Professor Joe Forgas, an Australian psychological researcher, has found evidence that crabby people are clearer-thinking, better decision-makers, and less gullible than their cheerful counterparts. He asked volunteers to watch different films and to dwell on either negative or positive events in their lives. The subjects were then put through a battery of exercises designed to measure mental acuity, including judging the truth of urban myths and providing eyewitness accounts of events. Those volunteers in a bad mood were found to make fewer mistakes than those in a good mood and were shown to be better communicators. Says Prof. Forgas, "Negative moods trigger more attentive, careful thinking, paying greater attention to the external world." Similarly, Forgas' earlier research on the psychological effects of weather shows that on wet, dreary days memory is sharpened, whereas on bright, sunny days people tend to be more forgetful.
I find Prof. Forgas' conclusions unsurprising, yet extremely validating. Happiness to me has always seemed something of a drug--it is all right in small doses, but no one is meant to be happy all the time. How many failed marriages, bad business decisions, unwise sexual encounters, etc. have occurred due to the brain-scrambling effects of excessive happiness? Our culture is obsessed with the idea of perma-happiness, as demonstrated by the massive over-use of Prozac and other anti-depressant medications. (Just a note: if you don't have a chemical imbalance,they ain't gonna work for you). People are in a constant quest to acquire the newest gadget, date the hottest chick/dude, buy a bigger house, a more expensive car,all just to get that momentary fix of happiness. But they miss the point--happiness is supposed to be fleeting, otherwise we would be unable to make meaningful and good decisions that ensure our survival and bring us security and satisfaction (which is NOT the same as happiness).
I'm by no means advocating that everyone walk around being assholes to everybody else. I only mean to say that it's OK to be in a pissy mood from time to time and, in fact, that it's actually beneficial to our survival. Experiencing negative moods means we acknowledge reality and shows our awareness of the world around us. Happiness in moderation, folks. All things in moderation.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Shame on You, Mr. Hasselhoff!
As everyone knows, twenty years ago today legendary pop singer/television icon David Hasselhoff took a pickaxe to the crumbling facade of communism and single-handedly tore down the Berlin Wall. Answering the call unheeded by Mikhail Gorbachev, David Hasselhoff had the unique vision to realize that the age of Soviet domination in Eastern Europe was coming to an end, and that East Germans, as well as Poles, Romanians, and Czech-o-Slovaks(?) longed for true freedom. The kind of real liberty which would enable them to one day own color television sets and watch tanned lifeguards in red bathing suits running in slow motion upon the beaches of sunny California. But I say, Baywatch be damned! Shame upon you, Herr Hasselhoff. As we all know far too well, the end of communism in Eastern Europe marked the end of one of the greatest eras in all of human history--the era of the East German female athlete.
Never again would we gaze upon the muscled magnificence of the East German (fe)male athlete engaged in rigorous competition on the world stage. No more could we in the West stare with envy at the mysterious bulges in the shorts of these sporting (wo)men and wonder why our pitiful girly-athletes lacked such, um, presence. No more. So I say shame upon you, David Hasselhoff. I hope you're happy.
Never again would we gaze upon the muscled magnificence of the East German (fe)male athlete engaged in rigorous competition on the world stage. No more could we in the West stare with envy at the mysterious bulges in the shorts of these sporting (wo)men and wonder why our pitiful girly-athletes lacked such, um, presence. No more. So I say shame upon you, David Hasselhoff. I hope you're happy.
Abortion Aborted from Health Care Bill
The struggling economy, health care reform, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have ranked as the top issues of concern for most Americans for months now. (What? You mean Obama hasn't fixed all that stuff yet???) What most commentators and bloginators have failed to mention, however, are the ways in which all of these hot-button issues are inextricably linked. While nearly all Americans have been affected to some extent by the recession--even if it's just a vague awareness that one ought to pinch pennies "these days"--it is the working poor who suffer the most under the strain of the current economic crisis. I unashamedly count myself among the numbers of the working poor, and I can tell you I've been struggling all along. And, like millions of other broke-ass workers, I enthusiastically supported the candidacy of Barack Obama, naively shedding my hardened, cynical exterior, momentarily gripped by the shining light of hope. Hope that finally something would be done to, if not level the playing field, then at least get us nosebleed seats to the game. A living wage! Universal health care! An end to the war in Iraq! But...*sigh* Are these ideas even on the table anymore? Uhhh, not so much.
