Today is the day for your inner ghoul to come out, as you well know. Unless you're a Christian, I guess, and then it's a battle for the souls of the wicked. Or a woman in college, and your impulse is to dress as much like a slut as you can without getting called on it.
My Candy of Choice: Snickers or Reese's PB Cups.
This Halloween the most popular mask is the Arnold Schwarzenegger mask. And the best part? With a mouth full of candy you will sound just like him.
~Conan O'Brien
The Right Halloween Movies: Halloween (obviously); Evil Dead (or any of its great sequels).
There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls. ~George Carlin
The Right Drink: A Gremlin
'Tis now the very witching time of night,
When churchyards yawn and hell itself breathes out
Contagion to this world.
~William Shakespeare
Best game: Hide-and-go-seek in the dark.
What I propose is that you do something cool tonight, not because it's Halloween, but just because you can. It's not very often that you just get to let loose, is it? So do something you don't do very often. Have a drink, play HAGSITD, eat a whole Key Lime Pie, read a book, Go downtown, eat at a cool restaurant.
But don't do the same old thing, not tonight.
Oct 27, 2006
Donnie Darko
At one point in the movie Donnie Darko, Karen Pomeroy (Drew Barrymore) tells Donnie that a "famous linguist" once said that cellar door was the most beautiful phrase in the English language. I always wondered who in the hell it was - although I had my suspicions - and today as I watched it, I finally decided to find out who it was.
According to Stainless Steel Rat, it is - yes, you probably guessed - J.R.R. Tolkien.
Now, do you think you got that because it's the only conceivable answer? If so, then (shrugs shoulders).
If, however, you actually knew that, then congratulations. You're pretty sharp. My only other guesses would have been C.S. Lewis or Noam Chomsky.
A little trivia: What does the C.S. in C.S. Lewis stand for? You'll be surprised.
According to Stainless Steel Rat, it is - yes, you probably guessed - J.R.R. Tolkien.
Now, do you think you got that because it's the only conceivable answer? If so, then (shrugs shoulders).
If, however, you actually knew that, then congratulations. You're pretty sharp. My only other guesses would have been C.S. Lewis or Noam Chomsky.
A little trivia: What does the C.S. in C.S. Lewis stand for? You'll be surprised.
Oct 24, 2006
The One Thing Rush Limbaugh SHOULD Know...
It took over a decade, but it seems that Al Franken was right: Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot.
Keith Olberman labeled Rush Limbaugh the "worst person in the world" in a segment on his show Countdown last night. And you don't just get that award willy-nilly, folks. You've got to get out there and earn it, and Rush Limbaugh has.
Here's what happened:
So, in closing, thank you Rush Limbaugh>. You and Sean Hannity are great Americans.
Keith Olberman labeled Rush Limbaugh the "worst person in the world" in a segment on his show Countdown last night. And you don't just get that award willy-nilly, folks. You've got to get out there and earn it, and Rush Limbaugh has.
Here's what happened:
Rush Limbaugh criticized Michael J. Fox the other day for doing ads for a Democratic hopeful in Missouri because he backs Stem Cell Research. Sounds reasonable enough, considering Michael J. Fox has Parkinson's Disease and probably would like to see if Stem Cell Research would help cure it someday.
Maybe. Maybe not. The jury still seems to be out whether or not that sort of thing works or not. But I don't think it hurts to find out.
Okay.
So anyway, Rush Limbaugh said that his listeners had called in and were telling him that something about Michael J. Fox didn't seem right, that something seemed a little off.
So Rush Limbaugh came to two very respectable - and well thought-out, I might add - conclusions: either J. Fox was "acting" or he "had gone off his meds".
Apparently, Rush Limbaugh was insinuating that M.J. Fox was using his disease to push Stem Cell Research. I don't know that I follow. Rush Limbaugh is so much smarter than I am.
Well, if there's anything that Rush Limbaugh should know, it's medications, right? I mean, how many run-ins has the guy had over the subject?
Nevermind. That has no bearing on the story.
But what Rush Limbaugh failed to realize is that people with Parkinson's - I hope that's right - who go "off their meds" don't shake more; they shake less. It appears as though the medication that most people take allows them more flexibility than normal and the shaking is just a sign of that. If they were to - in Rush Limbaugh's esteemed medical language - "go off their meds", the victim of that dreaded disease would become less flexible, and their hands would become stiff and feel as if they'd been dipped in concrete. They wouldn't shake more, as Rush Limbaugh, M.D. would have you believe.
So, in closing, thank you Rush Limbaugh>. You and Sean Hannity are great Americans.
Personal Responsibility
Hey everybody. This feels weird. I'm typing on a computer almost as old as myself, it seems, and all the icons above where I'm typing look as though they've been shaded in with color pencil. Apparently, the Pleistocene-era moniter doesn't have the right gidgets and doo-dads to allow for the millions of colors I need to feel normal in the world of web.
But I digress.
Today I came to talk to you about personal responsibility. Kenny Rogers - the pitcher, not the singer - was found to have been using pine tar on his pitching hand the other night, and though I won't go through too many of the details (they seem to be all over the news anyway), I thought I'd talk a little about personal responsibility.
Now, it seems trivial to wonder whether or not Kenny Rogers should have used an illegal substance or not. That is beneath this discussion. Pro athletes have always used nefarious means to reach good ends. Ty Cobb, after all, used to file the points of his cleats (?) down to sharp points, in case he needed to use them on an opposing player during the game.
Using pine tar, I feel, is a trivial matter, you see.
BUT, I ask, why is it all right for a pitcher to bend the rules in the World Series? As reported on ESPN, the use of pine tar is often overlooked, especially on cold nights, because it only gives the pitcher a negligible amount of "edge" against the other team. So why bother to report it at all? He washed it off and continued pitching even better later in the game. What's the big deal?
Which is fine, I guess. But I just don't understand why newscasters would explain it away, admitting such a fact on the airwaves. They admitted that it was a common thing for pitchers to used pine tar or snot or whatever to gain an edge. No big deal. It's like saying, "Oh, he cheated a little bit." You can't cheat a little bit. It's all or nothing in these cases. There is no subjective angle to this situation. There is no degree to cheating. Once you've crossed the line, it's done. You have either cheated on an exam or you have not. There is no fuzzy ground. So, in this section, I'm calling out "THE MEDIA." Don't suggest that there was an amount of cheating involved. Kenny Rogers cheated, plain and simple. He got away with it, sort of, whether or not the umps overlooked it, and that's fine too.
