent has to change. We have to become dispassionate (but optimistic) advisers rather than cheerleaders.

Since IQ was often related to birth order, customs were developed around that. It was preordained that the first son would inherit the family business, the second son would go into the military, and the third son would join the clergy. Birth order isn’t a 100% reliable as an IQ predictor, especially if sons are born more than two years apart, but it is an interesting phenomenon (that we can now understand scientifically.

We don’t like to look at our children so critically, nor are we thrilled with the idea of having to be honest and direct them in a way that might be contrary to our personal desires for them, or even their own desires. We like to hold out hope for a different outcome and so we leave all doors open to our children.

I can’t support that idea, because it has no grounding in fact/reality.

Sharing a child’s IQ with them has some risk. Children with normal or low IQs can be discouraged or defeated. Children with higher IQs tend not to work as hard. Just because someone’s IQ is high doesn’t mean they’ll achieve their potential. It just means it is possible for them to aspire to the more heady professions and careers. They still have to put forth an effort. Resting on one’s laurels is not achievement nor success make. A person can have a high IQ but still have a low degree of stamina or discipline. This laziness tendency with smarter kids is partially learned behavior, especially if they’ve not had to exert much effort in a public-type school environment. They’ve gotten away with something, they think, but that early laziness habit will be a difficult one to break.

Now the nice thing about IQ is that it tends to be genetic. If parents have an IQ of about 100, odds are good their children will too. This means that the definition of happiness and success of the parents will be satisfactory to them, and any disappointment they might have that their child won’t be another Einstein will be tempered by those definitions. Because it is a general tendency doesn’t mean it is the reality, so an IQ test will provide definitive proof, and give parents an idea of how to approach the teenage years.

Paraphrasing dialog from A Fish Called Wanda: “Apes can READ Nietzsche. They just can’t UNDERSTAND it.”

If a child has an IQ in the normal range (about 100), it makes no sense to direct their academic pursuits with subject levels that will be beyond them. As the quote above illustrates, they’ll be able to go through the mechanics of doing the work, but it won’t have any lasting impact, nor any academic purpose. Their response to Nietzsche will be something along the lines of “Huh?” It is at that point that their literary selections might be better directed to Louis L’Amour, Judith Krantz, or Robert Heinlein, instead of Joseph Conrad or Truman Capote. They can read Conrad and Capote, because they’ll have the mechanics of reading, but they’ll only understand them at a very superficial/literal level… which is OK, too, but reading it won’t raise their IQ, ie, make them any quicker/smarter than they are, nor will they benefit from the exposure to the writing quality, density, or underlying message.

IQs are similar to the capabilities of modes of transport. You might be able to get a bicycle to go 120 miles an hour, down a severe hill, but it can’t do it on the straights (and you risk life and limb in doing so). A bicycle won’t ever fly, as an airplane will, unless you drive it off a cliff. A car is designed to travel on highways, but depending on the car, it might not hold together (or be safe) above 80mph.

Below an IQ of 110, children entering their teenage years need to be directed to careers in the trades, not directed to college or university (in the conventional sense). What we provide to them (as their educators) is preparing them for their careers and what they’ll do when our home-schooling is “done.”

Some colleges offer trade school education, so “college” can be a confusing term these days. Many places (such as police or fire departments) have outsourced their trade instruction to community colleges, so “colleges” aren’t completely ruled out if that’s the direction.

In general, with the caveat above, if a child has a normal or lower IQ, their “education” stops at their teenage years, and their “training” begins.

What becomes an interesting challenge is parents with children with IQs remarkably different from their own. A parent with an IQ in the normal range might not be the best educator for a child with an IQ of 120 or above. That child needs a mentor who has similar capabilities, so tutors or private school should be considered. It is not as problematic for parents with higher IQs and children lower, but that also presents challenges because the parents will have a hard time relating to how and why the child learns more slowly, and retains less (or misses the “big picture” so easily). That parent will tend to get frustrated by their child’s abilities (or skip over basics, assuming the child has them), and that isn’t a good thing for that child. A child’s emotional development and their well-being is just as important as their academic development.