As an aside, let me just say that I am still a supporter of President Obama. With time, the glow has faded, however, and I am able to begin to look at things a bit more objectively. (Come on Katie, put on your political science cap. Put that fancy education to work. Obviously not literally, since you are over-educated and unemployable, but figuratively. Ok. Good.) I realize that the American political system is designed to make real change nearly impossible. A Democratic majority (as we have seen) does not make liberal reform a sure bet because single-member districts--and the resulting two-party system--destroy the possibility of intra-party cohesion and discipline, and make coalition building (that elusive "bipartisanship" we keep hearing about) a non-option. Progressive reforms like a living wage bill or universal health care thus should not be seen as planks of the Democratic party platform, but rather vague ideas which candidates donning the Democratic party label (or brand) may or may not choose to attach themselves to in order to gain election/re-election given the particular makeup of their district. Because of the lack of proportional representation in the United States and an absence of political parties proper, there are conservative Democrats, progressive Democrats, pro-life Democrats, pro-choice Democrats, pro-gun Democrats, anti-immigrant Democrats, and...pretty much just conservative Republicans. Maybe one or two "moderates," but they're a dying breed. And so, the Democratic party begins to look less like the party of the working class, and more like a grotesque, unnatural chimera--or, a fucked-up, smashed together hot mess of sometimes converging, but often conflicting ideas and individuals. They might "represent" me slightly more accurately than Republicans do, but they are hardly advocates for my cause.
Here's a case in point: Bart Stupak (D., MI) is my district's representative in Congress. Generally, I have been quite pleased with Mr. Stupak's work in Washington. Most notably, he voted against the war in Iraq, and more recently he voted against the massive Wall Street bailout. Flash forward to this weekend, and the continued wrangling over health care reform. The House Democrats had finally managed to cobble together something resembling a bill that had somewhat of a chance of passing when...Hold up! What's this? No one has played the abortion card yet? But wait! Riding in to the rescue is...a Democrat! My God, can it be true? It's Bart Stupak of that barren wasteland called Michigan, and he's got an amendment that will save babies by not allowing federal subsidies to the working and middle classes for purchasing private healthcare coverage to be used to buy plans that include abortion coverage. And...yes! The amendment passed. Phew. I was worried there for a second that abortion might not be brought into the issue.
Ok, maybe I would not protest so much if the bill constituted actual reform or had a snowball's chance in h-e-double hockey sticks of passing the Senate. Sadly, this is not just an example of the further curtailing of abortion rights in this country. It also represents another instance of the working poor being given the shaft. For most of American history, abortion was an illegal, yet accepted practice. Only in the mid-twentieth century--a period coinciding with the rise of oral contraception and women's liberation movements--did abortion become the fiercely contentious issue it is today. Even as American attitudes toward abortion became more conservative, abortion on demand was still readily available. Available to middle and upper class women, that is, who could afford to travel overseas for safe, legal abortions. Meanwhile, poor women either had to struggle under the burden of supporting an ever-expanding family or resort to unsafe, so-called "back alley" abortions. And so it seems not much has changed today. For poor women on Medicaid, access to abortion has been denied due to the ban on the use of federal funds to pay for the procedure; and now, with the possibility of the Stupak amendment to the health care reform bill becoming law (and undoubtedly some version of the amendment will be included in whichever bill finally passes), working and middle class women who must rely on subsidies to purchase private health insurance will be denied that right as well. Those who can afford to purchase coverage on their own, however, face no such restrictions.
The health care reform debate is just one instance which highlights the ways in which the considerations of the working poor are continuously disregarded in the American political arena. In the economic realm, we have seen greedy Wall Street firms bailed out and a failing General Motors propped up while thousands of homeowners have endured foreclosure and millions of workers have lost their jobs. The national security debacle/money pit known as the Iraq War rages on, wasting billions of dollars which could be better spent to shore up our faltering economy. (Wars don't do what they used to in times of economic crisis thanks to the increasing use of private contractors versus a nationalized war effort). And all I can do is hope that I'm wrong. Pray that my cynicism is unfounded. That the great Democratic party, the party of the New Deal and Civil Rights and the Great Society will find a way to make things right. To stand up for the little guy.
Please.
As an aside, let me just say that I am still a supporter of President Obama. With time, the glow has faded, however, and I am able to begin to look at things a bit more objectively. (Come on Katie, put on your political science cap. Put that fancy education to work. Obviously not literally, since you are over-educated and unemployable, but figuratively. Ok. Good.) I realize that the American political system is designed to make real change nearly impossible. A Democratic majority (as we have seen) does not make liberal reform a sure bet because single-member districts--and the resulting two-party system--destroy the possibility of intra-party cohesion and discipline, and make coalition building (that elusive "bipartisanship" we keep hearing about) a non-option. Progressive reforms like a living wage bill or universal health care thus should not be seen as planks of the Democratic party platform, but rather vague ideas which candidates donning the Democratic party label (or brand) may or may not choose to attach themselves to in order to gain election/re-election given the particular makeup of their district. Because of the lack of proportional representation in the United States and an absence of political parties proper, there are conservative Democrats, progressive Democrats, pro-life Democrats, pro-choice Democrats, pro-gun Democrats, anti-immigrant Democrats, and...pretty much just conservative Republicans. Maybe one or two "moderates," but they're a dying breed. And so, the Democratic party begins to look less like the party of the working class, and more like a grotesque, unnatural chimera--or, a fucked-up, smashed together hot mess of sometimes converging, but often conflicting ideas and individuals. They might "represent" me slightly more accurately than Republicans do, but they are hardly advocates for my cause.
Here's a case in point: Bart Stupak (D., MI) is my district's representative in Congress. Generally, I have been quite pleased with Mr. Stupak's work in Washington. Most notably, he voted against the war in Iraq, and more recently he voted against the massive Wall Street bailout. Flash forward to this weekend, and the continued wrangling over health care reform. The House Democrats had finally managed to cobble together something resembling a bill that had somewhat of a chance of passing when...Hold up! What's this? No one has played the abortion card yet? But wait! Riding in to the rescue is...a Democrat! My God, can it be true? It's Bart Stupak of that barren wasteland called Michigan, and he's got an amendment that will save babies by not allowing federal subsidies to the working and middle classes for purchasing private healthcare coverage to be used to buy plans that include abortion coverage. And...yes! The amendment passed. Phew. I was worried there for a second that abortion might not be brought into the issue.
Ok, maybe I would not protest so much if the bill constituted actual reform or had a snowball's chance in h-e-double hockey sticks of passing the Senate. Sadly, this is not just an example of the further curtailing of abortion rights in this country. It also represents another instance of the working poor being given the shaft. For most of American history, abortion was an illegal, yet accepted practice. Only in the mid-twentieth century--a period coinciding with the rise of oral contraception and women's liberation movements--did abortion become the fiercely contentious issue it is today. Even as American attitudes toward abortion became more conservative, abortion on demand was still readily available. Available to middle and upper class women, that is, who could afford to travel overseas for safe, legal abortions. Meanwhile, poor women either had to struggle under the burden of supporting an ever-expanding family or resort to unsafe, so-called "back alley" abortions. And so it seems not much has changed today. For poor women on Medicaid, access to abortion has been denied due to the ban on the use of federal funds to pay for the procedure; and now, with the possibility of the Stupak amendment to the health care reform bill becoming law (and undoubtedly some version of the amendment will be included in whichever bill finally passes), working and middle class women who must rely on subsidies to purchase private health insurance will be denied that right as well. Those who can afford to purchase coverage on their own, however, face no such restrictions.
The health care reform debate is just one instance which highlights the ways in which the considerations of the working poor are continuously disregarded in the American political arena. In the economic realm, we have seen greedy Wall Street firms bailed out and a failing General Motors propped up while thousands of homeowners have endured foreclosure and millions of workers have lost their jobs. The national security debacle/money pit known as the Iraq War rages on, wasting billions of dollars which could be better spent to shore up our faltering economy. (Wars don't do what they used to in times of economic crisis thanks to the increasing use of private contractors versus a nationalized war effort). And all I can do is hope that I'm wrong. Pray that my cynicism is unfounded. That the great Democratic party, the party of the New Deal and Civil Rights and the Great Society will find a way to make things right. To stand up for the little guy.
