A storm is coming...

I am posting this exactly 15hours before the Armageddon begins. In pursuit of greater happiness, we have laid down our lives for almost a month, now the clock ticks on us, and for the next 12 days, we will see the full extent of our capabilities... as well as the teachers' cruelty.

So till then, farewell.

Snapped this photo in school today. Matches my mood absolutely

History likes to repeat.

Here is what... My calculator was stolen the Hullet Memorial Library today. Pencil box left open, calculator gone. Looks like theft cases are beginning to see growth even as economics fall. If I had invested in Number of Theft Cases, I would be rich now.

I reported it and got flamed by Yap. Guess what? They thought that it was more problematic that I was reporting cases, than the fact that there are more cases.

So this is what RI has become. I will be looking forward to seeing the next public caning.

-----------------------------
I'd like to see you now - how you fare, how you dare.

Kiss soon, Hell's brethren, and
Never gaze upon warmth again.
Out, you stealthy bandit, and
Wait on Lucifer like a piteous slave.

What dark compulsions drove you?
How willingly you fled to your Brothers?
Or do you now shiver in fear?

Yet I wonder, will it be the Great Red Drake,
Or will it be your own conscience that will
Undo you, and make you freeze.

Ain't you so smart then? But do you see now?
Reread from the beginning and know fear again.
Ever tried reading the columns?

-----------------------------

Lin Sen

Me and my lovely luck... or not....

He saw them,

They lay there on the shelves.

He wanted them,

But he dared not take them.

He wanted them,

And can’t control himself anymore.

He took them,

But did not notice the camera.

He took them,

But left parts of them behind.

He walked out,

With both of them concealed.

He walked out,

And went for the Gates.

He reached Home,

Like a rat to a rat hole.

He was safe.

The 2 of them hung in his wardrobe,

But does he dare wear it?

Had he forgotten the labels in the back?

Had he forgotten fear?

Had he forgotten his conscience?

He hadn’t.

So now it can’t be found.

He hid

Among the crowds

He hid,

But can he hide long?

---

Okay... Here are the progression of events... I just feel damn pissed now...

MONDAY

1. Brought to school on Monday
2. Asked Ziyang if I could return him at around 8am. He told me to return to him later.
3. Went for DMP (1st Period)
   
4. Went to the Hullet Memorial Library. Left Blazers there.
5. Went for DMP again. (Third Period)
   
6. Ziyang warned me of theft during DMP.
7. Blazers found stolen after previous DMP course. Found cover of L4. Reported to Ms Mani. Couldn't reach Mr Teo Chai Yaw
   

TUESDAY

1. Couldn't reach Mr Teo Chai Yaw
2. Found the hanger of one of them

WEDNESDAY

1. Gave details to facilitate checking of security tapes.
2. Reached Mr Teo Chai Yaw... He didn't care... told me to write to him.
3. Went to Library Office for confirmation of details. Wasn't allowed to view the video together with the IT people, as it was "high security".

THURSDAY

1. Video Tape checking failed. Here is her story:
   
   I told IT person to check. IT person checked the wrong bag storage area - the one outside, but they got stolen from the one inside. He gave up at 6pm and went home without calling to confirm.
   
   He found out from me that he checked the wrong place. Went back to check again. System error - files usually kept for 5 days, but due to hard disk problem and a wrong system date, files deleted on Thursday 12.00am. Unable to proceed.
   
   To all History students: Access the reliability of this account.

------

Lin Sen

I shall be blatantly honest....

A passing mark of 263.
A piano grade of more than 8.
An IQ not all that low.
A Leader,
A Thinker,
A Pioneer.

They are given the best education.
They are provided with the best exposures.
They are drilled in Character,
They are trained in Leadership.
So R.I. boys must be so honest.

They recite the a Principle of Honor,
"SHALL reflect discipline",
And "SHALL live in integrity".
So R.I. boys must be so honest.

They go for Overseas Immersion Programs,
They go for Raffles Leadership Program.
So R.I. boys must be so honest.

I just got 2 Blazers stolen in the Hullet Memorial Library.
But R.I. boys are so honest...

--------------------------------------------------

2 normal blazers, not RIPB or CEC, were stolen from the Hullet Memorial Library at around noon, during the 3rd DMP period on Monday, 15 September 2008. They are labeled L2 and L4, however, the cover of L4 was left behind and is with me.

I need your help in finding these blazers. One of the blazers is without cover, because it was left behind. The other blazer has "L2" labeled on the cover.

If around noon, during the 3rd DMP period, you saw anyone handling blazers, please contact me. If you were in the library, at that time, it would help a lot too.

If you stole it, please return it.

--------------------------------------------------

Lin Sen

The True Spirit of Sports

The Sun is again at dusk for the Summer Olympic Games as it approaches its finale, and it will not rise again for another 4 years. So as the largest sporting event on Earth comes to a temporary closure, our minds cannot help but wander back to the December of 1945 when George Orwell published his famous essay for the Tribune, The Sporting Spirit.

The essay was written in response to the visit of the Moscow Dynamos football team in Britain, which had caused much tension between the Russian and the British. Orwell had expressed his clear disproval of sports and the sporting spirit in his essay, describing the whole concept of sports as a “war minus the shooting”. However, he had failed to look beyond the exceptionally politicized context of those times and see the true sporting spirit, the one which has continuously inspired the human race for millennia.

Reader’s Digest Asia recently published a series of articles entitled “True Spirit, Stirring Tales of Olympic Sportsmanship”. This article series captured some of the finest moments in the modern Olympics history, and I want to share with you here one of the best. It is a recount written by Jesse Owens in 1960 on his encounter with a German competitor, Luz Long, in the 1936 Olympics. That period in time was marked by high racial tensions, a stumbling block for a Negro athlete like Jesse Owens. Owens’ nervousness had gotten the better of him during the long jump trials, in which he fouled 2 out of 3 tries. However, Luz Long spoke to him, comforting him and allowing him to drain away his nervousness, and Jesse not only qualified, but went on to win the long jump title. Luz had broken through all barriers of racism and rivalry, and even with Hitler only a hundred meters away, they shook hands.

It is stories like these that define the sporting spirit, and breathe life into it. These tales, told or untold, will continue to be an inspiration for people around the globe, and in this age where so many boundaries are drawn in red and trespassers prosecuted, sports prove itself to be capable of transcending these borders. True, there are ugly moments, moments men will scorn for decades, but this ugliness is not sole to sports alone and can be reflected at every strata of the society. However, the beauty and the inspiration that arises out of sports is a limited edition that no other activities can ever bring. It brings to light the highest quality of the human soul and touches the human heart. This is then, the true sporting spirit.

The next aspect of sports which I would like to give credit to is what I like to call the pathos of sports. Pathos is a Greek word commonly referring to extreme pain and suffering, but its true meaning cannot be totally retained in translation, and yet it can also describes the feeling we get when we watch this following kind of experience so accurately that no English word can match.

During Day 3 of the Athletics events in the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics, the woman’s marathon was finished in high drama. Great Britain’s Paula Radcliffe, the current world record holder, limped past the finish line in tears. She had finished 23^rd, having suffered a leg cramp late in the race after competing in the chase group for most of the race. Two miles away from finish, she had to draw to the sides to stretch her calf. Her anguish was carved on her face, but holding her bad leg and gritting her teeth, she limped on towards the stadium and the finishing line. During a press conference with BBC later on, she was quoted saying this - "I was going to get to the finish line no matter what, because that was my race." In another story of the same event, British marathoner Liz Yelling fell horribly 10 miles into the race and was sent to hospital for check up. She later came back to finish 26^th.

George Orwell once described the cruelty of competition, where the failed are scorned and forgotten. Put in his own words, “people want to see one side on top and the other side humiliated”. As far as I know, this was not the case in the Woman’s Marathon, and it is not the case in many of the sporting events held. In light of intense pain, Radcliffe and Yelling put up a valiant fight, and even though they did not win, their efforts were applauded by the general audience, regardless of which competitive side they were in. These are just 2 stories, and they are not the only 2. We pity these men and women for their tears, and yet respect them for their undying spirit, and this spirit will always go on to inspire those who are brought down to fight back.

As the Games gets even more commercialized and politicized, we can sometimes be blinded by the disdain for this commercialization and politicization, and misjudge the true sporting spirit. At the end of it all, we must ponder, what is it that is in this spirit that mankind continuously uphold for thousands of years? Competition is an essential ingredient to development and improvement. And in sports, it was possible to gaze upon the extent human soul and will, and see previously thought impossible being written into reality, but from the awe and the admiration will sprout new hopes and seed new ambitions for the next generation to achieve even greater heights. This is then, the true sporting spirit.

Macbeth Review

Production: Macbeth
Company: World-In-Theater & NAFA
Year: 2008

I have experienced the aftershocks of emotions after a particularly good play. However, the staging of this version of Macbeth had merely left me exhausted. It has certainly not lived up to my expectations.

The set of the play was cleverly designed to suit the dark, gothic atmosphere of Macbeth, especially the flapping, blood-red curtains. The usage of the 2 main pieces of blocks was clever, but they were obstructive to the audiences’ view at times – for example, during Lady Macbeth’s (Adelynn Tan) entrance in Scene 5.

The prologue of the play included a much annoying element of violin into the play. Throughout the play, the discord of violin tunes continuously harassed the audience’s attention, and had distracted me from the play to the screeching of the violin strings. The lackluster display of the battle scene had given me a doomed outlook on the performance of the play yet to come.

Fortunately, the 3 witches’ entrance hit the right key. The exotic, intriguing and excruciatingly twisted performance of Patricia Toh, Shahrin Johry and Sufri Juwahir was stunning, and shrouded the scene in the mysterious ambiance. Their fluid, yet otherworldly, moves and painfully pitched voices had sent shrivels down my spine.

The scenes that followed were little of match. Other than the performance by Mohan Sachdev as Duncan, the other actors appeared distant to their role. The Thanes had little life in them, even in the news of their victory. The unified “yes!” was a bore as emotions were faded and short-lived. The reactions of Macbeth (Sonny Tan) and Banquo to the witches seemed to suggest that they were even less freaked out by the creatures than the audience. Adelynn Tan’s performance was relatively more emotive than the scenes that preceded it. Unfortunately, the “unsex me here” speech, which had been heralded as one of the most spine-chilling speeches of all time, was scantly performed. She rushed through the speeches, and the unexpected appearance of the witches was disruptive to her performance.

The murder of Duncan scene, in contrast, was one of my favorite scenes throughout the play. The lights were dimmed to match the darkness of the night, and cloaked the scene with a foreboding sense of dread. It was one of the most suspenseful scenes in the play. The only source of relief was Patricia Toh’s hilarious, drunken, and sometimes humorously obscene, performance as the porter.

From then on, the play became a drudgery to watch for a good number of scenes. Banquo’s soliloquy was too soft to hear, and the depiction of the murder scene as purely sounds was messy and bland. It was not till the banquet scene when the play started to gain momentum.

The entrance of dancers during the banquet scene was a well thought of element to introduce, though the claps of the guests occasionally muffled the conversation between Macbeth and the Murderer. The depiction of Banquo’s ghost as a beam of light was undeniably on the spot. This, together with the manhandling of Lady Macbeth by Macbeth, served to exemplify Macbeth’s madness. During this scene, all the actors, with special salutations to Adelynn and Sonny Tan, seemed to live their characters. The insanity, the shock, the frustration and fear was presented in full-blown, and this is a star scene in the play.

The witches in the succeeding scene had, again, the magnificent freak factor. I applaud the director, Shelly Quick, for the casting of the apparitions as 3 white-veiled mystics with the text-stated apparitions held faintly visible through their veils. It effectively overcame the technical difficulties of casting the apparitions, but the entrances of these creatures could have been refined.

The usage of toys in the scene with Lady Macduff was creative and suitable. It had more impact than any appearance of the boy.

The climax of the play was at the sleepwalking scene. I was absolutely amazed by Adelynn’s performance; her actions were crazed, frantic and dreamy, fitting for a woman gone mad. It was backed too by Mohan’s humorous, and even cute, performance as the Doctor. It was an absolute enchantment.

However, at this part of the play, it is again plagued by colorless scenes. The exchange between Macduff and Malcolm was poorly done. It seemed that the actors had become tired, seeing that more than 1 hour had gone by. The ending was marked by a typical “tomorrow” speech, and absolutely lusterless battle scenes. The fighting was devoid of emotions, and the choreography was lacking in reality. The ending of the play had a suggestive of further conflicts with the kingship of Scotland, a conventional and modern Hollywood technique. It sort of denied the tragedy of its catharsis.

