The Wayfarer Philosophy

Veteran’s Day really symbolizes the sentiments that we should share with those who served in the military every day. If you see someone in uniform, just simply say, “I appreciate your service to our country.” Even if you don’t politically agree with the wars, we need to support those who are risking their lives for us. It’s not hard to do, and people who show their appreciation can make a big difference to the morale of those who serve.

If Barack Obama wants to show his appreciation to the military, he doesn’t need to get out the teleprompter and run off another daily speech of sweeping generalities. All he needs to do is make a decision. Right now, we have troops in Afghanistan that either need more support or need to be taken out. If they’re just going to sit there and be at un-necessary risk because they are out-numbered and lack support they are just being hung out to dry and die. In March, 2009, Obama announced that he and his team had “put together a comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan.” Afghanistan is the war that even Obama describes as a justified war. Given that, and that the commander who he selected and put in charge of the war has reported that we need 40,000 more troops to support the troops that are there, I think he owes the military some swift decision making.

Yet, on this Veteran’s Day, Barack Obama is still undecided about whether he will take the advice of his hand-picked commander or not. The White House says that a decision will not be made before his 8 day trip to Asia. Of course, it was said before that a decision would not be made before the elections in Afghanistan. Now that that race is decided, another time line is set. Basically, Obama’s strategy is to delay and keep our troops hanging in the balance. Obama only seems to have courage when he’s attacking Fox News, but when it comes to real decision making, he’s only concerned about keeping the far left happy without pissing off the rest of the country too much that they revolt. It’s simple for us to show our appreciation to the military with kind words, but the Commander in Chief has a higher order to fill.  He’s their leader, he needs to show some leadership.

You know how Google frequently commemorates important dates by having a specially-designed logo that is relevant to the day or holiday? Hmmmmm… maybe they forgot that 8 years ago 3,000 innocent Americans lost their lives in New York City, western Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC. Apparently, 9-11-2001 was not an important enough day to memorialize on 9-11+2009. Their logo remained un-decorated today.

://

Don’t you think that at least some gesture to memorialize the people who last their lives that day would be appropriate? Is it that they forgot? Or is it worse? Maybe they just decided not to do it. Apparently, what happened that day was not as important as International Tetris Day, whicvh they commemorated during the 65th anniversary of the D-day invasion. I know it was war, and people do not like to think about war, but it was the day when the allies started to push back against the Nazi empire. Isn’t that a good thing?

I believe that 9-11 could be recognized in some inoffensive way that paid respect to the families who lost loved ones that day. After all, it was the most horrific attack on American civilians in the history of this country. apparently, it’s not as important as Tetris.

The Liberal Approach to Race as I See it

The United States has had a history tarred by racism and slavery. Yet, history has shown that the United States has played an important role in crusading against worldwide racism and in leading the way toward maintaining a society that is quite diverse that has only grown and improved in promoting equality. In modern days, the liberal end of the Democratic party has been characterizing itself as completely and totally responsible for the advancement of equality in our society. If we look at the present day, however, I feel that the liberal end of the spectrum is actually holding back equality and more importantly, individualism and liberty.

Affirmative “Racist” Action

We are led to believe that Affirmative Action promotes diversity and helps to right the wrongs in racial affairs in our society. I believe that holding people back based on their race, sex, and religion is wrong and is a direct violation of the U.S. constitution. Efforts to make sure discrimination does not affect hiring int he workplace and acceptance to academic institutions are noble and in line with the constitution and the 14th amendment. Yet I question Affirmative Action’s role in achieving this, since it really seems to achieve the exact opposite of taking discrimination out of the process of pursuing opportunity.

Affirmative Action is, in and of itself, a control system of opportunity based on the race, sex, and religion of the individual. Affirmitive Action holds back certain groups in order to promote others. It derives from the liberal philosophy that in order to help some, you need to hurt others. Quotas and and standards for equal opportunity should not be employed as techniques for selectively providing opporunity. Opportunity should be an open field by which individuals achieve success based on their own actions and deeds, not the government’s control over who “deserves” what.

Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s selection for the U.S. Supreme Court is, in her own words, “a child of affirmative action.” In the video below she describes how she would not have gotten into Princeton without it. Basically, her merits and academic scholarship was not good enough. She needed “extra help” to achieve acceptance. She defends this favoritism and racism in the selection process as justifiable because tests are racially biased. Hmmmm.. so is she saying that certain races and ethnic groups are “less capable” of succeeding on math, history, language, and analytical exams? Is she saying that certain groups deserve a pass on the achievement processes like exams because the exams are comprised of secret questions that only white people know?

I beleive that the inherent liberal philosophy in Affirmative Action that certain groups are less capable than others is a form of prejudice. Yet, this prejudice gains a lot of acceptance in these racial and ethnic groups because they want the advantages and special treatment that Affirmative Action grants. Yet, this special favoritism should be taken as an insult against one’s inherent equality of ability. It also plays a role in holding others back. Basically, you have to hurt some to help others in liberal philosophy because anyone who does not qualify for favoritism gets treated with the opposite, prejudice.

antagonizing the Races

Barack Obama, our community organizer in chief, is playing an important role in the next topic. Community organizers typically play a role in stirring up racial anger and the competition between different groups rather than competition between individuals. The recent controversy between Henry Gates, Harvard Professor and friend of Obama’s, and the Cambridge police is a good example of this.

Basically, when called to Henry Gates’ residence because there was a phone call to the police that two individuals were seen trying to break into the house, Sergeant Crowley of the Cambridge police unit came out to Gates’ home to investigate the report. Gates immediately acted angrily and accused Crowley as racist just ofr showing up. Throughout the whole incident, Gates was racially baiting Crowley while Crowley waws just trying to make sure that there was no break-in and that Gates really lived there.

After Crowley checked the ID and was on his way out, Gates persisted with his screaming and yelling calling Crowley racist and refusing to calm down and behave like an adult. This situation escalated as Gates came outside and was screaming and yelling at the polic officers that were outside int he front lawn. All the passers-by and observers confirm that the police did not act in any problematic way, and that Gates was the real troublemaker with his behavior.

After repeated warnings about disorderly conduct, the polic eventually arrested Gates because he would not cease his tantrum. Basically, Gates got what he wanted. He got taken into the police station sot aht he could raise complaints about being mis-treated due to race. Yet, at the police station, charges were dropped. Basically, Gates was given a slap on the wrist to teach him a lesson about screaming and yelling at police officers in public. Also, the police took issue with Gates’ accusations of racism. The black and Hispanic officers that were present had no problem with Sergeant Crowley’s conduct and confirm that there was no profiling or racism displayed by the police.

Enter our President, Barack Obama, who felt it was his duty to get involved in the issue during his Government Health Plan speech last Wednesday. When asked about the situation, Obama stated that he was a friend of Henry “Skip” Gates, he didn’t know the details of what happened, but that the police officers behaved “stupidly” and there was a good chance that racial profiling took place. Nice, he doesn’t know the facts, he’s a friend of Gates, and the police officers were stupid. How classy and informed. Obama basically put his community agitator cap on and jumped in the water to amplify the issue. Note to Obama, profiling is when someone is picked out by a police officer due to their race or ethnicity. If the police were called by a neighbor, they were not profiling, because they were responding to a call.

A slight backtrack, but not really an apology. so now, tonight we have a “beer summit” between Gates, Crowley, and Obama who will try to come to some sort of resolution of this issue. This is a nice example of photo-op politics. I’m glad we have Barack Obama to settle our race issues for us. Too bad he engaged in the racial agitation to begin with. None of the observers at the event saw any example of racism, including those who were black and Hispanic. The only ones playing the race drum beat with regard to this issue are Barack obama, “Skip” Gates, and Al Sharpton. Yep, our post0racial President is now playing the role of Al Sharpton. do we need Al Sharpton anymore now that we have a racial agitator int he White House?

Categories and Opinion Control

Another way in which the liberal mentality perpetuates racism is in the areas of category0making and opinion-control. Liberals define the opinions and the categories of racial and ethnic groups in order to keep them dependent and in-line with the liberal politicans, so that they become reliable votes come election day. Basically, liberals strive to define the opinions of racial and ethnic groups thereby eliminating individual thought, the essential freedom of any person.

Take, for example, liberal senator, Barbera Boxer of California. In this hearing where she was hearing from Harry Alford of the Black Chamber of Commerce, she basically argued against his disagreement with the Cap and Trade tax by telling him about other black groups and black people who agree with the tax as her sole argument against him. Basically, being black means that Alford and the Black Chamber of Commerce should just fall in line with liberal black groups. this was her whole argument! Alford, quite correctly stated that this approach was a racist move. African Americans and groups dedicated to commerce have the right to their own opinions about economic and energy issues. There is no rule to fall in line with lbieral opinion based on race. Harry Alford was correct in his assessment of Boxer’s technique in trying to invalidate the opinion of the Black Chamber of Commerce based on racial categorization and opinion control.

Concluding Thoughts

While race and ethnicity are evident truths about a person, we are not going to advance as a society so long as we are categorized, controlled, and manipulated based on race and ethnicity by our government. Liberal politicians use dependency to own peoples’ ideas and rule their vote. This is a form of slavery in and of itself. Until we recognize people as individuals first and racial members second, we will be perpetuating this mentality. People are people first!

Well, the inherent racism in affirmative action took a hit today. While the left-wingers and the Civil Racist Rights Industry (Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) are obviously upset with the decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in the Ricci case that hiring and promotion can be decided by the merits of the applicants as opposed to selecting by race. Jackson and Sharpton may take a little while to comment, as they are currently busy trying to make money off of stirring up racial unrest over the Michael Jackson death. The decision was 5 to 4, so it was close, but at least racism lost. There are strong Civil Rights leaders, but these two gentlemen are not concerned with equal rights for everybody, but the lining of their own pockets off of the emotions of the emotions of people. You’ve probably heard about the case, but I’ll quickly summarize.

20 firefighters that were all Caucasian, except for one Hispanic passed the exam to become Lieutenants. The local government in Connecticut, however, threw out the results of the exams because no African Americans passed. Now, unless the exam had secret questions on it that only white people would know, we could pretty much assume that the people who passed were the people who studied harder and passed it. The Affirmative Racist movement, however, believes that merits and equation have no place in hiring, it must be based on racial quotas.

Supreme Court Appointee, Sonia Sotomayor Afrees with Affirmative Racism

So, she is basically proud that Affirmative Racism allowed her to get into Princeton despite her actual academic performance. This is apparently the way she will judge too. In her Appeals court decision, she turned down the Ricci case in favor of the local government’s decision to through out their own exam and hire based on color. I seem to remember that Judge Sotomayor once said that a wise, Latina woman would come to a better decision than a white man in judging. Hmmm… if she is superior to white men, why did she need Affirmative Racism to get her into Princeton?

Affirmative Action (Racism) should be an insult to ethnic minorities

I don’t know if I agree with everything from Dr. Manning, but he makes some very interesting points. By wanting race-based quotas to determine hiring in the workplace and acceptance or scholarships in college, one is basically stating that certain ethnic, racial, and sex-based determinations are necessary to give favoritism because these beneficiaries would not be able to succeed on their own merits. So, the left-wing and Cybil Racist Rights Industries buy votes by promoting favoritism. The cost is that academic merits do not count. The other cost is that people who want and accept such favoritism are basically saying that they ARE unequal in needing UNEQUAL HELP.

Sonia Sotomayor seems to be proud of being “unequal” in her mind and proud to accept and hand out favoritism.

I thought justice was supposed to be blind. Apparently not. It’s supposed to be biased according to Sotomayor.

All of us who use the internet know that when important, or even not so important dates come up, Google shows respect for these occasions by manipulating their logo for the event. This past Saturday, June 6th 2009, Google seemed to forget about the 65th Anniversary of D-Day. Apparently, the taking back of Europe from Nazi control was not important enough. Instead, Google felt it was more important to recognize International Tetris Day.

I guess all those veterans from U.S., U.K., French, and Canadian forces that re-took Europe from Adolf Hitler aren’t important enough to Google. Hmmm.. all those who died for liberty and all those who suffered in concentration camps aren’t as valuable as a computer game? I don’t think that Google actually thinks this…. but the fact that they didn’t even think about it is ridiculous. We’re losing our appreciation for what we have in the free world folks.

In this modern era of turning one’s back on tradition and history, there is one area especially where this back turning is purely selfish and evil. People in the United States of America do not appreciate what they have and they do not appreciate those who have protected and defended what we have.

War is a horrible thing, and we all know it. Unfortunately, this leads many to despise those who have served in the military to defend our freedoms. They look upon Memorial Day and Independence Day as tired old traditions that do not serve their interests in a modern era of peace. This kind of thinking is akin to living in a bubble where there are no hostile foresees and interests in the world. Not only this, but it also means turning your back on the truth that without those who have risked and sacrificed their lives for this country and the unescapable fact that their sacrifices were necessary in preserving the nation.

It sickens me that so many people in this country let their bleeding hearts bleed in pity for terrorists who want to kill every last one of us for being made uncomfortable from water boarding, but turn their backs on those who gave their lives to preserve our nation. You stand up for those who want to kill you and turn your back in disrespect to those who have given their lives for you? This is the ultimate in in selfishness, complacency, and yes, evil.

The fourth, fifth, and sixth principles of a Modern Wayfarer are strongly related to one another as well as the overall philosophy. These principles deal with the pursuit of knowledge. The sixth principle certifies why the pursuit of knowledge is so import. For it is the pursuit of knowledge through one’s life experience that defines one’s understanding of reality and the role of life within it.

6th Principle

Our daily life experiences are important teachers on our path.

This principle is rather obvious, but as we go throughout our lives, it is surprising how we learn to ignore what is inherently true for the sake of ideologies that we lock on to. From the moment of birth through our early childhood, our family and surrounding environment are the influences on our development. All the knowledge that we acquire during our early stages of development come from our surroundings. We acquire this knowledge without even knowing that we are learning.

If a child is raised by wolves, then this individual develops without the learning of language. The learning of language, morality, and survival skills come about from our experience of our early childhood reality. The same can said be true as we grow older, but we soon develop the ability to choose what beliefs we choose to accept. This switch to a stage of choosing our reality is an important one. We choose to block ideas or open to ideas based on our power of choice.

5th Principles

The path to knowledge necessitates a journey illuminated by self-honesty and the pursuit of truth.

As we proceed in our early adult lives, this new power of choice becomes extremely important to us. It is key to understand that what it really is is a choice. Yet, during adolescence, we often see it as a definition of ourselves. We choose to embrace the morality and lessons of our family or we choose to rebel in an effort to define ourselves to other people. Peer pressure and popularity are mistakenly assumed as very important at this time in influencing our choices in what we accept as true, false, or undecided. In this way, our surroundings are still defining ourselves, although, really, we are old enough to be aware of it.

During this stage of development, defining ourselves is heavily influenced by the opinions of others, and we align ourselves with those we want to be with. Rather than selecting the knowledge we choose to accept based upon our own honest evaluation of it, we often choose it based on the peers we wish to align ourselves with. This is a dangerous road, but down this path the value of learning this very lesson is possible and of the utmost importance.

4th Principle

One must honesty take responsibility for his or her own actions.

The individuals pursuit of knowledge is inherently tied with self-knowledge. In order to pursue honest knowledge, one must continually evaluate his or her own method for pursuing knowledge. One should continually ask oneself, “Why do I believe this as fact?” In order to do this properly, one needs to be honest with oneself and take responsibility for actions and decisions. For if we lie to ourselves about what we do and what we say, we cannot have an honest evaluation of our internal decision making.

Seeing how our pursuit of knowledge is a pursuit of choices, how can we be pursuing truth if we are not honest with ourselves about our reasons for making the choices in what we let in to our consciousness and what we filter out?

The poorly named, Freedom of Choice Act, goes way too far. This act should even disgust most reasonable pro-choice people. This goes way beyond a woman’s right to choose. The grey area as to when life begins is no longer relevant, this legislation completely supports murder.

While I have wobbled on the issue of pro-life/choice throughout my life, even during the times that I felt I was pro-choice I would never have supported this kind of legislation, and those who are pro-choice, who I would now respectfully disagree with being pro-life finally, I would think should have no question how this measure goes too far

Here is what the Freedom to Kill Babies Act Supports

It used to be that pro-choice people would support the legalization of abortion, but still admit it should be avoided and kept at a minimum. Now that’s out the window because the Liberal Democrats want to make abortions at any time completely legal even at the point of birth with taxpayers paying for it! This is in addition to the executive order that Barack Obama reversed pertaining to our taxpayer dollars funding abortions in foreign countries. During an economic downturn, even a pro-choice advocate should be able to see that this country cannot afford paying for other countries’ abortions!

Barack Obama says he supports this legislation. So let’s try to be nice to terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, but let’s kill innocent babies!

1st Principle

Self reliance and independence is essential to the freedom of the individual both in body and mind.

The first three principles deal with an essential part of freedom in the modern world. In the modern world, work and remuneration for work is the main way for one to provide for himself, herself, or the family. One must resist the temptation become dependent upon others and society as a whole. When one is dependent, then the options become slim in choices. If you are dependent on the government, then you are dependent on the way your elected officials vote. Is this any way to live? Do we need to have an “entitlement society” where we depend on others to help us? Of course society needs to have options for helping people to help themselves. The eye should always be on becoming self-sufficient.

If you become dependent, then you will always be dependent. if you take advantage of government services to become independent, then you take on the ability to further yourself as well as others. You free up resources to those who need it like you did. You encounter the strength to employ others and help them. Those who are incapable of working are a different subject. The question is, do you really consider yourself incapable?

2nd Principle

Giving out of generosity should be done without expecting something in return.

This is not just a personal ideal that most people could believe in, but it is also a life principle. When you give, do not expect something for it. There is a difference between giving and buying. When you buy, you expect something for what you have purchased. When you give, expect nothing in return. When we pay taxes, we are actually purchasing, not giving. It is also a requirement of our government to pay taxes. Therefore, we can expect to have our voices heard in return.

3rd Principle

Receiving the generosity of others should not be expected, but should be appreciated and returned to others.

This principle is strongly related to the second principle, but still falls under the hierarchy of principle 1. Basically, when generosity is extended to you, you should pass on that generosity to others and appreciate your received generosity in that way. In terms of government, when the government helps you, you are not receiving a gift, you are receiving a purchase. What society is purchasing from you is your own potential to become a self-sufficient person. When you become self-sufficient, then you can pass on that opportunity to others. if you maintain a position of dependence, you are not appreciating that which has been given to you on trust. We cannot look at the government as some endless supply of giving that we can take advantage of. We need to look at it as a purchase of responsibility from society to us. Use what you are given in trust to become a stronger, self-sufficient person. Then you can pass the opportunity on to others. Government money is not limit-less, opportunity that you achieve on your own IS limit-less.

Independence (what we call freedom) is the opposite of dependence.

Due to a request, or more aptly, a challenge from one of the commentators on this blog, I am
providing evidence of the Secular Progressive (or Secular Liberal Atheist) actions against the traditional celebration of Christmas. This will not be the only post in this subject. There will be more to come.

Excerpts from “A lull in the war on Christmas,” an article written by M.Z. Hemingway in the L.A. Times on December 4, 2006. This article refers to how 2006 was less active than the previous two years in the back and forth about whether or not Christmas should be openly celebrated or kept inside the homes of Christians. Apparently, Christmas lights, Santa Claus, candy canes, and snowflakes while being secular Christmas imagery, is still a little too much for Secular Progressives.

I am including the article in its entirety. While my points focused more on some of these areas than others, the thought that there really was no controversy to begin with is rather empty. The SP or SLA (I do not know which term is more politically correct) agenda has a mission to try and keep their protests and controversies quiet. That way they can impose their secular initiatives without people noticing before so much of the secularization has already taken place in law. The moderate view of not being pissed off about Christmas is in the majority within this country, but a lot can change while you are sleeping.

IT JUST DOESN’T seem like Christmas this year — because there have been so few stories in the media about how the holiday is under siege by secular progressives. Some irony-deficient Chicago officials refused to allow advertising for "The Nativity Story" at the city’s annual Christkindlmarket, an open-air re-creation of a European village. And Seattle-Tacoma International Airport’s staff removed — then replaced — more than a dozen Christmas trees after a rabbi threatened to sue if a menorah wasn’t included in the display. But, by and large, it’s been a quiet season.

The Christmas wars were inescapable in 2005. The American Family Assn., a pro-family Christian group, led a boycott of Target because of its reputed refusal to use the word "Christmas" in its advertising and store promotions. Other Christian organizations criticized Macy’s and Wal-Mart for favoring the generic "Happy Holidays" greeting over "Merry Christmas." (This year, the retailers returned to Christmas-specific language in their sales signs and promotions.) Fox News, CNN and MSNBC aired numerous stories about secularist grinches.

The salvos between politically correct busybodies and pious protesters in 2004 were equally intense. Denver prohibited a church group from participating in its annual Parade of Lights because it wanted to sing Christmas songs; a New Jersey high school barred its band from playing religious-themed Christmas music; a Kansas newspaper published a correction apologizing for calling a Community Tree a Christmas Tree; and a priest got in trouble for telling kindergartners that Jesus — not Santa — was the reason for Christmas.

But the war on Christmas didn’t start in 2004 either. In fact, it’s been ebbing and flowing for centuries wherever Christianity is practiced — and especially in the United States. Debating how — or even whether — to celebrate Christmas seems to be one of Americans’ favorite pastimes.

Although commonly perceived as a secular versus religious debate, the earliest Christmas wars were interdenominational battles. Some Protestants rejected holy days such as Christmas because they were not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, while Anglicans, Lutherans and Roman Catholics retained the liturgical calendar. By the time secularists targeted Christmas in the 20th century, the interdenominational battles were over, and virtually all Christians adopted Christmas as a holy day.

From the beginning, Mayflower Pilgrims didn’t mark Christmas, considering it "diabolical" because its celebration was encouraged by their enemy, the pope. The Puritans’ political influence was so strong in Massachusetts that the commonwealth banned the holiday’s observance until 1681. Meanwhile, Roman Catholics in Maryland, Anglicans in Virginia and Lutherans in Pennsylvania celebrated Christmas.

Interdenominational disagreements and language barriers prevented the development of any broad consensus on how to celebrate the holiday. But in the early 19th century, businessmen and religious leaders began calling for a wider and more public observance of Christmas. Quakers, Congregationalists and Calvinists still balked at marking the day because of its commercialism and revelry. But acceptance of the holiday haltingly grew. By 1860, 16 of 33 states legally recognized Christmas. It took another 10 years before Congress made it a federal holiday.

But the debate over how much religious content should be in the celebration of Christmas continued. Liturgical Christians regarded the day as sacred because they believed it marked God’s incarnation in Jesus. But the Baptist Teacher, a Sunday school periodical, editorialized in 1875: "We believe in Christmas — not as a holy day but as a holiday…. Stripped as it ought to be, of all pretensions of religious sanctity and simply regarded as a social and domestic institution." Ironically, modern-day Baptists would excoriate any newspaper that published such an editorial.

The emergence of Santa Claus as central to Christmas in the 19th century caused great consternation among many religious Americans. "This Santa Claus folly has infected family life, literature, church services, everything almost, at this season," wrote one Lutheran critic in 1883. That same year, however, George William Curtis, a founder of the Republican Party and political editor of Harper’s Weekly, published a piece thanking the Puritans for stripping Christmas of its theological foundations. Christmas "could not be the most beautiful of festivals if it were doctrinal, or dogmatic, or theological, or local," he wrote.

In the early 20th century, New York City’s Committee on Elementary Schools urged that Christmas carols be banned in classrooms after 20,000 Jewish students boycotted classes in protest. Some movies in the 1940s, including "Miracle on 34th Street" and "It’s a Wonderful Life," introduced a nonreligious iconography that secular and religious Americans could unite behind. In the late 1950s, the John Birch Society issued tracts accusing godless communists of waging war on Christmas.

Before the fighting picked up again in 2004, school administrators, fearful of lawsuits, banned every Bach cantata sung at a public school in 2001, and secularists began winning battles in court against the exclusive display of creches in the public square. Pro-Christmas forces responded with "Jesus Is the Reason for the Season" and "Put Christ Back in Christmas" rallying cries, leading us to where we are today.

The relative absence of yuletide battles this year hardly means a truce has been declared. Judging by history, they will soon return to let us know it’s the season.

It Does Exist

Yes there are heightened tensions over Christmas, and yes, there are people out there, SLA’s or SP’s, that want to reduce the amount of Christmas that is celebrated. We do not hear outcries from Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists within this country to reduce the amount of Santa Clauses roaming around, it is mostly being protested by angry atheists who just really do not like conservatives and religious people, so everything gets screwed for the moderates that just want to enjoy the season.