Please.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Parenting 101 by Michael Jordan
Growing up a Detroit Pistons fan in the "Bad Boys" back-to-back championships era, hatred of Michael Jordan came as natural to me as sporting a sweet handlebar mustache came to James Edwards. I vividly recall my mild-mannered father yelling at the TV as the refs (yet again) gave a bogus call in favor of Jordan. I also remember getting into bitter arguments in the fourth grade with my classmates who it seemed believed the great Air Jordan was the be all and end all of professional basketball. "He's not that good," I would retort. "He's a big baby and you can't come within 10 feet of him without getting a foul called on you." In time, and with the wisdom that comes with old age, I came to realize that yeah, the dude is probably one of the best players of all time, but that has done nothing to alleviate my ire.
Fortunately for me, and Jordan-haters everywhere, the man has managed to provide enough fodder over the years to keep the flames burning--be it his lame-tastic stint as a minor league baseball player, his firing as president of basketball operations for the Washington Wizards, or his Oscar-worthy performance alongside the Looney Tunes in the cinematic masterpiece Space Jam. Until quite recently, Mr. Jordan has managed to stay out of the media spotlight. One is most likely to see only brief glimpses of him somewhere on a pristine golf course, surrounded by security guards (seriously, Mike?), ever-present stogie protruding from his mouth. And then, in September of this year, Jordan was elected to the Basketball Hall of Fame, and gave an acceptance speech which served to confirm the beliefs of us haters and reveal his true nature to those who still clung blindly to the myth of Michael Jordan.
In the course of his hall of fame acceptance speech, Jordan managed to pull cheap shots at anyone who happened to piss him off during his years in the NBA, including Isiah Thomas (no surprise there), Magic Johnson, and Byron Russell, among others. For a man who has enjoyed more professional and commercial success than almost any other athlete in history, he sure has been lugging around a lot of baggage all these years. Oh, but it gets worse. In the course of his speech he also took time to show his fatherly side, turning to his children--two sons and a daughter--and saying,"You guys have a heavy burden. I wouldn't want to be you guys." (Or, see Katie's translation: "Good luck living up to my fucking legendary awesomeness. You failures.") What a great dad. Way to be supportive, Mike. We all know your children are highly unlikely to even remotely approach the level of success that you have achieved, but you don't have to be a dick and rub it in.
Most recently, Jordan's son Marcus, a freshman basketball player at the University of Central Florida, cost the school's athletic department its $3 million contract with Adidas by refusing to wear the company's shoes and instead donning a pair of white Nike Air Jordans. Or should I say Michael Jordan cost the school it's deal? For a non-elite school like UCF, this kind of contract is vital, and the move effects all of the school's athletic programs, not just basketball. The whole fiasco shows that for Michael Jordan his personal endorsement deals matter more than allowing his son to succeed or fail on his own terms and to function as a member of a TEAM. The younger Jordan undoubtedly felt the pressure of dad's authority (and dad's money), and surely had no chance to make any sort of decision for himself. So, not only has his father already labeled him a failure before he has even had a chance to prove himself (sure, he will probably fail anyway, but still...), but he has taken the selfish step of inserting the Michael Jordan legacy and brand Jordan into the collegiate arena which should (presumably) be free of such considerations.
In summary, 1.)I hate Michael Jordan, 2.)he's a corporate whore who cares only about money and his own image, and 3.)he's kind of a shitty dad.
Fortunately for me, and Jordan-haters everywhere, the man has managed to provide enough fodder over the years to keep the flames burning--be it his lame-tastic stint as a minor league baseball player, his firing as president of basketball operations for the Washington Wizards, or his Oscar-worthy performance alongside the Looney Tunes in the cinematic masterpiece Space Jam. Until quite recently, Mr. Jordan has managed to stay out of the media spotlight. One is most likely to see only brief glimpses of him somewhere on a pristine golf course, surrounded by security guards (seriously, Mike?), ever-present stogie protruding from his mouth. And then, in September of this year, Jordan was elected to the Basketball Hall of Fame, and gave an acceptance speech which served to confirm the beliefs of us haters and reveal his true nature to those who still clung blindly to the myth of Michael Jordan.