So did O.J.
Which brings me to my next point.
The reason that I think people are making a big deal of the Kenny Rogers pine tar incident is because the World Series looks BORING this year. I mean, come on. It's the Tigers and the Cardinals. There's no storyline there, so it's easier to jump on a story about some pine tar. You know why? Kenny Rogers is pitching as well as Orel Hershiser did in the '88 series, and that is the only worthy storyline in the entire series.
It's not the tar. It's not the cheating. And it most certainly is NOT the idea peersonal responsibility that has people in "THE MEDIA" interested. It's why people jumped on Janet Jackson's breast (not literally, though I wouldn't rule it out). The Super Bowl was boring that year. Does anyone remember what happened other than the booby? I think not.
So let's just get honest, "THE MEDIA." CONTROVERSY is the only thing keeping baseball alive anymore. Because nobody watches it, even when it's a subway series they don't watch it anymore. The Tigers and Cardinals can't bring it back, most certainly, so controversy has to. The only thing that would have played better was a player walking up to the plate with a syringe sticking out of his ass.
But I digress.
Today I came to talk to you about personal responsibility. Kenny Rogers - the pitcher, not the singer - was found to have been using pine tar on his pitching hand the other night, and though I won't go through too many of the details (they seem to be all over the news anyway), I thought I'd talk a little about personal responsibility.
Now, it seems trivial to wonder whether or not Kenny Rogers should have used an illegal substance or not. That is beneath this discussion. Pro athletes have always used nefarious means to reach good ends. Ty Cobb, after all, used to file the points of his cleats (?) down to sharp points, in case he needed to use them on an opposing player during the game.
Using pine tar, I feel, is a trivial matter, you see.
BUT, I ask, why is it all right for a pitcher to bend the rules in the World Series? As reported on ESPN, the use of pine tar is often overlooked, especially on cold nights, because it only gives the pitcher a negligible amount of "edge" against the other team. So why bother to report it at all? He washed it off and continued pitching even better later in the game. What's the big deal?
Which is fine, I guess. But I just don't understand why newscasters would explain it away, admitting such a fact on the airwaves. They admitted that it was a common thing for pitchers to used pine tar or snot or whatever to gain an edge. No big deal. It's like saying, "Oh, he cheated a little bit." You can't cheat a little bit. It's all or nothing in these cases. There is no subjective angle to this situation. There is no degree to cheating. Once you've crossed the line, it's done. You have either cheated on an exam or you have not. There is no fuzzy ground. So, in this section, I'm calling out "THE MEDIA." Don't suggest that there was an amount of cheating involved. Kenny Rogers cheated, plain and simple. He got away with it, sort of, whether or not the umps overlooked it, and that's fine too.
So did O.J.
Which brings me to my next point.
The reason that I think people are making a big deal of the Kenny Rogers pine tar incident is because the World Series looks BORING this year. I mean, come on. It's the Tigers and the Cardinals. There's no storyline there, so it's easier to jump on a story about some pine tar. You know why? Kenny Rogers is pitching as well as Orel Hershiser did in the '88 series, and that is the only worthy storyline in the entire series.
It's not the tar. It's not the cheating. And it most certainly is NOT the idea peersonal responsibility that has people in "THE MEDIA" interested. It's why people jumped on Janet Jackson's breast (not literally, though I wouldn't rule it out). The Super Bowl was boring that year. Does anyone remember what happened other than the booby? I think not.
So let's just get honest, "THE MEDIA." CONTROVERSY is the only thing keeping baseball alive anymore. Because nobody watches it, even when it's a subway series they don't watch it anymore. The Tigers and Cardinals can't bring it back, most certainly, so controversy has to. The only thing that would have played better was a player walking up to the plate with a syringe sticking out of his ass.
Oct 22, 2006
FYI: Corduroy
Up until about two minutes ago, I thought the spelling of corduroy was Cuordoroy. That just goes to show I can be as stupid as any of you when I put my mind to it.
Oct 21, 2006
Things You Probably Didn't Know. . .
...That the disease from Memento is totally possible, if Guy Pearce were continually tailgating for Georgia games.
...That we'll all truly miss W. when he gets out of office. Seriously, have we had more fun making fun of the leader of the free world?
...That forgetting to make your College Football Pick 'Em choices one week is like losing your wallet. You feel real panic at first and then realize, "Hey, there's no money in this!" Just like your wallet!
...That some people equate eating meat with rape and undermining females. No, seriously. Check out The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory.
That's all for now. But it will be back later, so ponder these things while I wash clothes.
...That we'll all truly miss W. when he gets out of office. Seriously, have we had more fun making fun of the leader of the free world?
...That forgetting to make your College Football Pick 'Em choices one week is like losing your wallet. You feel real panic at first and then realize, "Hey, there's no money in this!" Just like your wallet!
...That some people equate eating meat with rape and undermining females. No, seriously. Check out The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory.
That's all for now. But it will be back later, so ponder these things while I wash clothes.
Oct 18, 2006
Is This the Twilight Zone?
Here's the thing. I've had just about the weirdest few weeks of my life. Not only did I piss off another blogger and have him - in the words of KlydeLanta - "passive-aggressive flame" me, but I also learned something about politics that I was never, ever, ever aware of before last Friday.
It was one of those realizations that makes you slap your forehead and go, "How in the hell did I not think of this before now! Jeez, I'm stupid."
The thing that I learned:
There are many subsets to that first, above-stated premise, but I will get to all of that later. This first one demands explanation, and I would not leave you hanging. That I promise.
It is generally the case that I'm in good moods on Fridays. That's just how I am. So i was having fun with the whole Mark Foley thing, talking about how ridiculous the Republican Party had become - I don't truly mean it, but I do think a lot of truth is said in jest - when I realized that a girl who works at my place of business was probably a Republican.
Upon asking her, she replied that she was, indeed, a Republican. So, in turn, I asked her why she was a Republican. Oh, that's another thing about me that you have to know for the story. I think most people have no clue why they vote this way or that, that it is mostly a function of growing up in a certain type of household, so I like to put people on the spot about their political beliefs. It makes for some pretty lively conversation.
Anyway, back to the story.
The girl tells me she is a Republican because she believes in "low taxes." I find this answer funny because it's the most obvious, thoughtless answer anyone could have come up with, but I digress.
Hmmm, I replied. Low Taxes?
"Yes," she said. "I don't believe my money should support, you know, other people." The interpretation? Black people, I'm almost certain. If you don't live in Georgia, suffice it to say that the racism is no longer overt, but sort of smugly passive-aggressive.
I took that as a fine answer, despite the implications. It's unfortunate, but not illegal, to have those kinds of answers. Not everybody can be informed, after all.
But then, oh my god, did it get better. Uh, so, I posed my next question like this (it's a bit of a loaded question, so I apologize):
I never said the question was fair, but I wanted to test her, to see what she could come up with on short notice.
I've almost never been left speechless, but this girl came extremely close with her next answer: "I just think being a Republican means being a God-fearing Christian."
She didn't directly answer my question, but okay. For my own gratification, I had her clarify.
That's the most important thing about being a Republican, I asked. Being a Christian?
Yep. Not even a hesitation in her voice. But, to her credit, she expounded on her former answer so as not to sound like a complete moron.
"Well, who are you going to support, Tyler? I couldn't support the Democrats. They don't believe in religion. They support Atheist organizations, and I can't support them."
All Democrats?
"Yep. Republicans are just more moral than Democrats. Bill Clinton had an affair, and because he had an affair, no Democrat has morals."
Which, I thought, was kind of funny at least. I didn't feel like stabbing myself in the ears at this point, but I wasn't very far from it.
"I mean, come on, Tyler. George Bush freed Iraq." At this point, I wished I'd had a tape recorder of some sort. "Didn't you see just how happy those people are? They can vote, and that makes them free."
At this point, I fainted, falling into a deep blackness that would not let up, not even a little bit.
Upon being revived, I said, "But they don't have any power, lights, or water. They're falling into becoming an Islamic Republic. Girls will be burned alive for showing up at schools to learn."
"What's an Islamic Republic" was her answer, followed closely by "they don't still torture people over there, not since W. freed them. That's impossible."
I give up.
It was one of those realizations that makes you slap your forehead and go, "How in the hell did I not think of this before now! Jeez, I'm stupid."
The thing that I learned:
Being a Republican is first and foremost being a God-fearing Christian, and everything else will fall into place.
There are many subsets to that first, above-stated premise, but I will get to all of that later. This first one demands explanation, and I would not leave you hanging. That I promise.
It is generally the case that I'm in good moods on Fridays. That's just how I am. So i was having fun with the whole Mark Foley thing, talking about how ridiculous the Republican Party had become - I don't truly mean it, but I do think a lot of truth is said in jest - when I realized that a girl who works at my place of business was probably a Republican.
Upon asking her, she replied that she was, indeed, a Republican. So, in turn, I asked her why she was a Republican. Oh, that's another thing about me that you have to know for the story. I think most people have no clue why they vote this way or that, that it is mostly a function of growing up in a certain type of household, so I like to put people on the spot about their political beliefs. It makes for some pretty lively conversation.
Anyway, back to the story.
The girl tells me she is a Republican because she believes in "low taxes." I find this answer funny because it's the most obvious, thoughtless answer anyone could have come up with, but I digress.
Hmmm, I replied. Low Taxes?
"Yes," she said. "I don't believe my money should support, you know, other people." The interpretation? Black people, I'm almost certain. If you don't live in Georgia, suffice it to say that the racism is no longer overt, but sort of smugly passive-aggressive.
I took that as a fine answer, despite the implications. It's unfortunate, but not illegal, to have those kinds of answers. Not everybody can be informed, after all.
But then, oh my god, did it get better. Uh, so, I posed my next question like this (it's a bit of a loaded question, so I apologize):
"Since this administration is one of the most morally corrupt and monetarily frivolous in history, how can you possibly call George W. Bush a Republican?"
I never said the question was fair, but I wanted to test her, to see what she could come up with on short notice.
I've almost never been left speechless, but this girl came extremely close with her next answer: "I just think being a Republican means being a God-fearing Christian."
She didn't directly answer my question, but okay. For my own gratification, I had her clarify.
That's the most important thing about being a Republican, I asked. Being a Christian?
Yep. Not even a hesitation in her voice. But, to her credit, she expounded on her former answer so as not to sound like a complete moron.
"Well, who are you going to support, Tyler? I couldn't support the Democrats. They don't believe in religion. They support Atheist organizations, and I can't support them."
All Democrats?
"Yep. Republicans are just more moral than Democrats. Bill Clinton had an affair, and because he had an affair, no Democrat has morals."
Which, I thought, was kind of funny at least. I didn't feel like stabbing myself in the ears at this point, but I wasn't very far from it.
"I mean, come on, Tyler. George Bush freed Iraq." At this point, I wished I'd had a tape recorder of some sort. "Didn't you see just how happy those people are? They can vote, and that makes them free."
At this point, I fainted, falling into a deep blackness that would not let up, not even a little bit.
Upon being revived, I said, "But they don't have any power, lights, or water. They're falling into becoming an Islamic Republic. Girls will be burned alive for showing up at schools to learn."
"What's an Islamic Republic" was her answer, followed closely by "they don't still torture people over there, not since W. freed them. That's impossible."
I give up.
Oct 13, 2006
Grind House Update
Jinx Protocol hasn't been very littered with videos lately, but I thought I'd make an exception in this case. The Grind House trailer is up on YouTube, and I've just got to say that it looks awesome.
It's not going to be an extremely popular movie, and the critics will hate it, but who cares? It is going to be exactly what RR and QT want it to be, which is a violent, gory, sexually explicit niche movie for genre fans.
I wouldn't expect anything less from the guys who did From Dusk Til Dawn. Other than the fact that one movie is a slasher pic (QT) and the other is a zombie flick (RR), I don't really have much else to say.
It is good to see Rose McGowan return to the big screen after what seemed like an indefinite hiatus. She's perfect for these kinds of movies, and I can't wait to see her kick ass. Also, Danny Trejo - Machete - will be good as one of the lead guys in the zombie flick. Robert Rodriguez always seems to use him in a pretty cool way. And, if it's shot in HD (which it most likely is), then he'll look just as "real" as ever.
That's about it for now.
It's not going to be an extremely popular movie, and the critics will hate it, but who cares? It is going to be exactly what RR and QT want it to be, which is a violent, gory, sexually explicit niche movie for genre fans.