What is also interesting about higher IQs is the tendency for empathy and compassion to be lacking. Whether this is learned behavior (by living in a world with the majority of people so easily duped by their smarter fellows) or whether there is some sort of genetic synthesis isn’t really important. What is important is to accept that this tendency exists. Children with higher IQs need to have character, empathy, integrity and honor education, more so than their go-along-to-get-along, lower IQ peers. If it is genetic, it probably won’t be effective, but because we cannot be certain of that, we need to try.

This, as I said, is a very difficult subject, because it pokes at people’s egos and their sense of fairness. It is also incredibly difficult for parents to direct a child away from things that might interest them, or sound good on paper, when the child has no hope of actually achieving it (even if they passionately desire it).

For parents with children in the higher IQ range, I suggest an academic program similar to the one detailed here, with the focus on university preparation. For children with normal or lower IQs, I suggest some of the more traditional curriculum, such as this.

It is possible to get an accurate read of a child’s IQ when they’re younger (and choose their educational direction sooner), but it should be repeated at the entry to the teenage years, just to be certain.

If we were living in a different time, it would be possible to direct your normal child into the trades and secure for them an apprenticeship. Unfortunately, we are mostly prohibited by law from doing that sort of thing now, and so these efforts must be delayed until they are 16 or 18… but that is what you can do to help that child, even if it doesn’t sound as sexy or exciting. It’s honest, however painful that might be to accept.

Posted by Mrs. du Toit on 11/18 at November 18, 2008 5:00 AM CDT
Educating Your Children Series | (9) View Comments

Monday, November 17, 2008

From the Closet

A few weeks back I asked for requests for final posts. A relative responded and the topics were (generally) more personal in nature. If a non-relative had asked me some of these questions, I might not have been willing to answer… but because it was this person, someone whom I love and adore, I’ll respond to all in a single post.

Summarize and give your opinion of George Bush’s Presidency - Has his cowboy mentality spurred a new generation of politicians? Has he influenced Sarah Palin?

I’m not sure what “cowboy mentality” means. If it means someone who chases after a runaway coach, rescuing the damsel in distress, wouldn’t we want more people like that? People say “cowboy” like it’s a bad thing. I disagree. It depends on what “cowboy” means to you.

As to whether he influenced Sarah Palin, I don’t really know, nor could I comment. I hope she goes back to Alaska and stays there.

I do not think that Bush’s presidency will be seen in the short-term as being beneficial (but would bet money that in the long term he’ll be viewed more favorably and kindly), and he’ll remain the Left’s whipping boy and the Right will blame him for whatever they can. The Left/Right absolute positions we find ourselves, evenly split nationally, came to a head with his presidency… and it will only get worse with time.

Tell us about your conversion from a Democrat to your current political standing - Define your current political standing

It was during that time that I’d enjoy telling people that I was a communist, just to get a rise out of them, because there is nothing inherently illegal about holding those opinions. It is acting on them, the way that communist’s traditionally do, that make the declaration of communist legal or illegal.

As for declaring what I am… well, that’s difficult. I still don’t feel too much brotherly love among my Republican fellows. They’d probably think of me as a RINO or something akin to a neo-con, despite having a family history of Republicans from Inception. I’m probably closer to a Rockefeller Republican than a George Bush one, and have no time for folks who think there’s something wrong with that. My hero was Howard Baker, who worked in the Nixon Administration.

In a nutshell, I think my political philosophy is best summed up with “practicalist.” I’m not into any sort of dogma, nor can I get too emotional or romantic about memes, and bumper sticker political philosophies. Things aren’t that simple and while decisions on public policy can come quickly, they each need to be examined individually, with the wisdom of history as our guide.