In the course of his hall of fame acceptance speech, Jordan managed to pull cheap shots at anyone who happened to piss him off during his years in the NBA, including Isiah Thomas (no surprise there), Magic Johnson, and Byron Russell, among others. For a man who has enjoyed more professional and commercial success than almost any other athlete in history, he sure has been lugging around a lot of baggage all these years. Oh, but it gets worse. In the course of his speech he also took time to show his fatherly side, turning to his children--two sons and a daughter--and saying,"You guys have a heavy burden. I wouldn't want to be you guys." (Or, see Katie's translation: "Good luck living up to my fucking legendary awesomeness. You failures.") What a great dad. Way to be supportive, Mike. We all know your children are highly unlikely to even remotely approach the level of success that you have achieved, but you don't have to be a dick and rub it in.
Most recently, Jordan's son Marcus, a freshman basketball player at the University of Central Florida, cost the school's athletic department its $3 million contract with Adidas by refusing to wear the company's shoes and instead donning a pair of white Nike Air Jordans. Or should I say Michael Jordan cost the school it's deal? For a non-elite school like UCF, this kind of contract is vital, and the move effects all of the school's athletic programs, not just basketball. The whole fiasco shows that for Michael Jordan his personal endorsement deals matter more than allowing his son to succeed or fail on his own terms and to function as a member of a TEAM. The younger Jordan undoubtedly felt the pressure of dad's authority (and dad's money), and surely had no chance to make any sort of decision for himself. So, not only has his father already labeled him a failure before he has even had a chance to prove himself (sure, he will probably fail anyway, but still...), but he has taken the selfish step of inserting the Michael Jordan legacy and brand Jordan into the collegiate arena which should (presumably) be free of such considerations.
In summary, 1.)I hate Michael Jordan, 2.)he's a corporate whore who cares only about money and his own image, and 3.)he's kind of a shitty dad.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Is 'Flexitarian' the New 'Clean Coal'?
I ran across a fascinating little tidbit on the BBC News website today. (Yes, I know I rely on the dirty Brits far too heavily for my news, music, telly, and lit). Entitled 'The rise of the non-veggie vegetarian,' the piece attempts to tackle the somewhat prickly issue of assigning labels to our culinary identities. Specifically, the increasing use of terms such as "flexitarian" (to describe so-called vegetarians who also consume limited quantities of fish),as well as "meat-reducers" and "meat-avoiders"(labels attached to people who try to limit their intake of meat for health or environmental reasons) is examined. Of course there are also the good old, run-of-the-mill vegetarians who "won't eat anything with a face" and vegans, who eschew all foods derived from animal sources, but I'm getting ahead of myself. The culinary identity issue is painted as complex and nuanced, with room for many shades of grey. I say bullocks.
In my opinion, no one who eats an animal (yes, fish are animals last time I checked. and so are chickens) can rightfully refer to herself as a vegetarian. There is no such thing as "I'm a vegetarian, except I also eat some fish." If you eat an animal you are out of the club. (Yup. There's a club. Secret handshake and all.) Likewise, if you eat eggs, milk, honey, or gelatin you cannot call yourself a vegan. I might even go so far as to say that anyone who accepts the ethical argument against eating meat ought also to refrain from eating any animal-derived products, since the treatment of egg-producing chickens is perhaps one of the most atrocious crimes committed by man against animal in all of human history. I say this, and yet I'm one of those vegetarians who happens to like an occasional omelet--with cheese. I am ashamed, and thus generally refrain from discussing my dietary habits.
I think it's time to rethink the vegetarian/non-vegetarian issue. When a fish-eater can call himself a vegetarian, labels have effectively outgrown their usefullness. Instead, ponder this. Anyone reading this blog has access to the internet, and thus YouTube, and thus the countless videos showing the horrors of modern-day factory farming. No one with a heart can witness the carnage and not feel at least a twinge of guilt about eating meat, eggs, and dairy. Nor can anyone who cares about the future of the planet deny the exceedingly detrimental impact that the Western world's taste for meat has had on the environment. Ready for the sermon? Here it comes...Here it comes...
Stop eating so much fucking meat people! You don't need meat with every meal. You don't need third-pound burgers and chicken on your salads! I don't care what you call yourself--vegetarian, carnivore, flexi-frickin-tarian--people need to wake up to the fact that our current food habits are not sustainable. Of course, I would prefer if everyone just stopped eating animal entirely; and yes, I should really eat a vegan diet in order to avoid hypocrisy (but I've never run away from hypocrisy!), but if everyone would just chill a little on the bacon burgers and Kentucky Fake-Grill-Marks Chicken, we would be healthier, the strain on the environment would lessen, and there would no longer be a need for the "Automatic chicken deboner" and other cruel torture devices spawned by our insatiable lust for flesh. Hallelujah!