I wouldn't expect anything less from the guys who did From Dusk Til Dawn. Other than the fact that one movie is a slasher pic (QT) and the other is a zombie flick (RR), I don't really have much else to say.
It is good to see Rose McGowan return to the big screen after what seemed like an indefinite hiatus. She's perfect for these kinds of movies, and I can't wait to see her kick ass. Also, Danny Trejo - Machete - will be good as one of the lead guys in the zombie flick. Robert Rodriguez always seems to use him in a pretty cool way. And, if it's shot in HD (which it most likely is), then he'll look just as "real" as ever.
That's about it for now.
Oct 12, 2006
Barcade - It's Where the Gods Play
I haven't had a lot of "look at this cool site" postings in quite a while. I thought I'd weaned myself from it, but apparently not.
I was just checking out New York Metro and found a link to a place called Barcade. Barcade is a bar in Brooklyn - obviously - but here's the catch: the walls are lined with old video games, so check it out.
I was just checking out New York Metro and found a link to a place called Barcade. Barcade is a bar in Brooklyn - obviously - but here's the catch: the walls are lined with old video games, so check it out.
30 Rock Meta-Discussion
Okay, so I know I'm supposed to be the resident pop culture guy, but - and I hate this - I didn't watch 30 Rock last night. Unlike you, I had planned to watch it, not for the comedic value, but to see just how big of a train wreck it would be.
Unfortunately, I don't think that it was as bad as I originally hoped it would be. But, here's the kicker, I didn't watch it at all so I can't make an assessment about it. I will, however, watch it next week and tell you exactly what I think.
I did stumble across a discussion about the show, though, and you should check it out to see if you agree with it or not.
I think that the two opinions represent two different enough viewpoints to make the reading entertaining, though I think they're purposefully being soft on the show. I don't know. Did anyone out there watch it? WHat do you think?
Unfortunately, I don't think that it was as bad as I originally hoped it would be. But, here's the kicker, I didn't watch it at all so I can't make an assessment about it. I will, however, watch it next week and tell you exactly what I think.
I did stumble across a discussion about the show, though, and you should check it out to see if you agree with it or not.
I think that the two opinions represent two different enough viewpoints to make the reading entertaining, though I think they're purposefully being soft on the show. I don't know. Did anyone out there watch it? WHat do you think?
Oct 11, 2006
Schemes and Schemes and Schemes
I like little schemes. When I want something and don't necessarily have the money for it, I often try to think of little schemes to get what I want, to make what I want happen.
I am the Bush Administration on a much smaller scale.
For instance, right now I am listening to a lot of audio books. However, they are extremely expensive, if you haven't noticed (and most of you, understandably, have not). Since I am a starving artist and artisty types are most definitely on the broke side, I knew I'd need a plan to get what I wanted.
I thought, hmmm, since books on CD are very expensive, why don't I downgrade to audio cassette?
I did and the experience has been good so far, although the medium isn't as portable and succinct as I would like (succint meaning that it is hard to skip around for all of the rewinding and fast forwarding and such). I bought a tape walkman online for three dollars and jumped for joy when it arrived.
However, as it turns out, those buggers need batteries to run, by God, and I don't have the liquid assets - cash - to waste on those alkaline beauties, even the cheap ones.
And, it looks quite embarrassing to sport a tape walkman in polite society. I live in Athens. It is tres stupid to not have the latest technology, and I have taken not one, but two, steps back in that regard. I have gone down from the mp3 device through the cd player to the cassette. Wow. I manage to amaze even myself sometimes.
But those are the drawbacks. The + signs are as follows:
It's cheap to buy books on tape, and my local library is full of them, even up-to-date books. Well, if Harry Potter counts.
I bought From a Buick 8 on cassette for about $.94, and that ain't half bad. Also, it's sort of fun in that not-really-cool-but-I-do-it-anyway sort of way. I don't mind, and it is sort of the uncool cool that so many people strive for. Actually it's not as cool as I would have hoped, although I think I'm on to something.
Don't be surprised if you come to visit and I'm writing with quills and watching Brian's Song on Betamax, okay?
I am the Bush Administration on a much smaller scale.
For instance, right now I am listening to a lot of audio books. However, they are extremely expensive, if you haven't noticed (and most of you, understandably, have not). Since I am a starving artist and artisty types are most definitely on the broke side, I knew I'd need a plan to get what I wanted.
I thought, hmmm, since books on CD are very expensive, why don't I downgrade to audio cassette?
I did and the experience has been good so far, although the medium isn't as portable and succinct as I would like (succint meaning that it is hard to skip around for all of the rewinding and fast forwarding and such). I bought a tape walkman online for three dollars and jumped for joy when it arrived.
However, as it turns out, those buggers need batteries to run, by God, and I don't have the liquid assets - cash - to waste on those alkaline beauties, even the cheap ones.
And, it looks quite embarrassing to sport a tape walkman in polite society. I live in Athens. It is tres stupid to not have the latest technology, and I have taken not one, but two, steps back in that regard. I have gone down from the mp3 device through the cd player to the cassette. Wow. I manage to amaze even myself sometimes.
But those are the drawbacks. The + signs are as follows:
It's cheap to buy books on tape, and my local library is full of them, even up-to-date books. Well, if Harry Potter counts.
I bought From a Buick 8 on cassette for about $.94, and that ain't half bad. Also, it's sort of fun in that not-really-cool-but-I-do-it-anyway sort of way. I don't mind, and it is sort of the uncool cool that so many people strive for. Actually it's not as cool as I would have hoped, although I think I'm on to something.
Don't be surprised if you come to visit and I'm writing with quills and watching Brian's Song on Betamax, okay?
Just a Quick Hello
I know I haven't been posting everyday, but I want to remedy that. I've just been so involved in te book - what a pretensious thing to say - that I haven't had a chance.
Uh, but other than that, everything seems to be going well in my world. And, I haven't been reading the paper(s) lately and it is for that reason that I have neglected the blog in the last week or so. I apologize grandly, but I'm going to make a greater effort, especially when the book is done.
So, HI! That's all I really have to say right now.
Uh, but other than that, everything seems to be going well in my world. And, I haven't been reading the paper(s) lately and it is for that reason that I have neglected the blog in the last week or so. I apologize grandly, but I'm going to make a greater effort, especially when the book is done.