What did your Mom do right in raising you - Give a positive review of your upbringing

First of all, I loved her, and I KNOW she loved me. What greater an accomplishment can a parent achieve than to ensure that their child is loved and loving?

She used to sing a version of the song Tammy but for me:

I hear the cottonwoods whisperin’ above,
“Connie ... Connie ... Connie’s my love”
The ole hooty-owl hooty-hoos to the dove,
“Connie ... Connie ... Connie’s my love”

But, I loved the mother of my imagination, of the person I wanted her to be, and the ones her words conveyed she was. She also loved the person she wanted me to be, which wasn’t always similar to the person I was, and that allowed me to doubt myself, and often falter. She spoke of honesty and integrity, but wasn’t able to live up to those ideals herself (nor am I). She spoke of “doing the right thing” when she often did just the opposite (as do I).

She was fairly smart and she always paid attention to what was going on in the world. She read the newspaper and wrote to her Representatives quite frequently. She was patriotic, too, in that Frank Capra romantic/idealistic way. It was her passion for politics that I inherited, even if we approached the issues differently in our adult lives. She was a wonderful barometer for my education, providing nuances of understanding when my teachers presented things in black and white (even though her tendency to be verbose could get trying… and, guilty as charged, myself).

She took me to the old world when I was just a babe. I was 13 years old when she took me to Europe and that changed me in profound ways, and changed the direction of my life. It was an irresponsible decision, beyond her means, and we suffered for it financially for several years after. But would I undo it? NOT A CHANCE and I’m afraid I inherited her philosophy on some things being more important than money, and her greatest fear and common quotation haunts me as well, “time and tide wait for no man.”

Similarly, she started taking me to the theatre when I was five years old. We had season tickets to the Los Angeles Civic Light Opera, and I looked forward to those shows, as I looked forward to nothing else. Our house was foreclosed on when I was 11, but to the theatre we continued that summer… and it was at the theatre that I felt like I was a princess. That’s not a bad way for Cinderella to feel, even if only for one night.

As she was fond of saying, “they can take our car, our house, and all our possessions, but no one can ever take our memories from us.”

She had a very hard life--different from her picture. From that, I s’pose, I learned empathy and compassion, and developed a steely-resolve in the face of catastrophe. You couldn’t make her quit, no matter how hard you hit her. She had to surrender by her own accord, on her terms, and with her conditions.

I didn’t want to “end up like her” as many daughters feel about their mothers, when their lives don’t turn out the way they hoped. Had Dad never left her, she’d have probably been elected to the school-board or some other public office. Her public achievements were quite astonishing--always the head of whatever philanthropic organization she was associated, and received numerous lifetime achievement awards. She was a tough act to follow.

But that wasn’t the mother I knew, as my memories of Mom were after the divorce, since I was so young when it happened. She was really mad at Dad, and rightfully so, and her desire for justice was never sated. She really did get the wrong end of the deal, and he was a first-class asshole. My mother, the one I knew, was the anonymous one… the lady who became fat, jaded, and depressed a lot. She was the one who got up to go to work everyday, in a job she really hated, and did it because she had to put food on the table for us.

Being the way-youngest of 4 children, she described me as her “desert after a good dinner.” That was incredibly sweet, never referring or thinking of me as an OOPS!.

She thought of suicide a lot, but didn’t because of us and me. That counts. Some things are more important than ourselves, and our responsibilities more pressing than our (often) petty, individual problems.

I don’t think she wanted to be a mother, although she loved babies and loved us. She wanted to be an actress and an artist, and encouraged us in those pursuits for her (I suspect) vicarious pleasure. That’s not a bad thing and my experiences in that arena taught me valuable lessons for life… how to speak my mind, how to deliver lines, how to stand tall.

In some of her darker moments she would sing Rose’s Turn from Gypsy!:

I had a dream.
I dreamed it for you, June.
It wasn’t for me, Herbie.
And if it wasn’t for me
then where would you be,
Miss Gypsy Rose Lee?