In my opinion, no one who eats an animal (yes, fish are animals last time I checked. and so are chickens) can rightfully refer to herself as a vegetarian. There is no such thing as "I'm a vegetarian, except I also eat some fish." If you eat an animal you are out of the club. (Yup. There's a club. Secret handshake and all.) Likewise, if you eat eggs, milk, honey, or gelatin you cannot call yourself a vegan. I might even go so far as to say that anyone who accepts the ethical argument against eating meat ought also to refrain from eating any animal-derived products, since the treatment of egg-producing chickens is perhaps one of the most atrocious crimes committed by man against animal in all of human history. I say this, and yet I'm one of those vegetarians who happens to like an occasional omelet--with cheese. I am ashamed, and thus generally refrain from discussing my dietary habits.
I think it's time to rethink the vegetarian/non-vegetarian issue. When a fish-eater can call himself a vegetarian, labels have effectively outgrown their usefullness. Instead, ponder this. Anyone reading this blog has access to the internet, and thus YouTube, and thus the countless videos showing the horrors of modern-day factory farming. No one with a heart can witness the carnage and not feel at least a twinge of guilt about eating meat, eggs, and dairy. Nor can anyone who cares about the future of the planet deny the exceedingly detrimental impact that the Western world's taste for meat has had on the environment. Ready for the sermon? Here it comes...Here it comes...
Stop eating so much fucking meat people! You don't need meat with every meal. You don't need third-pound burgers and chicken on your salads! I don't care what you call yourself--vegetarian, carnivore, flexi-frickin-tarian--people need to wake up to the fact that our current food habits are not sustainable. Of course, I would prefer if everyone just stopped eating animal entirely; and yes, I should really eat a vegan diet in order to avoid hypocrisy (but I've never run away from hypocrisy!), but if everyone would just chill a little on the bacon burgers and Kentucky Fake-Grill-Marks Chicken, we would be healthier, the strain on the environment would lessen, and there would no longer be a need for the "Automatic chicken deboner" and other cruel torture devices spawned by our insatiable lust for flesh. Hallelujah!
Why am I doing this?
There are many aspects of the "blogosphere" that really grate me. The sensationalism, plagiarism, fanaticism, not properly citing one's sources-ism. But, on the other hand, every other r-tard has a blog, so why the hell shouldn't I! I mean, my boyfriend has a blog about tennis-- http://fuzzyyellowballsaced.blogspot.com/ --and he's got people in Montenegro reading his posts (well, not "people" per se; probably more like one really bored Montenegrin dude, but still...).
"What is the over-arching theme of this blog?" you may ask. Um, I don't know. It will most likely consist of me ranting/preaching about whatever political, economical, pop-cultural, or sports-related thingy happens to be chafing my ass for the day. I find that I spend a good deal of my time being ANGRY about idiotic things that I read or hear or see; or conversely, I seem to get excited about stuff in which most people fail to recognize awesomeness.
Since one must always be forward-looking (progress! improvement! new! better!), my prediction for this blog is that I post three to four entries maximum before growing bored and/or frustrated with the whole endeavor. No one need feel obligated to read my blog (I love using the word "blog" almost as much as I love the word [?] "app"), but be forewarned; failure to read this blog may result in you (the reader) missing out on an abundance of whining and complaining and may, in fact, cause you to have a good day.
"What is the over-arching theme of this blog?" you may ask. Um, I don't know. It will most likely consist of me ranting/preaching about whatever political, economical, pop-cultural, or sports-related thingy happens to be chafing my ass for the day. I find that I spend a good deal of my time being ANGRY about idiotic things that I read or hear or see; or conversely, I seem to get excited about stuff in which most people fail to recognize awesomeness.
Since one must always be forward-looking (progress! improvement! new! better!), my prediction for this blog is that I post three to four entries maximum before growing bored and/or frustrated with the whole endeavor. No one need feel obligated to read my blog (I love using the word "blog" almost as much as I love the word [?] "app"), but be forewarned; failure to read this blog may result in you (the reader) missing out on an abundance of whining and complaining and may, in fact, cause you to have a good day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
