This is not something I am likely to do often, but given that this poem provided the title to this blog, & the fact that I don't think anyone really ever comes to this blog, I'm going to post a poem here. As with any poem I have written, this one is not finished, & is in fact very close to its original form. So judge not too harshly.
Reading Them Right Now
Reading them right now, with my car
pouring anti-freeze uncontrollably
in the street, stranded, sipping coffee,
I thought of how once when I used to
see you more often you would
dance impromptu excursions of arms
hinged like the scarecrow
from the Wizard of Oz
and hips and legs like
a mermaid’s lower body.
I missed you then,
and wondered if you might
be stranded in your new city
thinking of me or if you
settled in unconsciously
like so many of those beetles
that look like ladybugs
that took over our city
years ago when we lived near each other.
I had hoped many times before
that you would miss me, but somehow, there,
reading them right then, with
my car pouring anti-freeze uncontrollably
in the street, stranded, sipping coffee,
I thought of you and hoped
that I was the last thing
on your mind; wished
that you would never feel stranded
and only when you danced deliberately
might I cross your mind for a moment,
but only because you wanted me
to, never, like the anti-freeze
pooling at my feet, uncontrollably.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Article
Two articles follow: The first is the cover story for Time magazine last week. The second is a piece I lamely shopped around to City Pages & The Rake last October. I post this for three reasons: 1) As a lesson to myself. The Time article is obviously vastly superior, because it is more specific & better reported. Still, I think that many ideas are very similar. Lesson: if you (I) feel strongly enough to write something, don't half-ass it--follow it through to the end. 2) I post with a chip on my shoulder, I confess. I still feel that at the time my article was worth a chance at publication. & 3) Now I have a place to put it; then I didn't. And no one would put it anywhere for me. So.
(Note: I doubt I would write the same piece today, but I didn't want to change it, because that would negate the purpose of the compare & contrast nature of this post.)
Time article
Mine:
Can’t Leave: A Democrat’s reasons why the U.S. should not pull its military out of Iraq
October, 2006
There is much talk in the political landscape these days of pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible. This talk stems from arguments that the U.S. is losing young men and women needlessly, or as the Minneapolis Star Tribune put it, “spend[ing] more American blood… on a lost cause” (November 6, 2006). The crucial problem with this line of thinking is that it has little regard for all human life, and holds only U.S. lives to the standard that should be extended to everyone, U.S. citizen or not.
In the beginning of the war in Iraq those of us who were against it never bought into the idea that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. Then, when our view was later justified by the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found, the Bush Administration quickly changed its rhetoric to the tune of the war as humanitarian action, as in Saddam was a terrible man doing terrible things to many people, and it was only right and just for us to stop him. While this sentiment is true, those of us opposed to the war weren’t buying this justification either. Or, truer still, weren’t buying that any of the people making the argument for war really cared about the people Saddam was oppressing and killing. If we cared (care) so much for human life and its defense, where are our troops on the ground in Darfur and North Korea?
While no one supports the deaths of thousands of troops thus far, nor those inevitably to come, the idea of removing all our troops from Iraq as quickly as possible places a greater emphasis on those human lives than on those of the Iraqi people we claimed, albeit secondarily, to wish to protect.
This is not a thought process distinct to the U.S. All countries look to first and foremost defend the lives of their citizenry. And rightly so. However, the problem in our present situation is that, by starting this war we have made Iraq a more dangerous place for its citizenry. We have created a country that, depending on who you ask, is either bordering on a civil war, or is in the midst of a full-blown civil war. Semantics aside, the fact is that the number of people dying in Iraq each day has risen due to our presence, with mutilated bodies showing up in the streets by the dozens having become the order of the day.
Now, if those sentiments of a true humanitarian mission (i.e. Saddam was killing and had to be stopped) held any water, our country and its leaders would be far more troubled by this fact than anyone seems to be. If there were a real concern for human life, not just U.S. life, the fact that at the very least tens of thousands of Iraqi people have been killed since our presence began would outrage anyone holding those views.