Well, someone tell me, when is it my turn?
Don’t I get a dream for myself?
Starting now it’s gonna be my turn.
Gangway, world, get off of my runway!
Starting now I bat a thousand!
This time, boys, I’m taking the bows and

Everything’s coming up Rose!
Everything’s coming up roses!
Everything’s coming up roses
this time for me!
For me! For me! For me! For me! For me!
For me! Yeah!

And then she’d get over herself, and go to work the next day for a boss who treated her like dog-shit.

She lived in a fantasy world of “wanting to travel the world and write about it” but that was a vicarious pleasure she could only get from me after her death, but I thank her for it.

Mom asked that her ashes be put in a Parmesan cheese shaker and that I carry that bottle with me, spreading her around in places I travel to, that she might like. I haven’t been able to do that yet (not quite willing to let her go), and 1/3 of her still sits in the box. How much more glorious could someone’s view of their afterlife be than wanting to continue to travel, trusting that your daughter would know what you’d have loved to see and where you’d want to spend eternity? That’s how much she trusted me, and how well I knew her. I also loved the irreverence of a reverent act, which is the dichotomy of her in a nutshell.

She’d have had a blog, but would have been more upset than I when people made pithy or rude comments.

She loved my baby girl and talked to her so much that she started speaking when she was five months old… and as she had done for me, my daughter knew she was loved, adored, and so capable of setting the world on fire.

She taught all the grandchildren about humor and satire… and taught them hard lessons, too, about having to be good people and respectful of her, or she would withhold her affection, even at her death.

She was an unprincipled woman of high principles and ideals, and you couldn’t help but love her, couldn’t help but feel empathy for her, couldn’t help but allow her to drive you absolutely nuts with her inconsistencies and dramas, and can’t look back at your life with her and want it to have been any other way.

She taught me something invaluable, that has served me better than any ever lesson could:

The show must go on, baby.

And it does, and I do, Mommy.

Summarize where you stand on important political issues

a. Abortion - Under what circumstances is it OK?

None. That has nothing to do (whatsoever) with its legal status, nor if it is the best choice, given the other choices/options available.

b. Gay Marriage (If someone is born gay, why are they deprived of the right of same sex marriage? Why isn’t this unconstitutional? Why is marriage only between a man and a women? How does this relate or not relate to the Iraq War?)

right

Marriage is not a “right.” It is a “privilege.” That’s why, like driving, you have to get a license to do it. You can choose to live with whomever you want (and hire a lawyer to create legal documents that declare your intentions and property), and you can make any sort of commitment or oath to another person you want. What two men or two women cannot do is have a civil marriage. That’s true regardless of their sexual orientation or how they were “born.” It applies equally to all, but we’re all not the same, so there is only the suggestion of some sort of “unfairness.”

If the gay marriage advocates were to get their wish, what would that look like? Would it be correct to say that only two gay men could marry? What about two straight men? If the condition of birth or “born that way” was the condition for society’s approval, what litmus test or invasion in the privacy of the conscience would be required to validate the request for marriage of two straight men?

That’s Orwellian and goes beyond reasonableness, invading our Freedom of Conscience.

If we say it’s “none of our business if two straight men marry” then what IS our business? Why do we have a license to marry at all? Why not just scrap it entirely, and allow others to do whatever they want, calling it whatever they want, and deriving the same recognition, respect or benefits?

And then you get to the answer of why gay marriage advocates are such a strange assortment of bedfellows. That’s the Holy Grail, the brass ring, and the slippery slope. The foundation of a civil society is the institution of marriage, the only true allegiance we have to anyone (taken of free will), and if we treat it carelessly and casually, dismissing its importance and significance, then all we have that binds us before the eyes of society is government… and I don’t think I need to explain what happens then.

A person’s condition of birth has no bearing on anything. If someone is “born” a psychopath, we don’t have a special “get out of jail free card” for them to escape the death penalty if they become a serial killer. Their condition of birth, which may have pre-ordained their actions, is irrelevant to public policy decisions, and making the laws apply equally, and blindly, to all of us.

I am opposed to identity politics of any kind, but I’m keenly aware that we are often having to serve two masters:
1. The majority’s interests
2. Preventing the tyranny of the majority on the minority, or the one.

In this case, however tragic it might be for the few who are truly deserving of society’s respect, they’re simply out of luck. Society’s long term interests trump.

Relate to the Iraq War? Hmmm… Got me stumped there.

c. Why is Universal Health Care unfair?

You have to pay for medical care, because it doesn’t fall from the sky, just as you pay for food and housing. Risk of dying for being unable to pay is also a great motivator to get and keep a job that comes with medical benefits, just as risk of starving to death is a great motivator to get someone to work.

Why did you leave California? (Why not fight the power that caused you to move?)

I believe, strongly, that people have a right to associate with fellows of like minds, and have whatever government they want. I have no desire to “fight” Californians, nor limit their freedom to have whatever form of government they want. I was the odd man out, so I left.

Why was Greg Gay?

I don’t know, nor do I care, nor did it have any bearing on how I felt about him. He was my rock, my Knight in Shining Armor, my best friend, my big brother (with all that means), and the kindest/smartest man I’ve ever known… until I met Kim. And they would have been best friends. His relationship with David was the model I used to recognize a loving relationship and how adults should treat each other.

Greg had a terrible singing voice, but he sang anyway (another reason to love him to death). Once, he sang this to us, and there were tears in all of our eyes when he was done:

It’s not that easy being green;
Having to spend each day the color of the leaves.
When I think it could be nicer being red, or yellow or gold…
or something much more colorful like that.

It’s not easy being green.
It seems you blend in with so many other ord’nary things.
And people tend to pass you over ‘cause you’re
not standing out like flashy sparkles in the water
or stars in the sky.

But green’s the color of Spring.
And green can be cool and friendly-like.
And green can be big like an ocean, or important like a mountain,
or tall like a tree.

When green is all there is to be
It could make you wonder why, but why wonder why?
Wonder, I am green and it’ll do fine, it’s beautiful!
And I think it’s what I want to be.

Greg said he was always gay, and knew he was different when he was a toddler. I have no reason to doubt his explanation about that, or any other explation he gave me for things. Greg never lied nor had a single dishonest or illogical thought.

Give a sales pitch for traveling the world

If people feel out of place, perhaps out of step with their fellows, or have questions about who we are, how we got to where we are today, and where we’ll go in the future, there is nothing more satisfying to those ends than traveling.

It allows you to be humble for the things we do badly, to appreciate the things we do right, and to recognize that there isn’t always one way to do anything. We’re not alone in the world and traveling allows you to see that, better than any other activity.

Even my bad trips were a net-gain, although I wouldn’t go back to those places again.

My mother once told me about a study she read (and this is another example of how interesting she was as a person). It said that folks who live in places where you can’t see far (such as cities with high-rises or country settings encircled with mountains) were dwarfed. They’re literally emotionally challenged and it becomes a pervasive way of looking at oneself and possibilities. They can’t think out of the box, literally and metaphorically.

That’s why it was so important for me to take my children on my travels… so they could stand on the precipice of history, from the top of a cathedral or castle, from the edge of the Alps and see a never ending horizon… and be a person who sees infinite possibilities.

We know that the earth is round so it becomes something more akin to an mobius loop, leading us always back home, to where we began… back to the womb of our mothers, back to the soil of mother earth.

And that is why we travel and others should… to take us home, to where we began, and then we return to do it another day, as soon as we can… because time and tide wait for no man.

Posted by Mrs. du Toit on 11/17 at November 17, 2008 5:49 PM CDT
Bio | (0) View Comments

Page 2 of 768 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »