Page 3 – The Waltonian

On Feb. 6th, Ottawa Mayor declared a state of emergency in the capital of Canada. Since the previous weekend, Ottawa’s streets have been jammed with tractor trailers, which is preventing people from entering and exiting the downtown area. They call themselves, “The Freedom Convoy.”

Not only this, during the previous two weekends, protestors from all over Canada rallied together to protest the newest COVID-19 mandate. The rule requires unvaccinated truck drivers to quarantine after crossing over the U.S/Canada border.

What started out as a trucker specific protest quickly spiraled into a protest against all COVID-19 policies and mandates in Canada. Many of the protestors claim they will not leave until all COVID-19 restrictions are lifted. In addition, some of the protest’s organizers claim they have enough funds to extend the protest for over a year.

Originally, the protest raised over 10 million dollars, before Go Fund Me, the platform they used, halted the campaign, and refunded the donors. During the protests, truckers ran their trucks for most of the day presumably causing substantial amounts of fumes. Every half an hour they would honk their horns for minutes on end.

However, what is arguably more concerning for the Canadian, and the American government, is a new blockade, which formed on the Ambassador bridge connecting Detroit and Canada. This blockade was so successful, car manufacturing plants in the U.S. were forced to halt production.

The story develops further in Canada as the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, declared a state of emergency for the entire nation. This is only the second time this has happened in Canadian history. Some of the emergency powers Trudeau is wielding include being able to tow any trucks and arrest protesting truckers. The Canadian government now has authority to freeze any bank account associated with the protest.

This situation is obviously very concerning for the Canadian government. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his family moved out of Ottawa to an undisclosed location near the beginning of the protest. Having the capital blockaded was symbolically damaging to the nation, but having an essential bridge blocked is economically damaging. The bridge is now clear, but it may be a while before the capital is cleared of trucks and truckers.

A question this story poses is whether protests like this are effective, and if they pose a threat to a nation? Whether it was effective is yet to be seen. Multiple Canadian provinces have lifted certain COVID-19 restrictions because of the protests. Now, it will be interesting to see if the Canadian government can arrest the remaining truckers.

The second question is easily answered. They pose a very great threat. With already fractured economies because of COVID-19 restrictions, these trucker convoys can wreak havoc and are perhaps the most effective protest in years. The effectiveness of the Canadian trucker convoy is evident just by the way the Canadian government has responded. There are already additional trucker convoys rallying to protest their nation’s handling of COVID-19. I would not be surprised if American truckers begin staging similar protests.

I am very sympathetic towards these truckers and anyone who protests vaccine mandates. From my own research, there is not enough evidence to justify them. Many politicians have used COVID-19 to gain more power. I think it is time people come to their senses and speak up against the ridiculously unnecessary, overreaching restrictions. I support the truckers in Canada.

However, I do not want the protests. They will hurt our economy, and they will cause divisions. But it is time people effectively pushed back. In the end, people must stand for what they see as right. And if we really desire a free society, we must attempt to protect it instead of sitting back and letting it die.

Sources: BBC, CNN, Fox, Huffpost, National Review, Newsweek

So far during my short time at Eastern, the ISI Montaigne society has been my favorite club. According to Eastern’s club website, “The ISI Montaigne Society is a literary society focused on discussion and debate of events and ideas that shape Western culture.” This is a very accurate description of the club. It is a discussion club, with the focus of the discussion being the traditions in Western society.

During the week, we read a selected reading. Sometimes it’s an old text, other times it could be an article written a few weeks prior. Every reading deals with an element of Western civilization and its traditions. When the club meets, discussion can really go anywhere. Often, discussion’s centers around the merits of a particular aspect of Western civilization. The other week we discussed the modern trend of certain writers, comedians, and other artists becoming “canceled” by society. The week before, we discussed Lincoln’s constitutional struggles during the emancipation of slavery. It is always enjoyable to see how a discussion evolves during a meeting. We always begin the meeting discussing the reading, but often we end up somewhere completely different. This evolution is essential to a good conversation, and also, one of the reasons I look forward to attending ISI.

One really amazing part about ISI is that our faculty advisor, Dr. Micheal Lee, regularly attends. He always has very fascinating insight. He also adds a great level of enthusiasm and is willing to discuss nearly anything at any length.