If even in the midst of the strongest military power in the world these countless deaths are taking place, imagine what the scenario would look like without the presence of the U.S. military. Certainly if those who argue Iraq is only now bordering on civil war are correct, a complete evacuation of U.S. military personnel from the country would be the final step in allowing the teeter-totter to fall to the side of full-scale civil war, leading to even more Iraqi deaths.
In plain terms, and in words sounding too close to those on the right for my usual comfort, our country needs to finish what it started. Or rather, needs to fix the mess we’ve created. The arguments for evacuation do not include a plan for this, and do not address anything outside of the number of U.S. lives that would be saved. An important, but certainly not the only number to be addressed.
Having not agreed with the use of military action in Iraq from the beginning, I do not think that this will be done through military means alone. However, because of the present violence that blankets most of Iraq now, it does not seem possible to make the necessary changes through non-military action alone, either.
What needs to occur, and this is true of all decisions made by our “leaders” in a world that continues to get smaller and smaller each day and with each new technological advance, is policy- and decision-making based on a respect for all of human life, rather than just those who can prove they are U.S. citizens. Yes, it is true that we need to defend ourselves against those who wish to do us harm, and this would be more efficiently accomplished if our troops were more available to our needs at home (i.e. protecting our ports, terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, etc.) and for actual possible imminent dangers (i.e. Iran, North Korea, et al.). But, we have placed our military in a situation and that situation has become worse for all parties involved. It is not fair to those whose lives are depending on the protection we, by creating the situation, have promised them to leave that situation as it stands now.
There needs to be a true humanitarian showing first by our policies, then enacted by our military present in Iraq. Look at the aftermath of the Israeli-Hezbollah war. Hezbollah, a terrorist group to be sure, immediately began a “humanitarian” effort of rebuilding houses and neighborhoods that had been destroyed by actions taken in that month-long affair. Within days roads were cleared and rebuilding had begun, and Hezbollah came off looking like champions of the people to those who could once again drive their streets. How often do we hear of the Iraqi infrastructure still being in shambles, with neighborhoods lacking water, electricity, and other necessities they once held?
Someone, undoubtedly much wiser than I, once said we are the greatest country in the world by default. It is time now to once again be the greatest country in the world, not because others fail to take the position, but because our actions throughout the world cannot be surpassed, only imitated by others. This must begin with an empathy for all human life, not just those we call our own.
Let us use the rhetoric given to us to cover a mistake and turn it into truth. Saddam was an awful person. He should not have been in a position of power so unchecked it led to the death of many innocent people. This could be said of many in power throughout the world. But we went into Iraq, not many other places throughout the world. It would be wrong to leave it the way it is now. But our efforts need to change, and it needs to be understood by the Iraqi people living in constant fear that those efforts have changed. We need to act on the message we have been telling these people throughout: that we are there for them; we are trying to make their lives better.
Pulling our troops out now would send the opposite message. Pulling out our troops now would not be an action taken by the greatest country in the world. Making the world a better, safer place beginning in the place we made worse and more dangerous would be an action taken by the greatest country in the world.
Let us be that country, not because those before us have given us the title, but because we have earned it.
(Note: I doubt I would write the same piece today, but I didn't want to change it, because that would negate the purpose of the compare & contrast nature of this post.)
Time article
Mine:
Can’t Leave: A Democrat’s reasons why the U.S. should not pull its military out of Iraq
October, 2006
There is much talk in the political landscape these days of pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible. This talk stems from arguments that the U.S. is losing young men and women needlessly, or as the Minneapolis Star Tribune put it, “spend[ing] more American blood… on a lost cause” (November 6, 2006). The crucial problem with this line of thinking is that it has little regard for all human life, and holds only U.S. lives to the standard that should be extended to everyone, U.S. citizen or not.
