Yesterday, we were defining 'discrimination'. Or rather, we were discussing the two chief dictionary definitions of this word:

1) The power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgement: "She chose the colours with great discrimination";

2) Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favour of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

After some discussion, we find that definition number one denotes using the power of the mind and five senses - honed with life-long practise - to ultimately discern the correct course of action in a given situation. In this instance, discrimination is a good thing, since your decision is the result of sound judgement and reason.

Definition number two describes 'discrimination' as - to paraphrase - prejudging a person based on his religion, gender, sexual orientation, religion, skin colour, etc. - rather than judging on individual merit. This can either be to the subject's favour, or against him. But this is actually 'indiscrimination', since the person is merely thrown in a pot with the others, in a haphazard fashion. There is no discrimination, here, as the power of discernment is not used. Therefore, this is not actually discrimination.

We can eventually conclude that, in fact, the word 'discrimination' seems to have two very different definitions. One correct and one contradicting of itself and incorrect by definition. So when someone says, "That's discrimination!" - what do they mean?

The other day, a manager friend of mine was lamenting at how he was going to have to convey an order to a Polish-born employee. Not for the first time, he commented on how difficult it was to communicate with the man, whose grasp of English was pretty poor. That's fair enough.

I mentioned how the employing of foreigners who can't speak the language was exactly the same as hiring English people who can't speak full stop, and that it would truly benefit a businessman if, in attempting to fill a role that required the candidate to be able to converse easily, he chose to employ someone with whom he could communicate - whom could speak the language.

"But that's discrimination" was his answer to my comment. But to which definition was he referring? The 'good' (correct) discrimination, or the 'bad' (incorrect) discrimination (indiscrimination)?

Firstly, he IS right. It IS discrimination. If you use definition number one. Using his experience, power of his mind, judgement and reason, the businessman decides that for the job, he needs someone with whom he can communicate easily with. Time is of the essence, and he can't afford to waste it drawing diagrams and gesturing wildly in an attempt to convey a point that would have taken ten seconds with someone that could speak and listen - native or not.

So yes, he is discriminating when he decides not to hire - or keep - the foreigner that he can't communicate with. But he is discriminating on grounds of communication, not nationality. To 'discriminate' against someone because of their nationality is actually not discrimination, because you are not using your powers of discernment in your judgement. In fact, you are not judging at all. Therefore you are being indiscriminate, since you are merely throwing him in a pile with his natives, haphazardly, to paraphrase Dictionary.com's definition - quoted in yesterday's article.

It's time for some more examples of 'discrimination'…

Consider the man who's running a successful law firm. He needs a new lawyer to expand and advance his firm. He interviews two excellent candidates, both equally endowed with the finest credentials needed to be a successful lawyer. One is a man, the other is a woman. After careful thought, he decides to hire the man, on the basis that by his male nature, he's more likely to have the stomach for the position AND there's no chance that he will be leaving the firm temporarily to give birth to a child.

The businessman has used his powers of discernment to weigh up both candidates' potential, and upon concluding that they have the same level of law skill, he has decided to opt for the man since nature has taught him that the man is more befitting the job.

Now, today's climate allows the woman to make a case for discrimination against women, in light of our fictitious employer's choice. But has the businessman discriminated against women? The answer is no. He has used his powers of discernment - discrimination - to determine that out of the two applicants, the man was more suitable. You may say that because the final criterion used in his decision was gender-based, he was 'discriminating' against all women.

But he only had two applicants in front of him. Not three billion. To say he was discriminating against an entire gender would be implying that he had interviewed all three billion of them, used his powers of discernment - discrimination - and concluded that, by individual merit, none of them were suitable for the job.

Of course, he didn't interview all three billion females for the position! So, by definition, he didn't discriminate against women. He discriminated against one woman, using definition number one - which is right.

If the woman is saying the man discriminated against women, what she actually means is that he 'indiscriminated' against women, by means of throwing the woman on a pile with all the other three billion females in an indiscriminate, haphazard fashion. And to be indiscriminate would be to assume that all three billion females are exactly the same. Once again, the man only interviewed one woman.

Had he had more female candidates, he may have found, by careful discernment, a woman vastly superior to the male candidate in law skill - so skilful that her superior ability outweighed her disadvantage of both not having the male stomach for the job and her potential, temporary absence during a possible child-birth. In this instance, in choosing to hire the woman, he would have discriminated for the woman and against the man. Still, only two candidates are involved in this discrimination - not three billion.

Now, using the fictitious law firm example again, imagine that there are ten candidates for the job - all of them male. But nine of them are black, and one of them is white. Suppose, by careful discrimination on grounds of ability, the employer determines that the white man is the best for the job. Suddenly there is a lawsuit on our businessman's desk making a case against racial discrimination.

But what has he done? He has used his life-long-honed skill of discrimination to discern that the white man is better qualified for the job. The fact that the other nine candidates were of a different skin colour is of complete coincidence. The employer did discriminate against the other nine men - but on grounds of ability, not skin colour.

To wail that he had racially discriminated against black people would be to maintain that he had interviewed every black person alive and discerned - by discrimination - that they were all unsuitable for the job, on grounds of ability. The 'anti-racists' cries of discrimination are, therefore, of indiscrimination, since no discernment or discrimination could have occurred in the act of haphazardly throwing a man on a pile just because of his skin colour.

I should point out that I'm not a fan of labelling people into 'races', organised by skin colour. There is only one race and that is the human race. No one is equal, and no one should be treated equally, since we are all different. Everyone should be judged on their individual merit. Yet job application forms nearly always come with the 'Ethnic Monitoring' box at the end, which is supposedly, ultimately, for the good of society. But the very act of taking numbers and figures to form quotas is implying that skin colour, religion, etc. matter. It is irrelevant. All that matters is ability and philosophy.

Imagine a man needs to hire someone to operate a lighthouse. Is it wrong for him to put in the advert that "Only full-sighted applicants should apply"? Is it right that he should be taken to court and morally stripped for allegedly attacking an entire demographic when, in reality, he was merely looking for an applicant with the physical traits NEEDED for the successful undertaking of the position and ultimate expansion of his business via the best bang for his buck?

Suppose a man is looking to build a team of philosophers charged with the task of creating a coaching program teaching within a specific philosophy. He requires the candidates to be atheists, since the philosophy that the program will be built around centres on the rebuttal of religion. Is he morally wrong for excluding religious candidates from interviews?

In most cases of 'discrimination', you can bet that no prejudging (non-judging) has taken place. Decisions have been made by careful discernment and discrimination based on ability or philosophy. This is discrimination of a good kind. To prejudge and 'discriminate' against someone because of their skin colour, disability, religion, etc., is NOT discrimination, since no judgement has actually occurred. The arbitrary decision that occurs on grounds of skin colour and religion is 'indiscrimination', or prejudging. This is what is morally wrong. But, sadly, all too often, indiscrimination (prejudging) is confused with discrimination (judging).

The growth of ridiculous anti-human laws has led to the invention of the nanny state. This has spawned the compensation culture we live in, which invites the innumerable 'No Win No Fee' law firms to entice and compensate those poor victims of life to spend their never-to-be-reclaimed life-hours battling those that apparently made their life a hardship.

The only real winners, here, are the law courts - for upholding these disgusting laws, the 'No Win No Fee' firms - for riding the wave of those disgusting laws, and the successful claimants - when winning the money off those nasty producers. The losers are invariably those that produced and gave opportunity to the humans that made their own decision to partake in the event or situation for which they are claiming compensation.

But in reality, they are all losers. Evil begets evil. Weak begets weak. Brain-dead begets brain-dead. Un-hindered, the evil, weak and brain-dead would eventually end-up eating itself.

So who really wins? As for the good, it can't operate within structures built by the evil. It requires the good to defeat the evil, to ultimately destroy the structure. Only then has the good won.

The power, my friend, is in completely the wrong hands. The time has come to reclaim it. Before it's too late…

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

Ah yes. Discrimination. One of the buzzwords of modern day society. And yet, it has become one of those meaningless words, banded about by the statists, with little more weight than that of a label or a tag for something that they have been coerced into believing is wrong.

The thing is, one of the actual acts that the word 'discrimination' is used to describe is, in reality, morally right. If we take a look at the two definitions of the word that invariably crop up, we'll see there are two sides of the coin. See the two definitions that follow, taken from Dictionary.com.

1) The power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgement: "She chose the colours with great discrimination";

2) Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favour of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

Let's take a look at each of these meanings in turn.

1) The power of making fine distinctions is, I'm sure you'll agree, a good skill to have. It is a learned skill, honed by the exercising of the five senses - sight, smell, hearing, touch and taste - in every life's decision. It is the practising of these senses - and the experience gained therein - that determines your ability to make fine distinctions.

If a candidate stands before two potential employers, it is surely the employer that judges him the quickest that is the more competent at making fine distinctions and, thus, the better man. His practise and experience in using his senses to make decisions has seen him gain a power of discernment that the other man is not equal to. It is because of this that he was able to judge whether or not the candidate before him was ideal, before the other employer had.

The power of discernment - discrimination - is not something a man is born with. Again, like anything, it is a learned skill. The better this skill, the quicker he can make decisions and the more he can accomplish in the time that he has. Surely this is a good thing?

But for a judgement to be sound, the only facets of a person that can come into consideration must be those of ability, since it is ability that determines the level of work, to use the previous example of the candidate standing before two potential employers.

But if the employer has made up his mind on whether or not to employ the candidate before the man has even proved his potential worth in the work-place, then "Surely this is prejudging?" - you say?

The answer is no. The following definition of 'prejudice' from Dictionary.com pays testament to this:

An unfavourable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

Henceforth, the potential employer has not prejudged, as he has not based his decision on a 'feeling'. No, he has judged the candidate to be worthy enough or not of a position in his company based on his power of discrimination, which is measured by his practise and experience with - and skill thereof - his senses.

And how is his skill exercised with his senses, here? The employer feels the strength of the candidate’s handshake: touch. The employer sees the consistency of eye contact and body language: sight. The employer hears the level of voice projection: hearing.

When an employer has ten people to interview for a position - as well as a company to run, he has neither the time nor the money to give a trial to every person. So it is here that his powers of discrimination are crucial. But there is a second definition of our buzzword. Let me break it down.

2) The translation of definition number two of 'discrimination' is basically - to make a distinction for or against someone based on their race (not my word), skin colour, gender, religion, etc, rather than on individual merit, which would be to use definition number one.

Earlier, when explaining point number one, I said that the only facets of a person that can come into consideration must be those of ability, since it is ability that determines the level of work. To judge a man's ability and suitability for a job, by the colour of his skin, is insane. There is surely no scientific proof that the colour of a person's skin determines his effectiveness in the workplace.

Thus, to judge a man's ability based on the colour of his skin, is to have poor powers of discernment, and with it, ineffective discrimination, since the criteria used for judging upon - skin colour - is irrelevant in the measure of a man's ability. So is racial (again, not my word) discrimination actually discrimination? No. In fact, it is indiscrimination, as Dictionary.com once again helps us illustrate:

1) Not discriminating; lacking in care, judgement, selectivity, etc.: indiscriminate in one's friendships;
2) Not discriminate; haphazard; thoughtless: indiscriminate slaughter;
3) Not kept apart or divided; thrown together; jumbled: an indiscriminate combination of colours and styles.

Lacking in care, judgement, selectivity. Thoughtless. Thrown together. This is surely what people mean when they use the term 'discrimination'. To call it 'discrimination' when a man attacks another because of skin colour, is to grant the attacker the compliment of having a mind capable of effective judgement.

To attack another person just because of skin colour is NOT being judgmental. It's just plain brain-dead. It is indiscriminate, NOT discriminate. A person's skin colour is not grounds for discrimination. Simple as that. The only things that are grounds for discrimination belong in the realm of ability.

Now when it comes to religion, gender, disability, nationality, etc, that is another matter which I will write about, tomorrow, as they are all different issues. For now we will leave it there. But I hope you are beginning to see what a fallacy it is to continue to use this word in the way that the power-hungry statists would want us to.

Use your mind. Discriminate. It's good for you.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

So what is your reply to that age-old question, "Does my bum look big in this?" I'll bet your stock answer is, "No, of course not, babe!"

And you're probably not alone. Such is the default stance of people these days to say the accepted and appeasing rather than actually telling the truth, just to remain on side. Telling people what they want to hear may seem like the short-term answer to preserving the status quo, but in the long-term, it spells disaster.