I said near the beginning that ISI is a club that discusses tradition. More simply, it is a club that tries to foster discussions that lead to truth. The approach it takes is examining the truth that can be found and built upon in our Western civilization. Western civilization is rich in writing and thought and is the foundation of most of what we know in American society today. A central part of understanding ourselves and society, can be the study of western civilization. Many of these writers have addressed the very problems our society wrestles with.

I encourage anyone to join ISI. If you are interested in discussing Western civilization and its merits and where it may be lacking, I would especially encourage you. We meet every Wednesday at 10 am in Baird Library. We are a small club and are always looking for members. And if you enjoy talking like myself, I am sure you will enjoy it as much as I do. If you would like to contact ISI the club address is montaignesociety@eastern.edu.

The other night I watched the 1953 movie, “Shane.” “Shane” is a western set in—well, the same time that all the 1950s westerns are set in. The main character is a gunslinger named (hold your breath for it) Shane.

The general plot centers around Shane’s attempts to leave his former life behind and start over again with a family of homesteaders. After watching the movie, my overall opinions of the movie are mixed. Some of the filming is slow and plodding. The location of the film is the Jackson Hole valley, and filming on site adds quite a lot of natural beauty to the film as well as adding a fitting backdrop to the movie’s more serious tone. One of the shots that has stayed in my mind is the town’s saloon and general store dwarfed by a giant mountain range.

While it is a western, it is much more of a slow brooding drama. Further, it is a surprisingly silent film because silence is Shane’s main characteristic. All the colors used are dull tones, mostly greens, blues, and browns. The movie seems to build steadily on this rather serious mood. Most of the movie is from Joey’s perspective; what he sees in the adults, and what he admires in Shane. Some of the best editing in the film was the way the director cuts back and forth between Shane, and the little boy Joey, to stress the boy’s sense of awe. The movie continues to build slowly through typical western elements, until its climax.

Unfortunately, I am going to have to spoil the movie’s ending, so if you ever plan on watching it, which I can’t imagine many people do, don’t read any further. In its ending scene, all the emotion and drama that had been slowly boiling under the surface comes to a crescendo. After a typical western shootout scene, Shane gives Joey a few words of encouragement, before riding off into the night. Joey looks after Shane and shouts his name, and the movie ends right there. This moment made me wonder if Shane’s character represents Joey’s boyhood ideals of being a man, and how perhaps those ideals are impossible or unrealistic, or maybe even result in someone being harmed since Shane has just killed three people in a shootout. All throughout the movie, Joey is mesmerized by violence. In the opening scene, he is pretending to shoot a deer, and throughout the movie, he is often playing very loudly with his toy pistol. He begs Shane to teach him to shoot and watches the fistfight and the shootout in the saloon, with a raptured child’s gaze.

I would not say Shane is a great masterpiece, but I would argue it is a good movie. More importantly, it is an example of how to make a good movie in a traditionally not respected genre. The western genre at that time was known for making cheap films for audience enjoyment. Pick up and watch most 50’s westerns, and you will find a goofy movie, with some mildly interesting action. We have many of these types of movies in modern cinema, and yet “Shane” seems to be proof that it is not the genre that should blame, but the artists themselves. One genre is not superior to another. Each is filled with movies that are garbage. Yet, there are the occasional films that make a name for themselves. They become more than just another western movie or another horror movie. This is what cinema is about, and it is these occasional films that make up cinema.

The divisional round of the NFL playoffs was perhaps the most exciting round of divisional games in NFL history. Going into Sunday night’s Bills-Chiefs game, every game had been tied and ended on a game winning field goal with the visiting team winning by three points. I honestly don’t know if this has happened before, but I really doubt it. So for obvious reasons, there was a lot of hype going into the Bills-Chiefs rematch.

Early in the year, the Bills demolished the Chiefs by eighteen points, and had just come off a stunning 30 point victory over Bill Belichick and the Patriots. In that game, the Bills became the first team in NFL history to play a perfect game. They did not punt, kick a field goal, or turn the ball over the entire game. Every possession ended in a touchdown, besides the last drive, when they knelt out the clock.

On the other hand, the Chiefs had won 10 out of their last eleven games. The game lived up to its expectations. The first three quarters were a back and forth battle, with first the offense prevailing and the defense. With about nine minutes left, the Bills found themselves with the ball, and the Chiefs leading, 26-21.

