By Sarah Taylor

“This is a card of a happy person, someone gentle rather than passive, calm rather than weak. She is happy for she lives her life in beauty. Like the Son, the Daughter of Wands is sensual, she delights in sex. She is devoted to her partner, without losing her sense of herself.” [From “The Haindl Tarot: The Minor Arcana” by Rachel Pollack]

Princess of Wands, Ace of Cups, Ten of Stones from the Haindl Tarot deck, created by Hermann Haindl. Click on the image for a larger version.

These words describe the first card in today’s reading — the card on the left: the Princess [or Page] of Wands.

This is the foundational card to the story that is unfolding in front of you. She is a foundational part of you, too; possibly another person who recently played a part in your life, also. Either way, this person or aspect is young, or young-at-heart. She is playful, without shame, free from the trappings of judgment or expectation that weigh more heavily when we become aware of ‘shoulds’ or ‘musts’.

If the words “Just too dang much!” were directed at you when you were younger — or even now that you’re (supposed to be) a little older and wiser — then you can probably relate to the Princess of Wands’ joie de vivre, and perhaps also the effect that it can sometimes have on others. Those others who may not be feeling the flames of enthusiasm licking at them. Those same ones who feel compelled to tamp those flames in others for fear of the impact of their own. To tamp them in you, perhaps?

When did someone shame you for your flame?

Come to think of it, it works the other way too: when did someone flame you for your shame? Is there not the freedom to feel, and to have that feeling acknowledged, no matter what it is? Surely the fiery creativity that longs to show itself through us is as natural a way of being as anything? Wands are the first suit; they underpin everything, after all. They are the creativity from which all else in life springs.

You are the creativity from which all else in your life springs.

In the tarot, Wands are the first suit, and Cups are the second. So, while looking back (maybe on the results of her handiwork?) the Princess of Wands leads us into the next suit, Cups, embodied in the central card. I have the strongest sense that it is her essence that coalesces as that single drop that we see suspended in a moment above the Ace of Cups.

I love the Ace of Cups in this deck. Cups are associated with water, but this image is, to me, as much fire as water: it is swirling and vibrating with warmth. It glows out of the card. The cup seems to be shaped by motion, as if on an energetic potter’s wheel. Again, given the order — Wands (creative energy) before Cups — that makes perfect sense.

And then I look at that central card once again, and I see that it is creating a vortex of sorts. It’s a vortex that draws the two outside cards towards it. It is the grace, the love, the soul, the feeling that holds these two outside aspects together. The Princess is held by, and in, grace, love, soul and feeling. Against any odds, and in spite of opposition, she is held — always has been — by that Ace: invisible, infinite, indivisible.

And that relationship is mutual. Radha is in the human realm, the Ace is in the spiritual realm. Her music is the music of love: love of self, love of life. And it is fed by Love, and also feeds it.

Find out what the Mars retrograde will mean for you in Eric’s 2016 Spring Reading, which we’ll publish in mid-April. You may pre-order all 12 signs here for less than $40. Includes video readings!

The same is true of the card on the right: there is a mutuality to it and to the Ace of Cups. The Ten of Stones [Pentacles] is also known as “Richness.” As the final numbered card of the final suit in the tarot deck, it is also the final descent into matter that was created by the glint in the creator’s (Wands) eye, coalesced through heart (Cups) and thought (Swords) into form.

How does this apply practically? First, you have the foundation formed by the Princess of Wands, which is an aspect of you, or of your experience, that is able to create freely and with joy. This has enabled you to access the possibility of the present moment — the Ace of Cups — which offers to you an expansiveness that you feel rather than think or believe to be true. The Ace is a knowing, but it is a knowing that lies at your core, and not in your mind. Look at the image; no, feel that image. If it is thrumming and humming its song in your depths, then that is the Ace, and she is there for the taking.

Open your heart. To yourself. You, who can hear and appreciate your beautiful song for what it is. You, who are not obliged to be anything other than who you are. Open your heart.

The result that is on the horizon — not yet here, but starting to be felt at some level — is the falling into place of something in your material, physical world. It either ends, comes through, or goes as far as it needs to go. This will be tangible; this is the stuff you can hold, see, smell, taste, hear. And soon it will be time to pass the baton and shift to new matter/s.

What is left, however, is infinitely more precious: it is the love that you devoted to it, returned to you, perhaps in a different form. You may need to look a little closer or adopt a manner of curiosity about the shape of this love. It is there, nonetheless. It is there in your joy, your enthusiasm, your lust for life, your eroticism, your sexual innocence, your creativity, your fire. It has been fed by your ventures, and is there to replenish your resources so that you can draw from it again when you feel the calling to a new adventure.

Too dang much? I’d say you’re perfect.

Astrology/Elemental correspondences: Princess of Wands (the earthy aspect of fire), Ace of Cups (the pure, limitless potential of water), Ten of Stones (Mercury in Virgo)

If you want to experiment with tarot cards and don’t have any, we provide a free tarot spread generator using the Celtic Wings spread, which is based on the traditional Celtic Cross spread. This article explains how to use the spread.

By Rob Moore

When I saw Phillip two years ago during my visit to the speck on the map where he and I grew up, I sensed a longing from him that I couldn’t quite identify. He seemed like he wanted to linger yet he didn’t seem comfortable about that, either. I felt there was some type of sexual undercurrent happening but he left the gathering before I could clearly discern anything. Besides, we homosexuals always want to think every good-looker is secretly on our team, right?

“Unfamiliar Territory” by Rob Moore.

I got word that Phillip had taken his own life this week. Given certain details of a less-than-joyous life at home for him, I started to consider that perhaps I hadn’t been completely off base after all.

Life pointed out in a few ways this past week that it would serve to delve further into sexual concepts connected with Mars, currently slowing toward a retrograde phase that begins April 17. And I suppose just in case life hadn’t made its message clear, along comes Eric in his Planet Waves TV segment and graphically shows us that masculine Mars has a clitoris. The insight Eric offers is that there’s an aspect of female in the male, male in the female, and in so many ways we are one and the same.

I think that pinpoints a truth that many are waking up to and demonstrating unabashedly. Unfortunately, a great many who need this wider view are trying their hardest to stay asleep, it would seem. And it’s not doing their emotional wellbeing any favors. With this Mars retrograde, though, we’ll all be inclined — to one degree or another — to go back over key aspects of our own inner landscapes. Some real pressure-relieving freedom could well be imminent.

It is not my intent to make Phillip’s tragically ill-informed choices the central focus of this post today. I do, though, want to consider some of the misunderstood feelings I strongly suspect were at play. Feelings — or perhaps more accurately ‘impulses’ — which I am discovering more and more men, in particular, are experiencing.

My meeting with Phillip two years ago was kind of a rare thing and it might not be amiss to call it ‘special’. As I’m essentially the town’s weird uncle who moved away, never married and is almost certainly a homo, I’m generally met with a level of circumspection by those with whom I once shared a close connection. There was a tinge of that with Phillip; but what I perceived more than anything was along the lines of, “Oh, wow. Somebody I can just be myself with. Somebody who’s not expecting anything from me. Whew.”

What I felt from that point is something I have felt from other straight and/or married men with increasing frequency in the last few years: A pull to either hug or hold or touch in some way. This is not so much a sexual pull as a calling out for pure and simple masculine energy and presence. In a way, there’s something more powerful than sex going on because it goes right to the vulnerable emotional center. A center that in men is still very typically closed off and rarely attended to. And just for the record, a split second man-hug or a chest-bump between bros does not address the deep and abiding nature of this need in question.

For quite some time I have been part of a deeper dynamic of this sort with a guy I see frequently. It went as far as a brief discussion about the nature of our connection but all indications point to fear as this guy’s current response of choice. From what I’ve been able to put together, he recently ran to Vegas to marry a girl he’d been seeing. If that was an attempt to prevent himself from having feelings towards me or other males, it doesn’t appear to have worked. I continue to feel that emotional pull between us quite regularly.

The women I have been close with have demonstrated a far greater willingness to embrace this sort of nurturing among themselves. Although they may be enthusiastically into penis, they seem to be able to connect physically — as opposed to sexually — with close female friends. This can be as mild as extended holding after having a heart-to-heart on the sofa, or as involved as touching and caressing during a sleepover.

One of the ways life further pointed me towards this discussion this week involved an awkward yet serendipitous fumbling of the TV remote that landed me on the new channel Viceland from Spike Jonze. I was instantly captivated by Ellen Page who, for me, possesses such a grounding presence. She and her co-host Ian Daniel (for whom I also have a soft spot) were visiting Tokyo, Japan, for their series ‘Gaycation’ about global LGBTQ culture.

They were interviewing the owner of a successful business that rents out individuals to LGBTQ people who need someone to pass as their heterosexual friend or partner for family and work-related gatherings. That this business is highly successful speaks volumes about the level of acceptance in Japan. But I think even more telling is the fact that during the interview, the LGBTQ customers weren’t even referred to as ‘in the closet’. It was presented more like ‘just the way it is’ for them.

Although on other parts of the globe we’re ever-so-slowly increasing our acceptance, it’s still a world where fear runs pretty damn rampant around any sexual or gender identity that isn’t ‘straight’ down the middle. It’s understandable to me, therefore, that males who want to fit the traditional stereotype of ‘man’ would have deep inner conflict with enmeshing their emotional and physical needs with another male. Even when sex is nowhere in the equation.

Not a fan of anything even kind of connected with the Kardashians, I was extremely skeptical of the motivation of Bruce Jenner to become Caitlin Jenner. Sorry, but I really suspected it may well be a last-ditch effort at grabbing the spotlight somehow. Besides, with the financial backing to pay for 50 makeup artists and 150 stylists, if so desired, Tom Selleck could pull off an evening gown and look quite good his own damn self.

But then I came to see how Caitlin has not sought to discard the soul essence of Bruce. More than trying to emanate ‘woman’, Caitlin seems more interested in emanating authenticity. At minimum, Caitlin has handled this transition with dignity.

I throw the Caitlin thing into the ring because — although about as far as the pendulum swings when it come to males embracing their feminine aspects — this has definitely been a consciousness-shifting event. It may be more accurate to say it’s its own consciousness-shifting vortex. Literally armies of transsexuals came before Caitlin Jenner but none of them were an Olympic-medaled hero hailed by testosterone-fueled men the world over.

Find out what the Mars retrograde will mean for you in Eric’s 2016 Spring Reading, which we’ll publish in mid-April. This is a comprehensive 12-sign reading; you may pre-order all 12 signs here for less than $40. Includes video readings!

This is the pinnacle of male embracing his female side. This is Mars with a clit spread-eagle before God and man. Straight man who plays football and spits on the sidewalk and likes sex with clits.

Sure, men as a whole have softened quite a bit the last couple of decades. I think, though, that we are undergoing changes that make a strong case for accelerated growth. In this case, accelerated acceptance. Not just of others but of what’s beginning to be revealed inside ourselves. How much easier is it to work with the universe than against? Not much of a contest, really.

Change of this sort is no small feat. There are numerous layers of reconsidering, reprioritizing and unlearning that require our full credence. Even if Phillip had yielded to some kind of prolonged hug or some kind of letting go into the man who stood before him two years ago, it is not likely that would have resolved such needs in him forevermore. Depending on his psychological outlook, it may have even caused greater conflict for him.

But if perceived as a gratifying experience, I feel it would have likely made it clear to Phillip that room needed to be made in his life to fill this void. For a small-town straight guy with a wife and kids, I can understand how unrealistic that seems. But that’s only because we haven’t exactly allowed this sort of dynamic to be real for us yet. It’s happening, though. I’ve been feeling it.

Eric will have the exciting new Spring Reading for you by April 17. Pre-order today for the best price, and get the lowdown on Mars retrograde. Includes video!

By Judith Gayle | Political Waves

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

—The First Amendment to the United States Constitution

It appears that Donald Trump, who has pranced through the 2016 political process with the less than perfected skill of a Dancing With The Stars contender, has finally put his foot in it. Speaking off the top of his head (which is unarguably the least attractive part of Donald, both literally and figuratively), he blurted out the naked truth about abortion, suggesting that when/if he makes it [sic] illegal, then women would need to face punishment for seeking the procedure.

Simple logic, that, calculated to earn the ire of liberal and independent women everywhere, yet his own [also sic] party sucked in their breath as though he’d kicked over the Holy Grail.

Donald is a caution, as my great-grandmother liked to say (and thanks to him, I now understand the reference). He speaks without thinking, shotgunning ideas out as if he’s brainstorming in a strategy session, not presenting himself to the public. In this instance he inadvertently put the Republican’s war on women in the spotlight in a way that even (poorly reported) prosecution of the doctored Planned Parenthood tapes couldn’t.

This stumble in conservative candor by the Republican front-runner produced quite a dust-up on cable news. Pundits pronounced, Trump spokeswomen (for heavens sake!) defended, and voices layered one over another lifting the decibels to shrill. I did find one island of sanity in a Planned Parenthood representative who asked, essentially, so what’s new in this pronouncement? Trump just articulated the traditional Republican position on abortion, with those who engage in it routinely punished.

Hillary spoke to this as well, pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of Cruz back-peddling when he commented, creepily I might add, on the need to create a culture that respects mothers of the unborn and embraces life (even, you know, murderers who refuse to behave like devoted little incubators). Unfortunately those she needs to impress with her commentary would not, ummmm, dump a bottle of water on her if she were on fire. The level of hatred aimed at Hillary even exceeds the disdain in which Obama is held on the right.

Still, she did her campaign good by speaking aggressively on the topic. She has the support of many women who fought the good fight for choice and find it astounding that, thanks to an entrenched right-wing, a woman’s constitutionally protected right to the functions of her own body is teetering on the edge.

Since the rise of the right wing, women dealing with unwanted pregnancy have been put in the cross-hairs of dilemma. There have been almost 300 restrictions placed on abortion services in the last four years, with individual states creating a hostile environment by mandating ridiculous procedures, closing clinics, and making access to services too costly or inconvenient for those who need them.

This has produced an up-tick in self-inducing. I think of this as the return of the ‘coat hanger’ years, something that generations of women cannot truly understand, since — gratefully — it has not been their experience. But all that is changing now. There are already millions of women in this nation without access to safe abortion. According to “The Nation“:

Thirty-eight states have some sort of fetal homicide law, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Some exempt pregnant women, specifically, but many don’t. At least 17 people have been arrested or convicted for self-induced abortions in the United States, including Purvi Patel, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison last year for feticide. In 1990, a Florida teen who couldn’t afford an abortion shot herself in the abdomen, and was charged with third-degree murder. In 2009, a teenager in Utah paid a man $150 to beat her up, hoping it would cause a miscarriage; she was charged with solicitation to commit murder.

In Texas, where clinics have been cut by 50 percent in these last years, women are being forced to carry their dead fetus to term. That level of cruelty disgusts me and seems a far cry from the “small government” that the conservatives insist they want. But women’s issues? Much too dangerous (read that threatening to the patriarchy) to allow women to decide for themselves!

Over at Hullabaloo, Digby quoted Salon’s Amanda Marcotte on the logic of Trump’s position, which flies in the face of the upside-down and backwards Pro-Life rhetoric:

[T]he official stance that Republicans are supposed to take is that women are victims of abortion and therefore cannot be held responsible for it. Yes, it’s true that women pick up the phone, make the appointment, talk through their decisions with medical professionals, sign paperwork and then either take a pill or let the doctor perform an abortion, but none of this should be taken, in conservative eyes, as evidence that women are the people responsible for the abortion happening. Women are regarded by conservatives as fundamentally incapable of making grown-up decisions. If they choose abortion (and by implication, if they choose sex), it’s because the poor dears were misled.

Yes, the same people that conservatives treat as literally too stupid to understand what making a medical decision entails are then expected to raise children.

To which Digby commented:

The party line is that abortion is murder but the woman who solicits it is not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defect. Keep in mind that one third of American women have an abortion at some point in their lives. That’s a whole lot of defective crazy ladies we’re allowing to roam free in society.

The Republican culture war — with its assault on women’s choice at the heart of it — has largely failed on a national level under a Dem administration, although they keep on trying. In 2012, my senator, Roy Blunt, proposed an amendment “allowing any U.S. employer, not just those affiliated with a religious institution, to deny contraceptive health coverage to its employees based on religious or moral objections.”

The legislation was co-sponsored by Marco Rubio, and failed by a mere handful of votes with every Pub but one — a woman, Olympia Snowe — supporting it. This came on the heels of Obama’s mandate that employers provide birth control in their health care provisions, with exemptions for religious institutions and those affiliated.