It was an adventurous effort by Shelly Quick, and a worthy effort. Many mistakes were made though, without which the play could have been much more successful. If I have to rate this play with a max score of 10, I would give it a 7.

Does Democracy also spell for stability?

President George W. Bush rants about the importance of America as a beacon of Democracy, and declares war on Iraq. 10 countries have the word “Democratic” branded in bold on their names. It seems that the word has a reference to utility and stability. However, we must pause to ponder, is democracy really the oasis for stability, particularly social stability, in a society? I do agree that it does bring social stability, but it also has its limitations.

Democracy is defined as “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” (Dictionary.com). It places high emphasis on individual liberty and majority rule. We will base our current discussion on the American model of democracy, known as Representative Democracy, where citizens elect someone to represent them in a discussion panel known as the Congress. Social stability refers to a tranquil life for the citizens, undaunted by violent riots or social uprises.

Democracy creates this stability by answering to the citizens’ needs of self-esteem by giving citizens a high level of liberty. According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, when people have satisfied their lower levels of needs, it became essential that they satisfy their needs for self-esteem. The preconditions required for this satisfaction includes “independence and freedom”, which is a major component in any democracy. In providing citizens with this satisfaction, the probability that any major discontent, which could catalyze uprising, would manifest is greatly diminished. Thus, with the lowered chances of a revolt, the society could maintain its social stability.

However, it is very hard to appeal to every single person in the society, so there will be some form of displeasure regardless of the government system. Democracy tackles this problem by appeasing to the majority while pacifying the minority with its policies. JS Mill explains this,

"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." (On Liberty, 1859)

Democracy is based on votes, and if the majority of the votes express desire for an action, it would be carried out, thus pleasing the majority. Most of the times, the government would try to justify the case, so that the minority is pacified. The insurance of minority rights in a country’s constitution can further pacify resentments towards the government. By minimizing negative sentiments towards the government, people are less likely to cause major troubles and disruptions in the society, ensuring stability.

However, democracy would have negative effects on the social stability of a society if the society's cultural context is ignored. For example, Pakistan was all too eager to accept a Democratic government system, but so far, it has gotten anything but social stability. Democracy's offer of individual liberty targets to pacify the citizens, prevent major resentments towards the government, thus preventing violent uprisings and stimulating social stability. However for Pakistan, the people interpret the government's embrace of Democracy as submission to the Western countries, whom they view with much hatred. Groups of citizens object violently to the government, resulting in Benazir Bhutto's assassination. A wave of anger pulsed through the nation, and sparked off more violent riots. Democracy as a governmental system must be implemented into a country that is ready to accept it. It has negative effects on social stability when abruptly employed without considering the cultural context of the country.

In conclusion, Democracy does create social stability in societies by pleasing the masses, but it is limited by differing cultural context of each society. Therefore, even though democracy theoretically creates social stability in some societies, it may not do so in others if the citizens are not ready to accept democracy. However, since democracy as a concept, without the influence of external factors, can achieve stability in a country, I agree to a large extent that democracy also spells for stability.

Students + Mobile Phones + School = Negative Influence?

Many of us Singaporeans would remember Jack Neo’s controversial film, I Not Stupid Too. Let me bring to attention one part of the film, which was when the teacher forcibly confiscated some of the students’ mobile phones. It was stated in the film that mobile phones are banned from classes, and this rule had also integrate itself into the fabric of many school systems nowadays.

But is it justified to ban a student from bringing his mobile phone to school? My stand is strongly no.

Mobile phones have become increasingly available in the recent years, and it has found ownership in many of the teenagers today. For a typical student like myself, I have found a mobile phone to be not only useful, but also an essential part of my school life. It is used to call up teachers, to contact mentors and an emergency contact device in times of urgent needs.

The sheer dependency I have on my mobile phone is shared between many of my peers. And without this form of contact, it would be frustrating for both him and his friends around him.

I do not mean to say that phones are purely put into use for work; they can also a form of entertainment. Through the ease of use, we can fit light games and short chats into our already packed schedule.

However, I do not mean to say that this entertainment should be enjoyed during inconvenient times. This seems to be a major concern between parents and teachers. As quoted from an online commenter, “No, they should allow the mobile to school because it will put effect in their studies.” The commenter basically made an assumption that the child would be distracted by their mobile phones and deviate from his studies.

They condemned Short Message Service for its potential use for chats, thus the wastage of time. However, as working adults, they should understand the importance of SMS as a form of communication. Though light hearted exchanges could occur, we should not immediately deem them as a cardinal sin. I am sure all of us would like a humorous little chat in the midst of all the stress of the fast-paced life.

Though there may be occasional abuse of the phone’s function as a source of entertainment, we should not neglect a mobile phone’s huge benefits. As with all technologies to date, there is proper use and abuse. But do we ban this technology altogether for simple, over exaggerated fears of its potentially negative influences?

-Lin Sen

NOTE: Not English Project

The Depressing Truth

When was it when you got your first setback? Or your first debilitating bout of failures? When was the last time you felt depressed over your life?

Most of us do experience such emotional trauma throughout our lives, and all of us have our own special solution to deal with it, for example, exercising, meditating and many more.

This new century promised us another method. Anti-Depressants or happiness packed in a pill. Below is an article I quoted from Economist.com which discusses this new medicine.

-----------------------------------------

URL to Article

-----------------------------------------

This article basically introduces both the negative and positive implications of the antidepressant drug, SSRIs.

One of the major points brought up by the article is the usage of the drug in suicidal persons. On one side, it is stated that the drug serves as a cheap way to save lives; while on the other hand, it provokes suicides.

The mechanism of the drug is such that it introduces a chemical substance into a person’s body in order to jumpstart the body’s production of serotonin, the chemical responsible for your good mood.

I myself think that this is too crude a way to solve the problem. Taking this drug makes you happy, but most of the time, you don’t see why do you get caught in this blind, uncontrollable and baseless euphoria. When the drug’s effect eventually wears off, you are left with what you started with - nothing. This could eventually lead to various negative effects.

The sudden change in your mood as the drug wears off could leave you confused and frustrated. It is comparable to a wealthy person suddenly stripped of every single penny and left on the streets. We have heard many cases of failed businessmen committing suicide due to a heavy blow to their financial security, and I think it would only be right to say that these patients’ suicidal conditions would worsen after taking the drugs. However, there is still a slight difference between these two cases.

A businessman who failed could only find two ways, to give up or to start anew. But for the depressed, the rich euphoria does not need much work to get; you just had to stretch out your hands and pop another pill down your throat. It is potentially addictive to the extent that the user would suffer an emotional cold turkey the moment he cuts of his dosage, aggravating the situation. Simply put, anti-depressant pills are just like Ecstasy, put in lower dosages, with an equally depressing list of side effects in situations of overdose.

But the surprising aspect is the total world dosage of SSRIs. According to the article, over 10 billion dosages were taken in 2004, up from an overshadowed 3 billion in 1995, and 2004 was 4 years ago. In 2004, there were 6.4 billion people, so it works out that on an average, each person took 1.7 doses of SSRIs. That is assuming that the whole world was sad.

With the enormous string of side effects, the article also questions the integrity of research conducted on the drug. The misleading information we were provided with were all in the purpose of promoting the drug, and concealed information revealed a much uglier side, including disproving the drug’s advertised effectiveness. In my opinion, these shabby test statistics, once published, would have left the commercializing of the anti-depressant drug in a depressing state.

The article ends with a comment that “[if all therapies fail,] maybe all you need is a minor or mediocre effect in order to reduce suicides overall.” However, I beg to differ. Throwing pills at anyone who show up in hopeless blues does not seem to be a responsible behavior.

One may argue that the person’s need was dire, and there were no conventional therapies to save the day. However, if there was so much effort spent in developing the drug, and even more effort spent on debating over its usage, why is there is no substantial effort made to develop newer therapies?