The Bills began a long slow drive down the field and at the two minute warning they found themselves facing a 4th and 13, at the KC 27 yard line. Not only did they convert the 4th down but they scored a touchdown, and converted a two point conversion, bringing the score to 26-29. This was only the beginning of the mayhem in the final minutes of the game. The Chiefs got the ball back and scored a touchdown in 52 seconds. But immediately, the Bills stormed right back down the field and scored a touchdown in 49 seconds.

Now there was only 13 seconds left on the clock and the Bills now led 36-33. The game should have been over, there should have been celebrating. After all, the Bills are the second best defense in the NFL. But no, Patrick Mahomes threw two passes across the middle of the field for a total of 44 yards, and kicker Harrison Butker drilled a 49 yard field goal to tie the game as time expired.

According to the NFL overtime rules, if the team who gets the ball first scores a touchdown, they win. The Chiefs won the coin toss, drove down the field and scored to win the game, making the final score 42-36.

First of all, before I forget, let me say that I hate the NFL overtime rules. But let me return to the point. How did the Bills lose? The poor Bills do seem to have a knack for choking. They are the team that went to the super bowl four years in a row and lost every time. I guess I must also give credit to the Chiefs. I was hoping they would lose, but despite that, they certainly played one of the best NFL games I have witnessed.

My editor told me I could hype up the Super Bowl in this article, but how can I after that game? The super bowl could still be exciting, especially if the Bengals win it, considering that they have never won before. The Bengals have been to the super bowl twice and lost both times to the 49ers, so who knows, maybe we will get a rematch between the two teams. But I still have trouble imagining a super bowl that would be more exciting than that Bills-Chiefs game.

Sources: ESPN

I am only an amateur movie critic. Now that I think about it, movie critic and my name should not be allowed in the same sentence. All my strong opinions, critical thoughts, and even praise for movies come from my own untrained eyes. I honestly know nothing about movies except for my own presumptuous, and certainly uneducated opinions. Because of this, I don’t feel qualified to make any bold artistic claims. I can’t weigh in on whether “Vertigo” or “Citizen Kane” should be at the top of the next sight and sound greatest film poll. I can’t make an argument for or against method acting. I don’t have the credentials to talk about the massive impact the movie production code had on Hollywood’s studio system. And so, because of my lack of knowledge and expertise in the subject, I will only make a very humble claim. “Chicken Run” is the greatest movie ever made!

I recently spoke to an unnamed individual who had never seen this movie. Having never seen
“Chicken Run” is like never reading Shakespeare. That is like not knowing what the Mona Lisa or the Eiffel Tower looked like. But sadly, this is not an uncommon occurrence for me. All too often I run into these individuals.

I think it might be appropriate to pause and say I am not entirely serious in the claim I am making. But; it is true that I am crazy about the movie. First of all, I would argue it is the most magnificent piece of stop motion I have watched. Actually, this movie is one of the animated movies that was responsible for the Oscars creating a Best Animated Feature award. Colors, textures, movements, all of it are so good I would almost call it beautiful. The attention to detail is wonderful. Every scene is filled with intricate miniature props.

The story is also very solid for it being an animated movie. In case you are one of the sad people who have never seen it, it’s a parody of the 1963 movie, “The Great Escape,” a film about a bunch of British prisoners of war trying to escape from a Nazi camp. Nick Park and Peter Lord, the directors of “Chicken Run,” took this story and changed it to be about British chickens trying to escape a farm. If you have seen both movies you will notice parallel shots and references throughout. Notably, the opening sequence with the tunnel, and Ginger bouncing the ball off the wall in the exact same way Steve McQueen does. Mel Gibson plays the lead chicken, which I have always found hilarious. And of course, I would be neglecting my duty if I didn’t mention the infamous chicken kiss.

While it certainly is a stretch for me to say this is the greatest movie of all time, I would say it is an animated masterpiece. It was made at the height of stop motion animation, just before computer animation took over, and is in my mind the finest bit of claymation to ever appear on film. This movie is in its own small way an artistic masterpiece and worth every minute of your time.

Sources: Daily Hindi News, Screenrant

Photo: The Verge

A clip from the entertaining, animated escape film, “Chicken Run.”

With the march for life being held in D.C., on January 21st, it is a good time to revisit the subject of abortion. When I first began to seriously think about abortion, I began to realize the entire debate rests on an important question. When does a human become a human? If a fetus is a human, then taking its life is murder. If a fetus is not a human, then the mother has control over what she can do with it. At one point every human is not a human. Because of this, there has to be a point when we become a human being. At that point we should be given the same protection as every other human. Establishing this point seems to be at the heart of the abortion debate.

According to 18 U.S. Code § 1111, “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.” Further, according to 1 U.S. Code: § 8, “the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” In a further section of 1 U.S. Code: § 8, being born alive is defined as “complete expulsion or extraction” from the mother. Under U.S. law an abortion is not a murder, because a muder is an act committed against a human being.

Nowhere in America is killing “after-birth abortion” legal. This is because under the above law, it would be considered murder. This brings up a rather perplexing question. Is being recognized as a human being under U.S. law based purely on location? A living organism when inside of its mother’s womb is classified as a fetus, but when outside, is called a human being. Becoming a human being, according to U.S. law, involves only the baby exiting the womb, and showing one sign of life, which can be just a beating heart. A baby who is born prematurely, is considered a human. But an organism of the same age and growth stage, still in its mother’s womb can be aborted.

This inconsistency frustrated me, and so I looked for other moments where humanity could begin. After examining many points and arguments, heartbeat, first breath, independence from the mother, self sufficiency, I came to the conclusion that the moment humanity begins is conception. Conception is the moment when a human receives its unique set of DNA. This DNA carries the information that makes us a unique being. The small clump of growing cells after conception is the same living being as the grown organism we call a human. If we can not kill the grown organism, I do not understand why we should be allowed to kill it at a more vulnerable stage.

I know many people would disagree with what I have said. I will readily admit that I am not a medical expert, but I am very interested in knowing counterarguments to what I have just proposed. If you disagree with me, feel free to email me, and even better please write a counterargument in The Waltonian. Many people claim the abortion debate is about women’s rights, and it is, but if you believe the fetus is also a human, abortion becomes an issue of two humans’ rights: the rights of the mother and the rights of the child. I believe taking the life of an innocent human is murder. I believe life starts at conception and, more importantly, I believe humanity starts there. Because of this I believe abortion in any form, at any time is murder.

Source: Cornell Law School

A few weeks ago I watched David Lynch’s “The Elephant Man.” I am not sure what I think of David Lynch. Up until then, I hadn’t seen any of his movies, but the first word that comes to mind is lunatic. I think anyone who has read anything about his film “Eraserhead” is forced to agree.

For being a David Lynch film “The Elephant Man” is quite tame. The movie is based on a true story. It focuses on a man named Joseph (John) Merrick, who was known as the elephant man. He was a severely deformed man, who traveled with circuses during the late 1800s.

I am not always a fan of movies based on true stories. They often are cheesy. More than often they can get away with being unartistic, by luring people in with their true stories. There is nothing that irritates me more than people praising a movie just on the grounds that it is a true story. After I saw “The Elephant Man” I was surprised by how much of it is based on actual fact. I think Lynch balances telling a true story and attempting to make a work of art well in this film. He doesn’t become possessed by trying to tell a true story, but he also does not allow his desire to produce art to detract from John Merricks’s story.

Anthony Hopkins plays Sir Fredrick Treves, the doctor who rescues John Merrick from the circus. Originally, Frederick Treves is only interested in John Merrick for medical purposes. He believes him to be incapable of rational thought. As time goes by he comes to the realization that John Treeves can speak. But this is only the beginning of his discoveries. He realizes the beauty of John Merrick’s soul. He finds that he has a love for Psalm 23. He discovers he has a great love for the theater, and for all things beautiful. The contrast between the ugliness of Merricks’s body and the beauty of his mind is wonderful. The makeup used on Actor John Hurt, who plays John Merrick, took eight hours to apply. John Hurt does an excellent job of bringing out Merricks’s humanity. Bringing a character’s life under so much makeup is hard, but John Hurt is able to pull it off.

The movie is filmed in black and white, which helps to stress its serious tone. The directing is by no means flawless. (This is Lynch’s second film.) At times it drags, and a couple of the scenes seem unnecessary. Despite this, Lynch is able to create moments of brilliance. I once heard James Stewart talk about how movies are made great by great moments. There seems to be some truth in this. It is these moments that make “The Elephant Man” a great movie.

The greatest moment is the ending scene. I will not spoil it because I want you to watch the movie. I will only note that Lynch uses Samuel Barber’s “Adagio For Strings” perfectly in the last scene. The piece itself accounts for much of the power of its power. What Lynch does best in the movie is his highlighting Merrick’s desire to be treated like a human. John Merrick’s beautiful and almost pitiful line captures this. “I am not an elephant. I am not an animal. I am a human being. I am a man.”

These lines capture the theme of the film. Its simplicity is quite beautiful. The story is nearly unbelievable. That a human being would have to go through what John Merrick did. The movie is a testament to John Merrick as a man. More importantly, it is a testament to the love of beauty, something John Merrick, despite his pain and apparent ugliness, possessed.

Creating the best-looking jerseys in sports is no easy task. But here are my opinions on which jerseys are the best, worst, and all-time favorite jerseys.

First of all, I am pretty biased towards Philadelphia sports teams. The Phillies’ uniform is pretty phenomenal. I just wish they wouldn’t wear so much dark blue. The Eagles uniform is flawless, except I would prefer to go back to the old kelly green. These iconic jerseys are a throwback, and of late, have been named to return in the 2023 season. What made these jerseys so good was that they looked like the green instead of the “green” we now wear. The Flyers have very lovely jerseys. Sorry, this is yet another unpopular opinion, but orange jerseys are by far the best. On the other hand, the Sixers have the worst jersey of all the big-named Philadelphia teams. There is really nothing special about it. But it does look way better than the ugly black and gold ones we wore in the early 2000s.

Okay, that’s enough about Philadelphia sports teams. As I was saying, any team with an orange jersey normally looks pretty amazing. When I was six years old I was the biggest Baltimore Orioles fan around. Why? They had orange jerseys, and even better they had a big orange bird as their mascot. The Texas Longhorns have in my mind one of the best-looking college football jerseys. As I was doing research for this article, I was reading about the ugliest jerseys and the original Tampa Bay Buccaneers’ was considered one of the worst. When I looked it up, I was surprised. I thought it was one of the coolest orange jerseys I have ever seen. Much nicer than the overly bright red and black they wear today.

There are a few famous jerseys I feel aren’t that amazing. The Los Angeles Laker’s jersey isn’t that great. The purple and gold colors might symbolize royalty, but it just doesn’t strike me as something good. The Green Bay Packer’s green and yellow color scheme is honestly ugly. I don’t know why these colors should ever be together. The Kansas Jay Hawks blue is unbearable to look at. Some teams don’t have ugly jerseys, but they have such unoriginal ones that they should count as terrible. However, a lot of teams do share the same color scheme. Think about how many college sports teams wear red and white or red, white, and blue; yeah, there’s a lot.

After telling you my opinions on the famous sports jerseys in their respective leagues, my all-time favorite is the Netherlands International soccer jersey. This jersey is pure orange from the shirt down to the socks. Not only because of the color, but I am Dutch, which means a lot more. So think about your favorite jersey; what makes it different from the rest?

Sources: Theeagleswire

In 1620, the pilgrims landed in Plymouth, Massachusetts. During their first winter, half of the original 102 passengers died. At this point, they met a native to the continent and a member of the Patuxet tribe named Squanto. Squanto had been captured by an English sea captain and taken to London where he learned to speak English before escaping. Squanto taught the pilgrims many things that proved key to their survival including how to plant corn. He also helped them make an alliance with the local Wamponoag tribe. When the first corn harvest was successful, the pilgrims held a celebratory feast of thanksgiving and invited a group of members of the Wamonoag tribe including the chief Massasoit.

We do not know exactly what was served at this meal. We do know that William Bradford sent four men “fowling” but we do not know what birds they were hunting. The idea of turkey comes about because of the vast number of turkeys in that region. We also know the Wamponoags brought five deer as a gift to the dinner. Besides this, we can assume they ate many crops and vegetables native to the area. We also understand that there would have been no desserts because the pilgrims lacked any kind of oven.

This meal was not called “Thanksgiving,” but the purpose of it was to give thanksgiving to God for what He had provided them with. This meal was by no means “the first thanksgiving”. It is more likely copied off of some European thanksgiving celebration. The meal set a sort of precedent among the new colonies, and it continued to be celebrated in different places throughout the coming years. After the Revolutionary War, multiple presidents dedicated days of thanksgiving. In 1817, New York became the first state to declare an official day of thanksgiving. Finally, in 1863, at the height of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln encouraged the last Thursday in November to be a day of thanksgiving and to pray for the ongoing war effort. Since then, except for a few years during the Great Depression, Thanksgiving has been celebrated on the last Thursday in November.

One of the important things to think about when you celebrate a holiday is, what are you actually celebrating? Put simply, Thanksgiving is a national day where we are encouraged to be thankful. We are also celebrating and remembering the meal that the Wamonoag tribe and the Pilgrims shared together. Some people seem to take offense at this second portion of the holiday. The argument seems to be that it is falsely painting Native American and European relations.

When we celebrate thanksgiving we are celebrating the moment of peace: the meal that was shared between two peoples. We are not denying the war between them, or the atrocious acts of violence. It is a day where we give thanks for the peace we do have. This does not mean things are perfect. They are far from that. But I believe it is healthy in the midst of whatever trial or sad event currently controls your life to stop and to be able to be thankful for one thing you have been blessed with.

Sources: Britannica, History.com

Pineapple Pizza–my ears hurt at its mention. How does that even work? Have you heard of people putting raspberry jam on asparagus? Or caramel on sausages? It is so simple. Fruit does not belong on pizza. Just like vegetables do not belong on ice cream. For example, brussels sprout ice cream would be disgusting.

Most importantly, pineapple pizza goes against the natural order of creation. Creation has set rules. There are such things as universal laws. Things that go up must come down.

In the same way, certain things just don’t mix like water and oil. A lesser known but still important rule is tomato, cheese, and pineapple don’t go together. If you were offered a bowl of smashed tomatoes, melty cheese, and pineapple, would you be ready to scarf down the bowl of tomato, cheese and pineapple goodness?

For some reason, when a person is handed the same combination on a pizza, it is okay. I am here to tell you that it does not belong on pizza!

Every time I see someone eating pineapple pizza, I just sadly shake my head and think, “Poor sad lost soul.” It would be understandable if you thought I was disrespecting Hawaiian culture by saying this, but did you know Hawaiian pizza has nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with Hawaii? It was invented by a Greek born

Canadian, by the name of Sam Panopoulos. Panopoulos invented it in his diner in Canada. I have nothing against this man. I am sure he was a great father and husband. I am sure he worked hard.

I have no doubt he was a wonderful human being. But, why oh why, did he have to come up with such a despicable version of pizza? Here’s my point, the pizza you’re eating, besides tasting lousy, is a lie. It has nothing to do with Hawaii, except for the pineapples, and that is a stereotype.

Pineapples originally came from South America, and many pineapples are still produced there. So, this pizza should be called Canadian pizza because that’s where it was invented. I guarantee, if it was called that, sales would drop 50%. Canadian pizza just doesn’t have the same ring.

They say it is important to put yourself in other people’s shoes, to understand other perspectives. I will try to do this. Why would I, or a person in general, enjoy this pizza? As the completely objective, unbiased person I am pretending to be for the moment, I should be able to think of a reason. Maybe it is because they like tomatoes with pineapple. I somehow doubt this. And I also doubt people like pineapple and cheese together.

The funny thing is the more I think about it the more I can’t think of a reason. Why would somebody want to eat a random bunch of edible items all jumbled together on some crust flatbread? All the people I have asked always say, “I just like it.” However, I haven’t met anyone who can give a reason.

I wonder if it’s kind of like other things people enjoy that make no sense. Soap operas, guacamole, which should be called smashed avocados, WWE, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, communism, cable news, musicals except for the “Sound of Music,” sweet potatoes, a rip off on real potatoes, weightlifting, or working out in general for that matter, late night television and basically most, if not all, pop music fall into this category. Why people enjoy these and about a million other things I don’t know. I guess I will just have to add pineapple pizza to this list.

I want to close by saying if you disagree, please email me. Maybe I will be able to show you your mistake and put you back on the right path. It is never too late to make a change.

Sources: Tasting Table