It's a strange example I've used to illustrate my point, yes, but it's a famous one. You're probably wondering what my answer to this question would be, right? Well, needless to say, I'd tell the truth. Objectively, although clothing can enhance certain features of a body, they don't make someone look big or small. If your bum looks big in those jeans, it's because it is big. End of story.

The secret here is to be the kid in the street that calls out the emperor wearing no clothes. You remember the fable, don't you? A couple of dirty, rotten scoundrels show-up at the emperor's palace and convince him that the invisible clothing they are offering him is of a cloth so magnificent, only the noble can see it. "The foolish, on the other hand", they continued, "are 'blind' to its brilliance."

Not wanting to appear a fool, the emperor willingly obliged, and hired the 'tailors' to make him a fine outfit from this magic cloth. Donning his new, noble garments, he strolls though his kingdom, and everyone, not wanting to appear foolish, comments on the beauty his new garb. All is well until he nears a young boy who, on being young enough to be free of any denial of reality, unabashedly exclaims, "Why is the emperor wearing no clothes?"

The moral here, is that people can - and will - pretend to each other, as well as themselves, that something is completely different than it actually is. This distortion of reality can fool you. Your subconscious can believe anything you feed it, if you convince it enough. And the more you lie, the more of a shock it is when you finally come round to acknowledging your reality.

The 'emperor' fable is, of course, a metaphor. You could substitute the emperor's invisible clothes with, say, the smoking ban that was imposed on England in 2007. Before I continue, I should point out that I don't smoke.

The smoking ban was hailed by non-smokers country-wide as being a step toward both freedom for non-smokers and the health of the nation. The 'emperor', here, is the government, the 'smoking ban' is the cloth, and the 'kingdom' is you. I am the kid in the street calling out the emperor wearing no clothes…

How? Because I am the one telling you that the smoking ban was not a step toward freedom. It was yet another step away from freedom. Any law passed that gives, is a step toward freedom. Any law passed that taketh away, is a step away from freedom. I am not denouncing law, full-stop - some laws are good, as they protect man, to keep him free to live. But let me explain when they are not good.

Society is made up of individuals. All of those individuals are vastly different to each other. Some like to surf, some like to ski. Some like football, some like rugby. Some like men, some like women. Some like both and… some like neither. Some like to smoke, some don't.

A law that throws every individual from a group together, with an intent that is good for some and bad for others - is not a step toward freedom, since it is stopping some individuals from doing something they like (in this example, smoking) - by force, as opposed to voluntary action.

The emperor, my friend, is well and truly naked in this one.

Anyway, back to the jeans example. I remember years ago, I was at a seminar, and the speaker put today's opening question out to the audience to find out what our answer would be if we were asked. I stood up and told the speaker that if asked by a woman if her 'bum looked big in a pair of jeans', I'd reply, "Wow! What a pair of shoes that is!"

Of course, I got a few laughs. This is called the 'smokescreen' answer, since its purpose is to distract the person in evasion of answering the original question. The problem with this is, unless you're dealing with a goldfish, they're unlikely to forget their initial question, and it will still stand.

The point of this article though, was to highlight the power of telling the truth. In reality, if asked by a woman if her bum looked bum in a pair of jeans - and it actually did look big in the jeans - I'd tell her, "Yes your bum is big." Ouch! I can feel the cheek-pain from the slap at just the thought!

But consider the alternative. Suppose I lie to her, and tell her bum is fine - for whatever reason (not to upset her, and to preserve an un-slapped face). Suppose I keep lying to her every time she asks me. Eventually, she's going to wind-up with a massive bum, and the realisation that the man she is dating is a weak liar, who's just trying to appease her to keep the peace. This is one sure-fire way to taint a relationship. Does she really want a weakling that can't stand up and tell the truth? Do I really want a girlfriend with a massive bum?

But by telling the truth, the worst that can happen is getting your face slapped. That is the price you pay for being honest, and searching for someone of equal honesty. A slapped face.

But with the slapped face comes the discovery that the person whom you are with cannot handle truth when it doesn't suit them. They are weak and live in self-denial, and would rather live their life pretending that the emperor is dressed in the latest Gucci outfit than strolling around in his birthday suit. If that's the kind of person you want to build a life with, so be it. If not, take your slapped face and get out of there. You are free to live another day.

If you've chosen your partner well, your honesty will get a favourable response - if delayed. They'll be pleased that you picked-up on their gaining weight that they didn't want to gain - and they'll be glad that they have a partner with big balls enough to stand up and tell it like it is. And with your non-stinging cheeks, you'll realise that you have a partner that is as strong and honest as you are.

This article has been a crazy way to explain the virtue of honesty and facing reality, but the premise is the same, no matter how big the issue. The conclusion is - don't fake your reality. You've only got one shot at this life. Don't lie to yourself and waste your existence - tell the truth.

It'll only come back and bite you in the arse. No matter how big it is.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

You've no doubt heard the term, "Choose your friends wisely". But do you actually do that? Where did you meet your current friends? Maybe it was at your place of work, a previous job, or even at school. Sometimes your best friendships can be the ones you've had the longest.

But 'longest' doesn't always mean 'best' - not to be confused with another popular subject. Imagine the person you were at school. Remember what you wanted to be - your goals, dreams, desires. The music you liked, your hobbies and your ambitions all defined whom you were.

At school, I was always a drifter. I remember when I started playing guitar, at thirteen years old. I befriended - and started to hang around with a bunch of guys who also played the guitar and were into the same kind of music as me: rock. We all had the long hair and used to wear the black jeans and the token gothic T-shirts symbolising our hate for the world. And for a while, that was who I was.

Then I realised I'd had enough of that phase, and my identity changed. I stopped spending time with that group of friends and started spending more time with other friends. This happened a few times throughout school, college, early jobs and deep into my adult life - constantly changing identity and swapping-out friends to fit accordingly.

The point is, up until the time where you realise you can actually make your own decisions in life, your friendships are based more on proximity and practicality than compatibility and similarity of purpose and goals.

Is it a good thing to change your identity? Yes it is, if you need to. When you realise who you are, where you are going in life, and how your identity is defined by it, you may be happy with that realisation, or not. You may realise that, actually, what you want in your life is completely different to what you first thought.

And when this happens, you'll discern that the person you are - your identity - is not congruent with your goals. So you then have to change your self, and mould your character into the person that is going to ultimately achieve the goals you want in the pursual of your purpose.

It's exciting stuff. I went through many identity changes until, at twenty-nine, I eventually discovered what I wanted to do with my life after opening many doors. That's twenty-nine years old. Not sixteen. Thirteen years after choosing my A Level courses at college which, looking back now, are completely incongruent with my purpose.

Anyway, to get back to the point of this article, the person you are now may be vastly different from the person you were at school. The same goes for your school friends. So if you are still close friends with your school friends - and by 'close', I mean you spend time with each other every week - have you both really changed since school?

And maybe you both have changed, and you've followed the exact same path in life, toward the same ultimate goal. Or maybe you both haven't changed, and you are both still on the same exact path that you were both on at school.

Either way, this is called coincidence, or influence. To explain, let's use a fictitious example. At school, you were best friends with someone. One day, you decide you want to become a professional tennis player. It becomes your purpose in life. You practise and play at every opportunity you get.

And your best friend also makes that same decision, playing tennis with a view to becoming a professional. Now, did your friend also decide to become a professional tennis player - as influenced by you (which is fine if that's what they really wanted to do)? Or was it just a coincidence that they started to play, too.

Either way, you both decided to become a professional tennis player, and hence your purpose is the same. Your friendship is compatible and beneficial to each of your purposes, since they are exactly the same.

But let's say that after you decided to become a professional tennis player, at school, your friend realised that he wanted to be something different in life. One of two things can happen. You can go your separate ways, since the time you once used to spend together is now taken-up with the pursual of your respective purposes (likewise, the time you do spend together is strained, since it's harder to relate to one another with your both now having different and incompatible goals.)

Or, you may still stay best friends. This may be a good thing or a bad thing. It really depends on how much time you spend together and how that time is spent. The question is, is it beneficial to your own purpose and life by keeping a friendship going just for the sake of longevity, if it is taking your energy away from your actual desired goals?

I have ultimately, unabashedly chosen my current friends based on the value they offer me and my purpose. They fit. That's honouring them, since it confirms they have values that I hold high. I have had many friends fallen by the wayside - some that were close. To have stayed friends with them would have been lying to them and to myself. That would be disrespecting myself and my purpose in life. I don't have time for that. Life's too precious.

Take a look at your friends. Would you swap any of them out, if you could? Yes? So what's stopping you? To stay friends with someone just because you've known each other for a long time is criminal. It's fake. It's lying to yourself, and it's lying to your friend. It's completely disrespecting your existence and purpose.

And that's just not being a humanpreneur.

Time for a clearout, maybe..?

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

So today is St. Valentine's Day. The shops are full of teddies, balloons and big red cards. But do you actually know what it all means? I'll bet you don't. But I bet you still celebrate it, don't you? Thought so.

Now, I don't know what it means, either. I've never been interested enough to find out. In fact, now, I don't even celebrate it. Call me a scrooge, call me unromantic, call me boring - but I don't need a special day in the calendar to tell me when it's time for me to tell a girl how I feel about her. You see, I am spontaneous when it comes to romance.

And it's the little, original things that keep a romantic relationship strong. The little notes left in the lunch box, the dirty little text messgaes, the shirt ironed for you. But consider this loving couple. They both have busy lives. They both work, they both have active social lives. Consequently, they don't spend a lot of time on romance, or passion, or fire. The relationship seems incidental to their lives.

So when the festive holidays or Valentines Day roll around, suddenly they're reminded that they're actually in a romantic relationship with each other. They suddenly remember that there were bigger reasons for their courtship than mere proximity, companionship and business-like sex.

The shops are stocked full of red delights: cards big enough to be cupboard doors, teddies that take up a whole bed, balloons galore - anything you want in any colour you want, as long as it's red. The couple, separately, while walking past a garishly-decorated shop window on their lunch break, think, "Ah! While I'm here, I'll pop in and get a card for my other half." They leave with a bag full of goodies, and their work is done for another year.

That's not love. The couple think, "Oh well, at least they got me a card - they must love me." But love is more than a word, and it's more than a reminder of that word. Love is a doing word. And true love is earned. It's a reward. So it's a trade-off. Someone shows their excellent qualities to you, and you reward them with your love.

And, as a corollary, rewarding someone for their bad behaviour is, obviously, a bad idea. Would you give a dog a bone if it ate a chunk out of your sofa? No, of course you wouldn't, because if you did, he'd think, "Okay, every time I bite the sofa, I get treats!" You'd soon be sofa-less.

So why do people act differently when it concerns humans? Why do people think that love from others is a given? Unconditional? What makes people think that they can be a useless lover/child/parent/sibling/friend, safe in the knowledge that it’ll soon all be forgotten and themselves, forgiven? The answer is prevalent in today's society in many forms: film, music, advertising, shop windows, etc.

The basic message being preached is: treat your loved ones badly - it's okay if you do because they'll forgive you. Because to err is human, to forgive is divine. True love is unconditional, and the forgiving of sins is the demonstration of that.

Excellent. So for how long exactly is it okay for someone to be a rubbish human being and be rewarded for it? "As long as shops are full of big cards and teddies" is their answer. And there lies another example of the sub-human way of living that is being taught to society from birth. And therein lies another example of my reason for this project.

I'll say it again – true love is earned. It's constant. It's shown in how you live, and it's rewarded as such. It's who you are. A big red card once a year is NOT love. That's forgetting what love is, and then remembering that you were supposed to show it, and then stating it in black and white on card as proof of the non existent love in hope that you will be given a year's extension to your contract of love.

No. True love is being proud of who you are, of loving yourself, of respecting yourself, of being a bullet-proof giant who doesn't have time for dishonesty and fake, and whose vivaciousness is repelling to the evil, and attractive to the good.

Love is the rewarding of - and the reward for - being selfish. The man that loves his life enough to fill it with good people, by virtue of him keeping those people in his life, is loving them, and their place in his life is guaranteed by virtue of their loving their own lives.

It sounds complicated, but it's simple, actually. Be selfish. Love yourself. Get yourself a Valentines Card. For every day of the year.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens