Monday, October 6, 2025

What's At Stake if Government Shutdown Continuos

What’s at Stake If the U.S. Government Shutdown Continues

As the U.S. government enters another prolonged shutdown, the question echoing around the world is simple — what’s really at stake? While these political standoffs have become familiar headlines in Washington, their effects ripple far beyond the capital — into communities, families, and even global markets.

🗓 One Week: The Frustration Phase

In the first week, much of the pain is felt by the federal workforce. Hundreds of thousands are furloughed, while essential employees — such as TSA agents, air traffic controllers, and Border Patrol officers — work without pay.

Government services slow. National parks close, research at NIH and CDC stalls, and passport processing begins to back up.
The White House estimates the shutdown costs the economy $10–15 billion per week, a loss that may seem manageable but grows quickly if the standoff drags on.

🟠 Result: Anxiety and inconvenience — but still reversible if Congress acts soon.

🗓 Two Weeks: Ripples Become Waves

By the second week, those unpaid workers miss their second paycheck, and the pressure mounts. Contractors and small businesses that rely on federal funding or defense projects start to feel the sting.

Local economies — particularly those near military bases and national parks — take a hit as tourism and spending evaporate.
Research, health inspections, and court proceedings slow to a crawl. The longer it lasts, the more private businesses begin to lose confidence in federal stability.

🟠 Result: The impact spreads from Washington to Main Street.

🗓 One Month: The Pain Turns Structural

After a month, the damage is real and measurable. Economists project a 0.5% GDP loss for the quarter — about $60 billion erased from the economy.

Families living paycheck-to-paycheck face financial crisis.
Small businesses lose access to federal loans, while veterans and seniors experience delays in benefits and care.
Public safety is tested as inspections and maintenance projects are postponed.

🔴 Result: Economic confidence weakens; frustration turns to anger.

🗓 Two Months and Beyond: A Self-Inflicted Wound

If the shutdown drags past two months, the nation’s credibility itself is at risk.
Credit agencies could downgrade the U.S. rating, as they did in 2011 and 2023.
Essential research is lost, contracts are canceled, and public trust erodes.

On the world stage, allies begin to question the reliability of America’s governance.
At home, polarization deepens — and the human toll becomes undeniable.

🔴 Result: A lasting scar on America’s institutions and reputation.

⚖️ The Big Picture

A short shutdown is a nuisance. A long shutdown is a national self-inflicted wound — one that chips away at both economic strength and public faith in democracy.

What’s at stake isn’t just money or politics. It’s the world’s confidence that the United States can still govern itself — responsibly, compassionately, and with purpose.

✍️ A Personal Reflection

Having worked within government circles for much of my career, I’ve seen the quiet dedication of public servants who hold this system together — the scientists, inspectors, and analysts who show up every day to protect the public good. They are the invisible backbone of democracy.

When politics paralyzes governance, it’s not just agencies that stop working — it’s the nation’s promise of accountability and service that falters. For the sake of those who serve, and the millions who depend on them, may reason prevail soon.

Meanwhile, here are some photos of my bougainvillea blooms both from the Philippines ( CDM beach house) and my THD patio here in the US.

Orchids and Bougainvilleas in the Front Yard of Chateau Du Mer, Marinduque, Philippines

Do you see one of my Pet Cats- That is Batman enjoying the nice autumn weather this week

My Bougainvillea at My Back Patio has been blooming for the last 4 months in my Patio/Catio here at THD, Walnut Creek, CA, USA

Tylenol, Pregnancy, and Autism

This posting is inspired from my recent readings on Tylenol, Pregnancy and Autism

Tylenol, Pregnancy, and Autism: Sorting Out the Headlines

When President Trump stood at the White House podium and declared “Do not take Tylenol if you’re pregnant,” it rattled a lot of people. Tylenol (acetaminophen) is one of the most common medicines used during pregnancy, and suddenly it was being tied to something as serious as autism. No wonder parents-to-be were alarmed.

So what’s really known — and what’s not?

What the Science Shows

Several large studies have found that children whose mothers used Tylenol in pregnancy were more likely to be diagnosed with autism or ADHD later on. But these studies show associations, not proof of cause. In fact, when researchers compare siblings — one pregnancy with Tylenol, one without — the signal often fades, suggesting family factors play a big role.

In other words: the evidence is mixed and not conclusive. Scientists see a pattern worth studying, but it does not mean Tylenol causes autism.

What Doctors and Health Authorities Say

Groups like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) still recommend Tylenol as the safest pain and fever reliever in pregnancy, when used carefully:

Take the lowest effective dose
Use it for the shortest time necessary
Always talk with your doctor before starting or stopping any medication

Why? Because untreated high fever in pregnancy can be dangerous for both mother and baby.

Trump’s “Do Not Tylenol” Moment

Trump’s announcement was stronger than the science supports. It grabbed headlines, and even knocked down the stock price of Tylenol’s maker (Kenvue, formerly part of Johnson & Johnson). Shares rebounded after analysts reminded investors that there’s no new definitive evidence. But the scare left many families wondering what to believe.

My Takeaway

If you’re pregnant or planning to be, don’t make health decisions based on press conferences or social media soundbites. The science is still evolving, and professional groups continue to recommend Tylenol as appropriate — with medical guidance.

The safest step? Have a conversation with your doctor about how to manage pain or fever during pregnancy. That’s far more reliable than any headline.

Meanwhile, 𝗔𝗡𝗢𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥 𝗖𝗥𝗢𝗪𝗡 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗛𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗣𝗣𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗦! 

Mister Tourism Ambassador Universe 2025 Grand Winner is Aries Ronie from the PHILIPPINES! 
The pageant was held in Malaysia. Congratulations, King Ronie! Mabuhay ang Pilipinas! 

Lastly,  My Photo of the Day

Sunday, September 21, 2025

My Personal Reflection on Ethnic Slurs

This posting is inspired from a recent event here at THD. A few months ago, Our African-American Driver resigned on the spot, after a resident called her the 5 letter derogatory word beginning with a N as alleged. However, I talked to the resident who was rumored to do it, and she categorically denied it. So the truth remains elusive.

Moving Forward, here's my posting and reflection on Ethnic slurs. For a list of its ethnic slurs and their origin visit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs

The Weight of Words: Reflections on Ethnic Slurs

I have been thinking lately about the power of words. Not the uplifting kind that inspire us or bring us closer together, but the darker side of language—the words meant to cut, to isolate, to remind someone they do not belong. Ethnic slurs fall into that category, and they carry a weight heavier than most of us like to admit.

Every culture, it seems, has developed its own arsenal of insults aimed at outsiders. They often start as labels, nicknames, or crude descriptions of appearance, speech, or habits. But over time, they take on venom. They become shorthand for a whole web of prejudice, history, and inequality. A single word can summon centuries of exclusion and humiliation.

I sometimes wonder why societies cling to these words. Part of the answer lies in power. Slurs are never just random insults—they are tools that keep someone in their “place.” They are a reminder of who is dominant and who is marginalized. Even when tossed off as a “joke,” their impact lingers like a scar.

What is perhaps most striking is how these words can echo across generations. A slur used against a grandparent doesn’t simply vanish when times change. Its shadow lingers in the stories told at the dinner table, in the way families teach their children to brace themselves for a world that may not welcome them fully. The pain is inherited, even when the words are no longer spoken.

At the same time, language is never static. Some communities have attempted to reclaim the very words once used to degrade them. In certain contexts, the slur becomes a badge of pride, an act of defiance: “You cannot hurt me with this word anymore.” But reclamation is complicated. It doesn’t erase the history, and it doesn’t give universal permission for use. What empowers one person can still wound another.

I think often of how slurs survive in more subtle ways today. Sometimes they are hidden in online memes, or in coded language meant to slip past polite society. Sometimes they are softened, rebranded, or disguised as humor. But the intent—exclusion, mockery, control—remains the same.

So where does that leave us? Perhaps it begins with recognition. We cannot pretend these words are harmless. They carry too much history, too much blood and struggle. Yet, by examining them openly, by teaching younger generations their weight and their history, we can strip them of some of their casual cruelty.

In the end, it comes down to a simple truth: words matter. They always have. They shape our world, our relationships, and our sense of belonging. And while ethnic slurs remind us of the darkest corners of human speech, our refusal to accept them as “just words” is one step toward something brighter—toward a culture where dignity speaks louder than derision.

Meanwhile, 
In a stunning medical discovery, scientists have found a previously unknown organ hidden deep inside the human throat. This new organ, a pair of salivary glands located near the upper throat behind the nose, was detected accidentally while researchers were studying cancer patients using advanced imaging technology.

For centuries, anatomy textbooks listed only three major salivary gland pairs, the parotid, submandibular, and sublingual glands. The discovery of this hidden set, now referred to as the tubarial glands, adds an entirely new piece to our understanding of the human body. These glands are believed to play an important role in lubricating and protecting the upper throat and nasal passages.

The finding has huge medical implications. Knowing about the tubarial glands could help doctors avoid accidentally damaging them during treatments like radiation therapy for head and neck cancers. Protecting these glands may prevent complications such as chronic dry mouth and swallowing difficulties, improving patient recovery and quality of life.

This remarkable discovery proves that even in the 21st century, there are still secrets left in human anatomy. It reminds us that the human body is more complex and mysterious than previously thought, and that groundbreaking discoveries can still reshape science and medicine.

Lastly, here are the top ten Words That Wound: A Reflection on Ethnic Slurs and Their Origins
The image above is a human face partially covered by a mosaic of broken words, with the words blurred or fragmented so they’re unreadable. The fragments look like shards of glass — dangerous, sharp — but they’re falling away, revealing the person’s real face beneath.
Symbolism:
The blurred fragments represent slurs — present in history, but robbed of power when they’re not given full form.
The broken glass effect conveys the harm of these words, while also suggesting that harmful language can be shattered.
The emerging face symbolizes dignity, resilience, and the humanity that slurs try but fail to erase.
Language has always been a double-edged sword. It can uplift, bind us together, and carry stories across generations. But it can also cut deep, leaving scars that linger long after the moment of speech has passed. One of the harshest examples is the persistence of ethnic slurs — words invented to reduce entire peoples to stereotypes, often in times of conflict or fear.
As someone who loves words, I’ve often reflected on how these expressions didn’t appear out of thin air. They were forged in the fires of history: wars, migrations, misunderstandings, and prejudice. To look at them honestly is not to endorse them, but to understand where they came from and why they still sting.
Here are ten of the most well-known slurs, paired with their origins.
“Chink” emerged in the 19th century, tied to Chinese laborers who crossed oceans to build railroads and mines. The sound of the word mimicked mockery of their language and appearance.
“Jap” was a neutral shorthand before WWII, but Pearl Harbor weaponized it into an insult of suspicion and hate, used against Japanese Americans even in internment camps.
“Paki” appeared in Britain in the 1960s as South Asians arrived to fill labor shortages. Instead of welcome, they met brick walls of racism — the slur was shouted on streets, painted on walls, etched into memory.
“Kraut” reduced Germans to sauerkraut jars during two world wars, a way of dehumanizing an enemy through cuisine.
“Mick” branded Irish immigrants in the U.S. and UK as poor, unwanted outsiders, their common “Mc” surnames turned against them.
“Spic” grew from mocking the accented English of Spanish-speaking immigrants: “no spik Inglis.” A language barrier became ammunition for exclusion.
“Wop” greeted Italian immigrants in early 20th-century America, rooted in the word guappo but twisted to imply lawlessness and unworthiness.
“Kike” followed Jewish immigrants through Ellis Island, likely tied to Yiddish-speaking newcomers who signed with circles rather than crosses.
“Gypsy” carried centuries of stigma for the Romani people, wrongly thought to be from Egypt, forever associated with thievery and deceit.
“Gook” rose in U.S. military slang during the Korean and Vietnam wars, a way to erase individuality and humanity from the “enemy.”
Each of these words is a fossil of a particular historical moment — immigration waves, wars, cultural clashes. But unlike fossils, they are not frozen in stone. They live on in memory, in prejudice, and sometimes, sadly, in daily use.
Why revisit them? Because pretending they don’t exist doesn’t erase their power. Understanding their origins helps us strip them of mystery and exposes them for what they are: tools of fear and control. When we speak openly about them, we reclaim a little bit of that power for ourselves.
For me, this is less about the words themselves than about the stories they carry. Every insult tells us something about who was seen as a threat, an outsider, or simply “other.” And every reflection reminds us that the same weapon can be blunted — by awareness, empathy, and a refusal to repeat the cycle.
We inherit the language of the past, but we don’t have to inherit its cruelties.