So, HI! That's all I really have to say right now.
Oct 9, 2006
Foley
Uh, I'm having a real problem with the way the Mark Foley scandal is playing out. Because he is a Republican, lots of the wearying details of what has gone on is being swept under the rug.
For some reason, Christian leaders have not piped up about this issue. Hmmm. Doesn't make very much sense to me. What Foley did was despicable, because it is morally reprehensible to have sex or want to have sex with males under the age of eighteen. And, furthermore, it's reprehensible that he have sex with males in gender because HE WAS EFFING MARRIED.
What does Rush Limbaugh, voice - and ugly face - of the Republican party at large have to say? "It was a set-up by the Democrats."
Well, there. Good. I'm glad. Because I'd hate for a Republican to do someting of his own volition, you know? Not that Democrats are any better - they are not, not by a LONG, LONG shot - but this explaining away has to stop.
But, as long as it's a sex scandal, Rush is all for "the freakier, the better." Never mind that Foley had sex with a male page - who was legal, by the way - but he tried to start cliche e-mail sex relationships with several others.
How is that the Democrats' fault in ANY fashion? If they did set him up, then I say good! Because if not, then we have a new standard in politics that mirrors the Catholic Church.
But we can't send Foley to another Congress so he can have unadulterated sex with more teenagers and scar them for life. It's the only one we've got.
Adultery is one thing. Adultery with an underage boy is another. Come one. Do none of you watch Desperate Housewives? It always turns out badly.
And going back to the Christians, I hate to bash them, but it seems that they're a lot more understanding than they were in, I'd say, 8 to 9 years. Either MonicaGate cured them of their desire for public figures not to have adulterous relationships or - gasp! - they're trying to make sure their party wins in November! What a revelation. You know, I really do wonder WWJD in this situation. What would ole JC do if he found out his Christian brethren were pretending to be forgiving of people committing sins against the institution of marriage. Because that seems like a hot-button topic lately. I don't know. I hope he'd say, "at least you've come this far." He'd probably be a lot more "last chapter of the Bible" if he found out they were doing it for votes in an election, though. I'd bet my eternity on it. Almost.
For some reason, Christian leaders have not piped up about this issue. Hmmm. Doesn't make very much sense to me. What Foley did was despicable, because it is morally reprehensible to have sex or want to have sex with males under the age of eighteen. And, furthermore, it's reprehensible that he have sex with males in gender because HE WAS EFFING MARRIED.
What does Rush Limbaugh, voice - and ugly face - of the Republican party at large have to say? "It was a set-up by the Democrats."
Well, there. Good. I'm glad. Because I'd hate for a Republican to do someting of his own volition, you know? Not that Democrats are any better - they are not, not by a LONG, LONG shot - but this explaining away has to stop.
But, as long as it's a sex scandal, Rush is all for "the freakier, the better." Never mind that Foley had sex with a male page - who was legal, by the way - but he tried to start cliche e-mail sex relationships with several others.
How is that the Democrats' fault in ANY fashion? If they did set him up, then I say good! Because if not, then we have a new standard in politics that mirrors the Catholic Church.
But we can't send Foley to another Congress so he can have unadulterated sex with more teenagers and scar them for life. It's the only one we've got.
Adultery is one thing. Adultery with an underage boy is another. Come one. Do none of you watch Desperate Housewives? It always turns out badly.
And going back to the Christians, I hate to bash them, but it seems that they're a lot more understanding than they were in, I'd say, 8 to 9 years. Either MonicaGate cured them of their desire for public figures not to have adulterous relationships or - gasp! - they're trying to make sure their party wins in November! What a revelation. You know, I really do wonder WWJD in this situation. What would ole JC do if he found out his Christian brethren were pretending to be forgiving of people committing sins against the institution of marriage. Because that seems like a hot-button topic lately. I don't know. I hope he'd say, "at least you've come this far." He'd probably be a lot more "last chapter of the Bible" if he found out they were doing it for votes in an election, though. I'd bet my eternity on it. Almost.
Oct 6, 2006
What Bitterness Can Do to a Person
I've honestly always thought of Stephen King as one of America's best writers. He's a lot of other things, too, admittedly, but he's also fantastic. It's a little bit of the fanboy coming out in me, but I think it's also the truth. He IS a great writer, a great weaver of tales, and really that's all I think that matters. That and being snide. Just kidding.
So it was with great pleasure that I read this guy's blog over at a place called YourHub.
Apparently, he met a very unenthusiastic Stephen King before a Rock Bottom Remainders gig - the band King was in, along with Dave Barry, Amy Tan, and Mitch Albom - and took offense to the author's demeanor, which was an aloof sort of unapproachable-ness.
Anyway, you can read the story at the above link, but I just wanted to talk a little about this subject. After I bash the guy a little more.
He's devoted his blog to 20 authors to read (other than Stephen King). Which is fine. Nobody said that everyone had to read the guy, but I don't think an opinion based on bitterness - the guy said he formerly worshipped King - has any value whatsoever. NONE.
So what, you meet a famous guy and he turns out to be uncool, so you bash him? What a gyp. I've met several famous people in my life - I have never paid 300 bucks to meet them, as this D.B. did, but that's another story for another time - and I'd say that 99 percent of them were unapproachable D.B.s as well. I kind of expect it as a matter of course, not as an exception to the rule.
The guy said that he also met Dave Barry and Mitch Albom and that Mitch Albom was a great guy. Well, I've got some news for you, my friends. Fred Toucher, former DJ for 99X, worked for Mitch Albom in Chicago and said HE was an asshole. Does that mean I should go out and burn all of Albom's books and create a "20 Authors Who Aren't Rude to their Employees" blog? No. Because that's childish. So what if Stephen King was rude to one guy? I've been rude to plenty of people and I'm not famous.
If you somehow think that being famous makes you responsible to bow down to the people who read your books, you shouldn't read this blog. I don't believe in that whatsoever. I like most everybody who reads JP and I like talking to them, but I also have bad days. I wouldn't want somebody to judge me on the basis of a single encounter. That's snotty-nosed, reprehensible solipsism at work, and it should be avoided.
So it was with great pleasure that I read this guy's blog over at a place called YourHub.
Apparently, he met a very unenthusiastic Stephen King before a Rock Bottom Remainders gig - the band King was in, along with Dave Barry, Amy Tan, and Mitch Albom - and took offense to the author's demeanor, which was an aloof sort of unapproachable-ness.
Anyway, you can read the story at the above link, but I just wanted to talk a little about this subject. After I bash the guy a little more.
He's devoted his blog to 20 authors to read (other than Stephen King). Which is fine. Nobody said that everyone had to read the guy, but I don't think an opinion based on bitterness - the guy said he formerly worshipped King - has any value whatsoever. NONE.
So what, you meet a famous guy and he turns out to be uncool, so you bash him? What a gyp. I've met several famous people in my life - I have never paid 300 bucks to meet them, as this D.B. did, but that's another story for another time - and I'd say that 99 percent of them were unapproachable D.B.s as well. I kind of expect it as a matter of course, not as an exception to the rule.
The guy said that he also met Dave Barry and Mitch Albom and that Mitch Albom was a great guy. Well, I've got some news for you, my friends. Fred Toucher, former DJ for 99X, worked for Mitch Albom in Chicago and said HE was an asshole. Does that mean I should go out and burn all of Albom's books and create a "20 Authors Who Aren't Rude to their Employees" blog? No. Because that's childish. So what if Stephen King was rude to one guy? I've been rude to plenty of people and I'm not famous.
If you somehow think that being famous makes you responsible to bow down to the people who read your books, you shouldn't read this blog. I don't believe in that whatsoever. I like most everybody who reads JP and I like talking to them, but I also have bad days. I wouldn't want somebody to judge me on the basis of a single encounter. That's snotty-nosed, reprehensible solipsism at work, and it should be avoided.
Oct 5, 2006
Westboro Baptist Church & MySpace - Who Woulda Thunk It?
What do Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have in common? Neither of them has a MySpace Page.
BUT - and this is a big butt (ha ha) - FRED PHELPS OF WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH has his own MySpace Page!!! OH MY GOD!
Check it Out. Oh, Jesus Almighty, this group of people sucks so very bad. They actually protest funerals. Not just the funerals of dead gay people, but funerals of straight U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq. Uck. And why? Because they believe that God is punishing America and that it's good to have all these people die. It's GOOD to them, because somehow a God of hate is the God of their bible.
It's horrible.
BUT - and this is a big butt (ha ha) - FRED PHELPS OF WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH has his own MySpace Page!!! OH MY GOD!
Check it Out. Oh, Jesus Almighty, this group of people sucks so very bad. They actually protest funerals. Not just the funerals of dead gay people, but funerals of straight U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq. Uck. And why? Because they believe that God is punishing America and that it's good to have all these people die. It's GOOD to them, because somehow a God of hate is the God of their bible.
It's horrible.
No News (would be) Good News
Did you ever get the feeling that either the world is, if not going to Hell, already in Hell or that "The News" just making it all up? I mean, how many threats can we get from North Korea and Iran before we just go, "Bomb us already! Jesus, the suspense is KILLING ME! (no pun intended)"
It's like Bill Hicks said:
I mean, I'm as scared as anyone that this administration is going to amble right into some kind of nuclear holocaust, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms altogether. It's almost disheartening to know that my fear may be for nothing whatsoever, you know what I mean? I'm not being cute either. The morons in Washington are so worried about one pedophile who likes adolescent boys that they're ignoring the overseas threats, or what I once thought was threats.
It may all just be one hell of an Orson Welles impression we're getting these days. And, by the way, if Foley had really wanted to sleep with little guys he would have flown to Thailand. You don't need e-mail to get underage, confused boys to have sex with you there. Hmmm, maybe somebody should check his junkets - that's not in his pants - to see if he's had any trips overseas.
It's like Bill Hicks said:
I don't understand anything, so there you go … you know what my problem is? I watch too much news, man. That's my problem, that's why I'm so depressed all the time. I figured it out. I watch too much CNN, man. I don't know if you've ever sat around and watched CNN more than, I don't know, 20 hours in one day … I don't recommend that. Watch CNN Headline News for 1 hour, it's the most depressing thing you'll ever fucking do. "WAR, FAMINE, DEATH, AIDS, HOMELESS, RECESSION, DEPRESSION. WAR, FAMINE, DEATH, AIDS, HOMELESS …" Then, you look out your window … [makes cricket noises] Where's all this shit happening? Ted Turner's making this shit up! Jane Fonda won't sleep with him, he runs to a typewriter: "'By 1992, we will all die of AIDS.' Read that on the air. I don't get laid, no one gets laid!" I'm writing Jane Fonda: "Will you fuck this guy so we can get some good news, please?" I want to see a well-laid Ted Turner newscast: "Hey, it's all going to work out. Here's sports."
I mean, I'm as scared as anyone that this administration is going to amble right into some kind of nuclear holocaust, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms altogether. It's almost disheartening to know that my fear may be for nothing whatsoever, you know what I mean? I'm not being cute either. The morons in Washington are so worried about one pedophile who likes adolescent boys that they're ignoring the overseas threats, or what I once thought was threats.
It may all just be one hell of an Orson Welles impression we're getting these days. And, by the way, if Foley had really wanted to sleep with little guys he would have flown to Thailand. You don't need e-mail to get underage, confused boys to have sex with you there. Hmmm, maybe somebody should check his junkets - that's not in his pants - to see if he's had any trips overseas.
Sorry, My Time Hates Me!
I don't like to update "slice-of-life" things or post "here's what's happening with me" sorts of gibberish. I know, it's a blog, but my life just isn't that interesting.
However, I am getting toward the end of the novel, and that's all I've had time for over the last two weeks or so. I know it's supposed to already be done, but I've been put in touch with a few agents and just wanted to run through it and crease out the wrinkles before having anyone else look at it.
So, "normal" blogging for me may not come for a few weeks now, at least until this FINAL draft of the book is done. Until then, You can read over all of the great posts on the sidebar
OR
You can become my friend on MySpace and become more Zen. Cool?
However, I am getting toward the end of the novel, and that's all I've had time for over the last two weeks or so. I know it's supposed to already be done, but I've been put in touch with a few agents and just wanted to run through it and crease out the wrinkles before having anyone else look at it.
So, "normal" blogging for me may not come for a few weeks now, at least until this FINAL draft of the book is done. Until then, You can read over all of the great posts on the sidebar
OR
You can become my friend on MySpace and become more Zen. Cool?
Oct 3, 2006
The Big Things - or the Little Things?