- Lin Sen

Economist Article : Anti-depressants, hope from a pill

Back

Antidepressants

Hope from a pill

Feb 28th 2008 NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition

Disagreements over whether drugs to combat depression are worth taking

ANTIDEPRESSANTS have long been the source of controversy. Amphetamines were widely used as an antidote to neurotic depression into the 1960s, until such “pep pills” came to be seen as doing more harm than good. Similar worries are now engulfing today's antidepressants, like Prozac and Paxil, which are among the most widely prescribed drugs in the world. Two new studies have stirred things up: one warning that antidepressants do not help most people very much, and the other gushing that they are a marvellously cheap way to save lives.

Most antidepression pills prescribed today are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), a type of drug that boosts the amount of serotonin hanging around in the brain. Serotonin is a brain chemical closely associated with mood. Boosting its level this way might therefore improve a person's mood. Earlier versions were less effective than modern pills, which have fewer side effects and are less toxic in overdose. The use of SSRIs worldwide has shot up from below 3 billion doses in 1995 to over 10 billion in 2004.

Is all the pill popping doing any good? There is recent evidence that it can lead young people to act on suicidal thoughts, prompting America's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to insist on warnings. SSRIs have generally been seen as a way to ease depression in adults without killing them. Derek Summerfield argued in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine that, although there is no epidemic of depression, “the case for an epidemic of antidepressant prescribing is now cast iron.”

A study published in this week's Public Library of Science (PLoS) Medicine, an open-access scientific journal, raises doubts about dispensing such drugs so freely. Irving Kirsch, of the University of Hull, and his colleagues scrutinised the clinical trials for several new antidepressants, taking care to include those never published (but which, by law, have to be reported to the FDA). They found that SSRIs did not help the vast majority of depressed people much more than placebos did. The net benefits over placebos did not usually reach the level considered big enough to be of clinical significance by Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

This study points to two factors that bedevil proponents of SSRIs: publication bias and the power of placebos. Dr Kirsch believes published data “give an exaggerated view of a drug's benefit.” People with very severe depression did see benefits above the NICE threshold, but even that was not a ringing endorsement. Dr Kirsch explains that this was not because SSRIs worked much better in the very seriously depressed, but rather that the effectiveness of placebos dropped off sharply in such people, making the drug look better.

There are two sorts of criticism of the idea that SSRIs are mostly a waste of money. One comes from those who say the study itself is rubbish. David Nutt, of the University of Bristol, says failed drug trials often remain unpublished because their design is shoddy or their results uninteresting. He criticises the PLoS paper as a “mishmash of quality trials and lousy trials leading to a false criticism of these drugs”, which he maintains do help those with depression even if their effectiveness falls below the NICE's “arbitrary” threshold. Dr Nutt thinks it is misleading to compare these drugs with placebos, since what matters is that they work when compared with some alternatives, such as “talk therapy”, for which he believes there is even less evidence of effectiveness.

Good-news potions

Yet there is reason to think that unpublished studies do reveal some important and rather unflattering details about antidepressants. A well-designed study published in January in the New England Journal of Medicine looked at a larger group of antidepressants and concluded there was indeed “a bias toward the publication of positive results”: 94% of the published trials were positive, whereas only about half of the unpublished ones were.

That bolsters the PLoS paper, but there is another sort of critique that challenges its conclusions. A recent study published by America's National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) analysed data from 26 countries over several decades to determine what effect SSRIs have had on suicides. Its authors argue that antidepressants are in fact “a very cost-effective means for saving lives”.

Countries with both high and low initial rates of antidepressant use saw similar trends in suicides until SSRIs were introduced. Jens Ludwig, of the University of Chicago, argues that countries that took to the new drugs saw a relative decline in suicides. After controlling for many variables, his NBER team reaches the cheerful conclusion that an increase in sales of one pill per person per year (about a 12% increase over the level in 2000) leads to a decline in suicide mortality of about 5%.

So are SSRIs to be shunned or saluted? The controversy will rage on, but Erick Turner, of the Portland VA Medical Centre in Oregon, suggests a third way. As one of the authors of the New England Journal of Medicine paper, he says the study confirms that most antidepressants do not work as well as published reports claim. That suggests many people, especially children, should be more careful about using them. But that does not mean they are pointless. He speculates that, if other therapies fail, “maybe all you need is a minor or mediocre effect in order to reduce suicides overall.” That may be particularly true for those who are closest to the edge of darkness.

Back