Personal Note: During my first year in Graduate School in Chicago in 1960, I heard someone called me chink and told to go home. At that time, I did not know the meaning of the word, So, I just ignored it and had no effect on me. Today, If I heard that word, it would probably hurt, but since I am Filipino- American, I rather heard the word flip(just kidding).

Thursday, September 18, 2025

Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert on the Fragile Edges of Free Speech

This posting is inspired by yesterday's suspension of the Jimmy Kimmel TV Talk Show on ABC

Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, and the Fragile Edges of Free Speech

Freedom of speech in America has always lived in tension with power. We like to think of the First Amendment as an unshakable shield, guaranteeing that no matter how offensive, satirical, or politically charged our words may be, the government cannot silence them. And yet, every so often, a case comes along that tests just how strong that shield really is.

The suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! after Kimmel’s remarks about Charlie Kirk’s assassination is one of those moments.

Kimmel and the Weight of Words

Kimmel’s monologue was blunt, even scathing. He accused conservatives of trying to distance themselves from Kirk’s killer while simultaneously exploiting the event for political theater. That kind of commentary is classic late-night fare — sharp, partisan, designed to provoke laughter and discomfort in equal measure.

But this time, the consequences came fast. The FCC Chair, Brendan Carr, openly threatened broadcast affiliates with regulatory action if they aired Kimmel’s words. Nexstar, a powerful group of ABC affiliates, quickly dropped the show. Disney’s ABC followed, pulling Kimmel off the air indefinitely.

What troubles me here is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Kimmel’s words. It’s that the machinery of government regulation — the FCC’s licensing power — was invoked as a weapon against political commentary. That should send a chill down anyone’s spine.

Colbert’s Brush With the FCC

This isn’t the first time late-night comedy brushed up against the limits of official tolerance. Back in 2017, Stephen Colbert faced a wave of FCC complaints after a crude joke about Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The FCC said it would “review” the matter, but ultimately no sanction followed.

Why? Because Colbert’s joke, however vulgar, aired after 10 p.m. (the “safe harbor” for indecency) and, more importantly, it was satire — protected political speech, not obscenity. Courts have long held that satire and opinion, especially about political figures, occupy the “core” of the First Amendment.

Colbert’s case ended as a reaffirmation of free expression. Kimmel’s case, so far, feels more like a warning.

The Difference That Matters

Both Colbert and Kimmel live in the same legal universe. They are broadcast personalities, subject to the FCC’s rules. They both trafficked in sharp political commentary. Yet the response was starkly different.

Colbert: Investigated, but ultimately shielded by precedent and public tolerance.
Kimmel: Pulled off air under the shadow of license threats.

The distinction isn’t about the law so much as about power and will. The FCC technically has limited authority over content — mostly around indecency, obscenity, and knowingly false “news distortion.” Kimmel’s remarks don’t neatly fit any of those categories. They were political opinion, not news. But a regulator’s threat, even if legally shaky, is often enough to make broadcasters fold.

That’s where the danger lies. The appearance of censorship, the risk of reprisal, is sometimes as effective as censorship itself.

The Chilling Effect

Free speech isn’t just about what’s written in court decisions. It’s about what people feel safe to say. When networks see a comedian suspended after a regulator’s threat, they internalize the lesson: play it safe. Avoid sharp commentary. Don’t risk the license.

This is the chilling effect at work. Speech doesn’t have to be banned outright to wither; it can die quietly in boardrooms and affiliate offices, smothered by the fear of government retaliation.

Why This Matters

If Colbert’s case showed that satire could still survive the outrage cycle, Kimmel’s case suggests that times have changed. Political speech — the most protected category of expression under our Constitution — is now at risk of being muzzled, not through legal judgments but through regulatory intimidation.

The First Amendment was designed to protect us against precisely this kind of abuse. It was meant to ensure that political commentary, even when offensive, even when uncomfortable, could not be punished by those in power. But what happens when power doesn’t need to win in court — when the mere threat is enough to silence?

What Comes Next

The real question is not just what happens to Jimmy Kimmel, but what happens to everyone who dares to speak freely on air. If regulators can target late-night comedians, could local broadcasters tone down investigative reporting? Could journalists soften coverage of political figures to avoid the FCC’s glare?

We may be entering a new era where the “safe harbor” for satire and commentary shrinks — not because the law changed, but because fear did. And once fear reshapes the media landscape, it’s hard to roll back.

If we want freedom of speech to remain more than a slogan, we have to defend it not only in courtrooms but also in cultural practice. That means demanding courage from broadcasters, accountability from regulators, and vigilance from all of us.

Because in the end, free speech survives only if enough people are willing to risk speaking freely.

Meanwhile, I asked my Virtual Assistant if what happened to Kimmel and Colbert may also happened to Jimmy Fallon, Another late night Show on NBC. 
Here's what I learned: It’s hard to say for sure whether Jimmy Fallon will be next, but there are several factors that suggest it's a possibility — and some reasons why it might not happen. Here’s a look at the situation through a speculative/legal lens, based on what we know so far.Evidence That It Might HappenPublic pressure & precedent
Former President Trump publicly called for NBC to cancel shows hosted by Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers, following the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live!. Reuters+1
There’s now a precedent: a late-night host (Kimmel) was pulled off air following regulator threats over political commentary. That sets an example that could encourage similar pressure on others. Reuters+2Business Insider+2
Regulatory environment & FCC activism
The FCC Chair (Brendan Carr) has shown a willingness to criticize and threaten action against broadcasters for content he deems “misleading” or politically biased. The Kimmel episode makes clear that these threats can lead to real consequences (affiliates dropping the show, ABC suspending broadcast). Reuters+2Reuters+2
Conservative groups have also filed complaints against late-night hosts, including Jimmy Fallon — for ideological bias, for unequal political guest distribution, etc. TheWrap+1
There is growing scrutiny of how public airwaves are used by broadcasters. FCC licensing and public interest criteria give regulators some leverage, even if legal constraints remain. The concern over “news distortion” is becoming part of the conversation. WRAL.com+2The Guardian+2
Fallon’s style and visibility
Fallon has historically been less confrontational politically than some of his late-night peers — less incendiary. That might give him more leeway, but also means that if he were to make a sharper political comment, it would stand out and possibly draw attention.
Because he hosts a major national broadcast show (The Tonight Show on NBC), any controversy around him tends to have higher visibility and could draw regulatory or political interest quickly.
Evidence That It Might Not HappenFallon’s relative moderation
Compared to Kimmel (in this instance) or some others, Fallon often skews more toward celebrity/entertainment material than extremely pointed political commentary. If he stays in that lane, there may be fewer triggers for regulatory or political backlash.
Legal protections & constraints
As with Colbert, Fallon is protected by the First Amendment, especially if what he says is opinion/satire rather than false factual claims. Regulatory action (like license revocation) over political commentary is a high bar legally.
FCC rules traditionally emphasize indecency, obscenity, “safe harbor” times, and false news/distortion in more limited ways — the law has not been clearly established for punishing political commentary that is merely critical or satirical.
Private corporations (like NBC, the network) also have reputational and commercial incentives; even if regulation pressures intensify, NBC has to balance its business and public relations risks.
Risk of backlash
If Fallon were targeted, there would likely be legal challenges, media outcry, and political pushback from those who see it as censorship. The public reaction to Kimmel’s suspension is already strong, especially among free-speech advocates. That acts as a counter-force.
Key Legal / Free Speech ConsiderationsCore political speech gets the highest protection under the First Amendment. Criticism of political actors, satire, commentary — so long as it doesn’t cross into incitement, defamation, or knowing false statements — are very difficult to legally suppress.
FCC’s regulatory powers are limited:
They can regulate indecency (especially during hours when children are likely to be watching), but that doesn’t seem relevant here.
They can in principle act against “distortion” or misleading statements, but enforcement of that is rare, controversial, and legally risky.
Threats of license revocation or fines over political commentary are novel and likely to be challenged under constitutional safeguards (due process, vagueness doctrine, viewpoint discrimination, etc.).
The chilling effect is a big factor: even without legal sanction, the fear of being targeted is enough to make hosts, networks, and advertisers more cautious. Much suppression of speech historically happens through this soft pressure rather than overt bans.
My Take / PredictionGiven all of the above:
It is plausible that Fallon could find himself under pressure — especially if he says something that draws similar regulatory or political criticism.
However, unless he crosses a line that is more clearly forbidden under FCC rules (e.g. knowingly false statement, defamation, or extreme indecency), it seems less likely that NBC would suspend him in the same way or that regulators would successfully force the network to do so.
So: Fallon is at risk, but there’s probably more buffer — more “wiggle room” — for him than there was for Kimmel in this particular moment.

Finally, My Food For Thought:  ABC decision over Kimmel comments about Charlie Kirk’s killing comes hours after Trump-appointed chair of US media regulator threatened broadcaster’s license.

Saturday, September 13, 2025

A Movie Review- Lilies Not For Me

I was getting bored and just flipping channels looking for new movies on my Prime Video Subscription. The following movie attracted my attention after reading the synopsis and reviews. Here's my write up of the movie with the capable assistance of one of my Writing Assistants.

Lilies Not for Me: When History and Fiction Intertwine in the Quest to “Cure” Desire

Cinema often reflects forgotten corners of history, and the recent British film Lilies Not for Me does exactly that. Set in 1920s England, it tells the story of two men in love—Owen and Philip—who find themselves caught between their desire for one another and a society that insists homosexuality is a sickness to be treated. At the heart of the film is a disturbing medical procedure: the transplanting of testicles from one man into another, in the belief it could “cure” same-sex attraction.

As bizarre as this sounds to us today, the film is not pure invention. It draws directly from real experiments and medical practices that emerged during the early 20th century.

The Film’s Story

In the film, Owen (played by Fionn O’Shea) is confined to a medical facility that claims to rehabilitate homosexuals. His lover, Philip (Robert Aramayo), becomes convinced by doctors that a radical surgery—receiving transplanted testicles from a “healthy” heterosexual donor—will correct his desires. Philip undergoes the procedure and later pressures Owen to do the same. The narrative is heartbreaking, a blend of romance, coercion, and the dark history of conversion therapy.

The Real History Behind the Fiction

The “Steinach Operation”

The inspiration comes largely from the work of Eugen Steinach, an Austrian physiologist who believed glands and hormones controlled not only aging but also sexuality. In the 1910s and 1920s, Steinach experimented with testicular grafts, vasectomies, and other endocrine procedures. He claimed these could rejuvenate men and, in certain cases, redirect sexual orientation.

Gland Mania of the 1920s

Steinach wasn’t alone. Surgeons like Serge Voronoff became famous for transplanting slices of animal testicles—monkey glands, in his case—into human patients. Newspapers eagerly reported on these operations, framing them as miracles of modern science. For a brief moment, gland transplants were a cultural phenomenon, attracting everyone from Hollywood actors to intellectuals.

Targeting Homosexuality

Within this frenzy, some doctors explicitly targeted homosexuality. They treated it not as a natural variation but as a defect of the glands. A few case reports describe men receiving testicular grafts to “cure” them of same-sex attraction. The results were unreliable, often harmful, and entirely unsupported by evidence—but they were real attempts nonetheless.

Why It Failed

From today’s perspective, these operations were doomed. Immune rejection made tissue grafts ineffective. More importantly, sexual orientation cannot be reduced to a single gland or organ. By the mid-20th century, the medical community dismissed these procedures as pseudoscience.

Why It Matters Today

Lilies Not for Me dramatizes this forgotten history, not as a curiosity but as a warning. The film reminds us of a time when love itself was pathologized, and when science was bent to serve prejudice. Watching Owen and Philip’s story unfold, we are forced to reckon with how medicine once inflicted trauma in the name of a “cure.”

Closing Thoughts

The haunting beauty of Lilies Not for Me is that it blends romance with horror, tenderness with cruelty. What might look like melodrama on screen is, in fact, drawn from the strange, unsettling reality of early 20th-century medicine. It is a reminder of how far we have come—and how dangerous it can be when society seeks to erase love instead of accepting it. I enjoyed this one hour and 39 minutes movie very much and highly recommend it. For Details and other reviews visit:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lilies_not_for_me/reviews

Meanwhile, here are 20 adjectives that will add spice and color to your writings.

Lastly, my Photo of the Day:

My First visit to New York City, Winter of 1960