A woman came into my place of business today and bought 170 bucks in unnecessary UGA trinkets and such. My point is not to argue whether the stuff was necessary or not, but to wonder whether or not buying big stuff is as good/bad for your soul as buying little stuff.
These are the things I think of when I'm alone.
You see, the lady in question didn't seem to have a lot of money, if I can be so forthright and arrogant as to judge a person by her appearance and demeanor. She could have been an award-winning journalist, but let's not quibble over that which simply does not fly.
She seemed like the type of person to fill her house with loads of little things, though she is merely an archetype for the college fan. It could just about be anyone in the state of Georgia who shares her affliction.
I wondered, Does it matter if we buy little things or big things? Her house, no doubt, is filled with trinkets and doodads of various shapes and sizes. I didn't quite scoff at her purchases - at least not to her face - but I thought she could have used her money more wisely somewhere else or doing something else.
I am in debt. I can make no assertions of taste in spending, though it does open up the discussion. Would it have been better for her to buy a big screen television? Or a car? Or maybe a table and some groceries? That's big stuff, but it still would not raise her level of affluency in the long run. Is it because she is poor that she chooses to buy more small things than one big thing?
Is it a sociological - or perhaps a psychological - affliction to buy trinkets? Maybe it is, and it's only end of to have a house full of stuff. Perhaps it makes her feel as though she is more complete than before with a small figurine of UGA hanging from her rearview mirror.
But I don't necessarily think that it's about completion. That's a hard distinction to make, because people who buy big things aren't necessarily more complete than those who don't. But does the woman not know what saving money is? Does she expect to sell those little treasures upon reaching retirement age? Will that work?
Maybe she does save, but I know the type of person who saves, and she is not it. To avoid criticism for being snide, I grew up around an entire family of people who did not and still do not save money, as if money is somehow a quickly fading commodity to be used at the soonest behest of its owners.
But it does not change the question: Are you a big buyer or a small buyer? As much as I'd like to say I'm a big buyer, I must say that I'm a small buyer. i tend to spend money on small things instead of getting one big thing, and it's sort of saddening.
These are the things I think of when I'm alone.
You see, the lady in question didn't seem to have a lot of money, if I can be so forthright and arrogant as to judge a person by her appearance and demeanor. She could have been an award-winning journalist, but let's not quibble over that which simply does not fly.
She seemed like the type of person to fill her house with loads of little things, though she is merely an archetype for the college fan. It could just about be anyone in the state of Georgia who shares her affliction.
I wondered, Does it matter if we buy little things or big things? Her house, no doubt, is filled with trinkets and doodads of various shapes and sizes. I didn't quite scoff at her purchases - at least not to her face - but I thought she could have used her money more wisely somewhere else or doing something else.
I am in debt. I can make no assertions of taste in spending, though it does open up the discussion. Would it have been better for her to buy a big screen television? Or a car? Or maybe a table and some groceries? That's big stuff, but it still would not raise her level of affluency in the long run. Is it because she is poor that she chooses to buy more small things than one big thing?
Is it a sociological - or perhaps a psychological - affliction to buy trinkets? Maybe it is, and it's only end of to have a house full of stuff. Perhaps it makes her feel as though she is more complete than before with a small figurine of UGA hanging from her rearview mirror.
But I don't necessarily think that it's about completion. That's a hard distinction to make, because people who buy big things aren't necessarily more complete than those who don't. But does the woman not know what saving money is? Does she expect to sell those little treasures upon reaching retirement age? Will that work?
Maybe she does save, but I know the type of person who saves, and she is not it. To avoid criticism for being snide, I grew up around an entire family of people who did not and still do not save money, as if money is somehow a quickly fading commodity to be used at the soonest behest of its owners.
But it does not change the question: Are you a big buyer or a small buyer? As much as I'd like to say I'm a big buyer, I must say that I'm a small buyer. i tend to spend money on small things instead of getting one big thing, and it's sort of saddening.
Oct 2, 2006
A Little Lesson in Customer Service
The other day - it was Friday, actually - I picked up an order of chips & salsa from Loco's Deli and Pub - because I love that place - and a sandwich from a place to be named later. I'll call it Timmy Tohms. I do such a thing because the C&S from Loco's is 2.99 and the (*sandwich*) I get from TTs is 2.99, so it comes out to about 6.40 with tax.
Anyway, I get my C&S and I'm feeling good about my Friday ritual. I pass by the Jimbo's on Baxter and stop in to TTs, which is between Domino's Pizza and Wing Nuts, across from the Barber Shop and Beat the Bookstore.
I stand in line, my mouth watering at the idea of my favorite sandwich from there, which is a tuna on white bread. Yum yum dim sum.
When I order, the gentleman behind the counter begins my sandwich. I'm happy, I'm pumped, and I'm thinking about how my weekend is gonna rock. Because that's what I do on Fridays.
Unbeknownst to me, a BITCH who works - or hopefully worked - there walks up as the man is making my sandwich and opens her dum mouth, saying, "Ew. I hate when you guys open up that container. Tuna fish smells like cat food. Gross. I don't see how anybody eats that!"
RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY FACE, AS THEY'RE MAKING MY EFFING SANDWICH!!!! AAAARGGGHHH!!!!
Flustered but still all right, I walked back to work and began work on my sandwich. It was tasty beyond the crappy, crappy 'tude of the dumbass working there.
And then I start to think about it, and it's almost like my GF has cheated on me. I felt betrayed by one of my fav sandwich shops - not cool, Timmy Tohms - and so I called, just to get the manager to commiserate with me and say, "yeah, that was bull. [speaking to someone near the phone] You're fired!!! Our tuna smells like petunias!"
But, alas, that did not happen. A (*gentleman*) answered the phone, CLAIMING to be the manager, though sounded younger than me and half as confident. I told him that I didn't want a refun or anything, but that the service sucked...and stuff.
His reply?
"Yeah, I'll talk, um, to her, I guess. That, uh, it won't happen again."
You know what was missing? An apology. Or anything.
I was pissed, filled with unbearable anger after being smited by a lowly sandwiche shoppe and then getting my travesty thrown in my face for having the courage to talk aloud about it.
Guys, I wouldn't go to Timmy Tohm's. It's a horrible fictional restaurant.
Anyway, I get my C&S and I'm feeling good about my Friday ritual. I pass by the Jimbo's on Baxter and stop in to TTs, which is between Domino's Pizza and Wing Nuts, across from the Barber Shop and Beat the Bookstore.
I stand in line, my mouth watering at the idea of my favorite sandwich from there, which is a tuna on white bread. Yum yum dim sum.
When I order, the gentleman behind the counter begins my sandwich. I'm happy, I'm pumped, and I'm thinking about how my weekend is gonna rock. Because that's what I do on Fridays.
Unbeknownst to me, a BITCH who works - or hopefully worked - there walks up as the man is making my sandwich and opens her dum mouth, saying, "Ew. I hate when you guys open up that container. Tuna fish smells like cat food. Gross. I don't see how anybody eats that!"
RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY FACE, AS THEY'RE MAKING MY EFFING SANDWICH!!!! AAAARGGGHHH!!!!
Flustered but still all right, I walked back to work and began work on my sandwich. It was tasty beyond the crappy, crappy 'tude of the dumbass working there.
And then I start to think about it, and it's almost like my GF has cheated on me. I felt betrayed by one of my fav sandwich shops - not cool, Timmy Tohms - and so I called, just to get the manager to commiserate with me and say, "yeah, that was bull. [speaking to someone near the phone] You're fired!!! Our tuna smells like petunias!"
But, alas, that did not happen. A (*gentleman*) answered the phone, CLAIMING to be the manager, though sounded younger than me and half as confident. I told him that I didn't want a refun or anything, but that the service sucked...and stuff.
His reply?
"Yeah, I'll talk, um, to her, I guess. That, uh, it won't happen again."
You know what was missing? An apology. Or anything.
I was pissed, filled with unbearable anger after being smited by a lowly sandwiche shoppe and then getting my travesty thrown in my face for having the courage to talk aloud about it.
Guys, I wouldn't go to Timmy Tohm's. It's a horrible fictional restaurant.
Oct 1, 2006
Abyss of Oblivion - The GI Joe Movie
G.I. Joe was one of my favorie television shows - and toy lines, coincidentally - in the 80s, and I'm watching the movie right now. As we speak, if you will.
Something struck me as funny. I know you know what I'm about to say, but I'm going to say it anyway.
Why in the hell did the makers of the movie have such a ham-fisted, half-assed "He's gone...into a coma" storyline?
For those of you who don't know, one of the main characters, Duke, is struck in the heart with a snake-stick - I know, but you don't have to laugh - and drops to the ground before giving a soliloqy and sighing out what is thought to be his last breath. Instead of letting him die, Scarlett pronounces him "in a coma" and later he's said to be "recovering".
Those who know are already jumping up and down about this subject, saying, "Transformers! It's the Transformers movie! That's why they did that!"
And that's partly true. The Transformers movie had the main character, Optimus Prime, killed off in the first ten minutes and public - mostly "mommy" - outrage gave it a bad name, and the makers of G.I. Joe certainly did not want the same firestorm. Because it was a toy franchise first and a cartoon (or piece of "art") second, public opinion would play a definite role in the outcome of the movie.
Which brings me to the real, first reason that Duke was to be killed off. The toy company had planned to discontinue the Duke line of toys and wanted to pass the reigns off to Falcon, the saucy newcomer in the movie. When it became obvious that parents thought it horrific to kill off characters, they caved in and came up with the cheesy coma angle. The parents obviously were not aware of the irony in demanding that a show about war and terrorists not kill off any of the characters. I mean, what did they think it was? M.A.S.H.?
Which brings me to the next point. Another reason that the creators wanted Duke to get the axe was that the show had received criticism (?) for its cartoonish depictions of violence (?). Okay, that sounds ridiculous. And, well, it is. But the guys at whatever studio decided that they wanted to shed the kiddie violence angle and really kick some ass. Which is, I guess, why they included the uber-creepy Cobra-La storyline. Um, but my problem with it is that, if they wanted real violence, why did they continue to use blue and red lasers instead of real bullets? It would make sense, wouldn't it, to have something like that, right?
Which brings me to the NEXT point, and I have to give credit to Johnny for this one: Why were there different guns? Think about it before you answer. Is there a need for an uzi, a submachine gun, a pistol and a shotgun if they all produce an unrealistic ray of light?
Nitpicking? Okay, I'll move on.
Something struck me as funny. I know you know what I'm about to say, but I'm going to say it anyway.
Why in the hell did the makers of the movie have such a ham-fisted, half-assed "He's gone...into a coma" storyline?
For those of you who don't know, one of the main characters, Duke, is struck in the heart with a snake-stick - I know, but you don't have to laugh - and drops to the ground before giving a soliloqy and sighing out what is thought to be his last breath. Instead of letting him die, Scarlett pronounces him "in a coma" and later he's said to be "recovering".
Those who know are already jumping up and down about this subject, saying, "Transformers! It's the Transformers movie! That's why they did that!"
And that's partly true. The Transformers movie had the main character, Optimus Prime, killed off in the first ten minutes and public - mostly "mommy" - outrage gave it a bad name, and the makers of G.I. Joe certainly did not want the same firestorm. Because it was a toy franchise first and a cartoon (or piece of "art") second, public opinion would play a definite role in the outcome of the movie.
Which brings me to the real, first reason that Duke was to be killed off. The toy company had planned to discontinue the Duke line of toys and wanted to pass the reigns off to Falcon, the saucy newcomer in the movie. When it became obvious that parents thought it horrific to kill off characters, they caved in and came up with the cheesy coma angle. The parents obviously were not aware of the irony in demanding that a show about war and terrorists not kill off any of the characters. I mean, what did they think it was? M.A.S.H.?
Which brings me to the next point. Another reason that the creators wanted Duke to get the axe was that the show had received criticism (?) for its cartoonish depictions of violence (?). Okay, that sounds ridiculous. And, well, it is. But the guys at whatever studio decided that they wanted to shed the kiddie violence angle and really kick some ass. Which is, I guess, why they included the uber-creepy Cobra-La storyline. Um, but my problem with it is that, if they wanted real violence, why did they continue to use blue and red lasers instead of real bullets? It would make sense, wouldn't it, to have something like that, right?
Which brings me to the NEXT point, and I have to give credit to Johnny for this one: Why were there different guns? Think about it before you answer. Is there a need for an uzi, a submachine gun, a pistol and a shotgun if they all produce an unrealistic ray of light?
Nitpicking? Okay, I'll move on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