At the time, it prompted this commentary from McConnell and Kerry — the right and the left:

“Look: this is precisely the kind of thing the founders feared,” McConnell said. “It was precisely because of the danger of a government intrusion into religion like this one that they left us the First Amendment in the first place, so that we could always point to it and say, ‘No government, no president has that right. Religious institutions are free to decide what they believe. And the government must respect their right to do so.'”

Democratic Senator John Kerry, of Massachusetts, argued the opposite point.

“The Blunt amendment is in fact an assault on” First Amendment objections, he said. “It imposes one view on a bunch of people who don’t share that view, or on those who want to choose for themselves.”

Here’s the crux of it, then, what it all comes down to, politically. It’s another of those donnybrooks over constitutional interpretation that divides the parties, and on issues of religion, has done so since the rise of a politicized church with Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority in the mid-’70s.

Because SCOTUS has become polarized along those same lines, what happens next in the High Court is crucial. At this moment, the Court is still understaffed by one, with the Pubs determined to allow Trump or Cruz to nominate. If anything would get a fractured and disenchanted Republican party out to vote this year, the very thought of a liberal court will do it. For both parties, what happened this week should prove how important it will be to get out the vote, whether we’re annoyed at the eventual candidate or not!

When Scalia died, all the pending cases in which he held an opinion had to be done over. One such was Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case poised on weakening public sector unions, which seemed all but decided during oral arguments in January. The conservative branch of the Robert’s court has routinely depended on first amendment arguments to water down the organizing power of unions, and seemed ready to do so again.

This week, a decision was passed down — or perhaps a non-decision would be more accurate. Without Scalia to cast his vote against the teachers union, the vote broke even between conservative and liberal jurists. With the vote tied, the earlier decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stands, ruling that the union shops do not violate the first amendment. At least for the moment, the conservative attack against union organizing is halted, but not all the news is good.

According to Mother Jones, choice is up next :

Women’s Whole Health v Hellerstedt and Zubik v Burwell: The court is poised to hear several major challenges involving women’s reproductive health rights. In Women’s Whole Health, the court will decide whether Texas’s restrictive abortion law, which has already resulted in the closure of many clinics and, if fully enforced, would close even more clinics and force women in Texas to travel long distances or leave the state in search of a legal abortion, is constitutional. The conservative Fifth Circuit upheld most of the law, but the Supreme Court blocked parts of it from taking effect until the case could be heard. If there’s a tie at the Supreme Court, the abortion clinics are all but doomed.

This week, Donald Trump displayed his political naivete, stumbled over his own tongue and made us all look at something very important. This week, we’ve discovered how the court will operate unless it is fully staffed and why that selection is so important. This week, we got a sense of how crucial the outcome of this presidential election will be, with up to three additional appointments to the court in the near future.

Much as a vote for Hillary continues to be my distasteful Plan B (for a long list of reasons), I’m counting out the Susan Sarandon Plan in order to encourage Bernie’s political revolution. The result of taking that purity test produces more of my ‘pony in the horse shit’ theory because, true enough, everything works to good, however painful, depending on how it informs us and how we respond to the challenge. But with theocratic Ted Cruz coming up right behind, the whole of Roe v. Wade is on the line — and plenty more where that came from.

Perhaps this week we’ve seen why no matter who ends up as the candidate for POTUS, not only do we need to put aside our differences in order to vote for the democratic principles we believe in and a progressive interpretation of our first amendment rights, we also need to encourage everyone we know to exercise this critical responsibility to self and others. If we’d done that in 2014, we’d be a heckuva lot better off today.

“Who’s the more foolish…the fool, or the fool who follows him?”
— Obi Wan Kenobi

It would be easy to conclude that April Fools’ Day is not the same anymore. Not when so many politicians and others of cultural authority are seemingly doing their best to outperform even the most creative satire with the conduct of both their public and private lives.

All, is not lost, however. April Fools’ Day can still be saved. Referring to Obi Wan once again (this time in paraphrase), the nature of foolishness depends greatly on one’s point of view.

There is, for example, a point of view that cannot lighten up. Perhaps the most perfect current case of taking things too seriously is represented by the official news agency of China’s communist party. Earlier today the Xinhua News Agency admonished its readers to ignore April Fools’ Day because it “does not conform to Chinese cultural tradition or `socialist core values’.”

Oh please. What can be more foolish than the assumption that human beings in China are any different from people anywhere else when it comes to having (or making) fun? Indeed, the tradition of April Fools’ is demonstrably both ancient and pan-cultural. Therein, however, is also the rub. At least some of us have an unpleasant memory of being the butt of an April Fools’ Day joke. There is no joy in being mocked. There is, however, some potential for liberation available to anybody who can shift their point of view and not take themselves quite so seriously, if only for a day.

As a matter of fact, the willingness to laugh at yourself could very well be an important turning point of how you view your life. Consider, for instance, the tarot card that portrays “The Fool.” One way of interpreting “The Fool” is that it represents both the beginning and the end of a symbolic cycle. It is as if to say that being a gullible, laughable initiate is both the prerequisite to and ultimate objective of being part of a life’s continuum.

Astrology also has cycles. The Moon orbits Earth, continuously moving through its phases. The Earth, in turn, circles the Sun, constantly repeating the seasons. Then, from our point of view here on Earth, every other object in the solar system also moves through cycles of their own which, in relation to each other, emulate how the Sun and Moon appear to move in relation to each other. First they come together. Then, they move through a predictable order of separation, then closure. Finally, they come together to begin again.

Find out what the Mars retrograde will mean for you in Eric’s 2016 Spring Reading, which we’ll publish in mid-April. This is a comprehensive 12-sign reading; you may pre-order all 12 signs here.

From astrology’s point of view, a number of cycles are even now closing towards the point where they must begin again. Since you are undeniably part of the solar system, it stands to reason that your life’s cycles might very well be doing something of the same.

All of which may explain how any situations you are facing now could simply be a sign that you are approaching an appropriate time to initiate some renewal of your own.

If there is anything to the tarot’s representation of cycle, starting over might well require you to reclaim and embrace your own fool. Doing so might include recognizing the part of you that clings to what no longer serves to continue your life productively. One could certainly also make a case for how being defensive and taking offense merely serve to burden you unnecessarily, preventing you from moving on.

Hence, if you are fortunate enough to be the object of a harmless prank today, laugh and be grateful for being able to experience it. If no such good luck should befall you, take it upon yourself to lighten up, and not just for today. Endeavor to catch yourself when you are at your most serious and consider whether there might be another point of view that will refresh your perspective, and even set you free.

Offered In Service

Dear Friend and Reader:

You might have seen this news item from last week and rolled your eyes with a sigh or a ‘tsk-tsk’: Researchers at Microsoft decided to let loose on Twitter a form of Artificial Intelligence (AI) — a machine learning program — to learn how to interact like a human being on social media. Perhaps unsurprisingly yet still dishearteningly, the Twitter bot fell prey to trolls and the lowest-common-denominator factor online, and soon began spewing bigoted, callous hate speech.

Photo by Amanda Painter.

As Vice magazine reports, “Within 24 hours, the Twitter bot @TayandYou had turned spectacularly ugly in the way only the Internet can turn things ugly, spewing racism and hate at Twitter uses in a series of horrifying tweets.”

Microsoft took it offline, deleting most of its 100,000 tweets (Screenshots still exist of some). What happened after Tay’s initial, enthusiastic greeting of “Hellooooooo World!!!”? Well, just ‘the usual’ in that vast, cold wilderness of cyberspace; except that Tay, not being human, had no way to screen out harmful influences. Instead, it was subject to mirroring whatever kind of online dialogue came its way without being able to weigh consequences, or check a person’s comments against some kind of ethical standard or sense of empathy.

The Microsoft researchers encountered what you might call a form of “radical intervention”: their plan was for Tay to model human behavior, but Internet trolls had their way with it and sent Tay off the rails. Presumably, if the folks at Microsoft continue trying to improve this type of machine learning AI, they’ll need to find a way to guard against this type of unexpected negative influence. But how can you design any kind of foolproof AI, in terms of a machine or program that could possess the faculties of true empathy, consideration, critical thinking and those ineffable qualities that lead us to becomes better people, both to ourselves and toward others?

Continue reading →