In the beginning of the war in Iraq those of us who were against it never bought into the idea that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. Then, when our view was later justified by the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found, the Bush Administration quickly changed its rhetoric to the tune of the war as humanitarian action, as in Saddam was a terrible man doing terrible things to many people, and it was only right and just for us to stop him. While this sentiment is true, those of us opposed to the war weren’t buying this justification either. Or, truer still, weren’t buying that any of the people making the argument for war really cared about the people Saddam was oppressing and killing. If we cared (care) so much for human life and its defense, where are our troops on the ground in Darfur and North Korea?
While no one supports the deaths of thousands of troops thus far, nor those inevitably to come, the idea of removing all our troops from Iraq as quickly as possible places a greater emphasis on those human lives than on those of the Iraqi people we claimed, albeit secondarily, to wish to protect.
This is not a thought process distinct to the U.S. All countries look to first and foremost defend the lives of their citizenry. And rightly so. However, the problem in our present situation is that, by starting this war we have made Iraq a more dangerous place for its citizenry. We have created a country that, depending on who you ask, is either bordering on a civil war, or is in the midst of a full-blown civil war. Semantics aside, the fact is that the number of people dying in Iraq each day has risen due to our presence, with mutilated bodies showing up in the streets by the dozens having become the order of the day.
Now, if those sentiments of a true humanitarian mission (i.e. Saddam was killing and had to be stopped) held any water, our country and its leaders would be far more troubled by this fact than anyone seems to be. If there were a real concern for human life, not just U.S. life, the fact that at the very least tens of thousands of Iraqi people have been killed since our presence began would outrage anyone holding those views.
If even in the midst of the strongest military power in the world these countless deaths are taking place, imagine what the scenario would look like without the presence of the U.S. military. Certainly if those who argue Iraq is only now bordering on civil war are correct, a complete evacuation of U.S. military personnel from the country would be the final step in allowing the teeter-totter to fall to the side of full-scale civil war, leading to even more Iraqi deaths.
In plain terms, and in words sounding too close to those on the right for my usual comfort, our country needs to finish what it started. Or rather, needs to fix the mess we’ve created. The arguments for evacuation do not include a plan for this, and do not address anything outside of the number of U.S. lives that would be saved. An important, but certainly not the only number to be addressed.
Having not agreed with the use of military action in Iraq from the beginning, I do not think that this will be done through military means alone. However, because of the present violence that blankets most of Iraq now, it does not seem possible to make the necessary changes through non-military action alone, either.
What needs to occur, and this is true of all decisions made by our “leaders” in a world that continues to get smaller and smaller each day and with each new technological advance, is policy- and decision-making based on a respect for all of human life, rather than just those who can prove they are U.S. citizens. Yes, it is true that we need to defend ourselves against those who wish to do us harm, and this would be more efficiently accomplished if our troops were more available to our needs at home (i.e. protecting our ports, terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, etc.) and for actual possible imminent dangers (i.e. Iran, North Korea, et al.). But, we have placed our military in a situation and that situation has become worse for all parties involved. It is not fair to those whose lives are depending on the protection we, by creating the situation, have promised them to leave that situation as it stands now.
There needs to be a true humanitarian showing first by our policies, then enacted by our military present in Iraq. Look at the aftermath of the Israeli-Hezbollah war. Hezbollah, a terrorist group to be sure, immediately began a “humanitarian” effort of rebuilding houses and neighborhoods that had been destroyed by actions taken in that month-long affair. Within days roads were cleared and rebuilding had begun, and Hezbollah came off looking like champions of the people to those who could once again drive their streets. How often do we hear of the Iraqi infrastructure still being in shambles, with neighborhoods lacking water, electricity, and other necessities they once held?
Someone, undoubtedly much wiser than I, once said we are the greatest country in the world by default. It is time now to once again be the greatest country in the world, not because others fail to take the position, but because our actions throughout the world cannot be surpassed, only imitated by others. This must begin with an empathy for all human life, not just those we call our own.
Let us use the rhetoric given to us to cover a mistake and turn it into truth. Saddam was an awful person. He should not have been in a position of power so unchecked it led to the death of many innocent people. This could be said of many in power throughout the world. But we went into Iraq, not many other places throughout the world. It would be wrong to leave it the way it is now. But our efforts need to change, and it needs to be understood by the Iraqi people living in constant fear that those efforts have changed. We need to act on the message we have been telling these people throughout: that we are there for them; we are trying to make their lives better.
Pulling our troops out now would send the opposite message. Pulling out our troops now would not be an action taken by the greatest country in the world. Making the world a better, safer place beginning in the place we made worse and more dangerous would be an action taken by the greatest country in the world.
Let us be that country, not because those before us have given us the title, but because we have earned it.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
Sound Familiar?
The following is taken from George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," 1946.
(If you're interested in words in general & not just how they relate to politics, I recommend the whole essay, which can be found Here. It takes a while to get going, but once it does it's very good)
A few clicks & scrolls on www.whitehouse.gov showed the following:
(If you're interested in words in general & not just how they relate to politics, I recommend the whole essay, which can be found Here. It takes a while to get going, but once it does it's very good)
In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:
"While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement."
The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.
________________
A few clicks & scrolls on www.whitehouse.gov showed the following:
The President's proposed standard deduction for health insurance will reform the tax code to make private health insurance more affordable and to level the playing field so those who buy health insurance on their own get the same tax advantage as those who get health insurance through their jobs. For those who remain unable to afford coverage, the President's Affordable Choices Initiative will help eligible States assist their low-income and hard-to-insure citizens in purchasing private health insurance.And just for fun:
President Bush's top priority is the safety and security of the American people. Though America and its allies are safer since 9/11, we are not yet safe. We have important challenges ahead as we wage a long-term battle not just against terrorists, but against the ideology that supports their agenda."The men and women of the Coast Guard know how to navigate the storm. We're counting on you to help America weather the challenges that lie ahead. As you begin your Coast Guard careers, you can approach the future with confidence, because our nation has faced dangerous enemies before, and emerged victorious every time. Terrorists can try to kill the innocent, but they cannot kill the desire for liberty that burns in the hearts of millions across the earth. The power of freedom defeated the ideologies of fascism and communism in the last century, and freedom will defeat the hateful ideologies of the terrorists in this century."
President George W. Bush
May 23, 2007
The Federal government will continue to provide assistance and guidance, but the people of the Gulf Coast and their elected leaders must drive the effort to rebuild their lives and their communities."The law allows our intelligence and law enforcement officials to continue to share information. It allows them to continue to use tools against terrorists that they used against -- that they use against drug dealers and other criminals. It will improve our nation's security while we safeguard the civil liberties of our people. The legislation strengthens the Justice Department so it can better detect and disrupt terrorist threats. And the bill gives law enforcement new tools to combat threats to our citizens from international terrorists to local drug dealers."
-- President George W. Bush
March 9, 2006
"The world is seeing the promise and potential of the peaceful use of nuclear energy. I emphasize that word, peaceful use, because one of my predecessors, Dwight David Eisenhower..."
--President George W. Bush
Sunday, July 22, 2007
$1.50 Find
Bought a copy of The Bhagavad Gita today for $1.50 outside of Washington Square Park. I've been wanting to read it for a while. I'm glad I had $1.50 on me. I'm on page two, so nothing to report yet, other than the price, where I bought it, my desire (for some time now) to read it, & my joy at having enough money to buy it.
Capital post, young man!
Capital post, young man!
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Read It
I've started reading Roddy Doyle's book, A Star Called Henry*. I'm only fifty pages in, but it is amazing. You. Yes, you. Go buy it and read it. Then, when we are done reading it, we can talk about it. Or, you can read this when I post on it again, and you can comment. Or, you can have no interaction with me at all after reading it. Any way you go, just read it. He's good.
*The same friend who gave me AAK&C gave me this book. If you don't have a friend who provides you with really good books to read, you should get one.
*The same friend who gave me AAK&C gave me this book. If you don't have a friend who provides you with really good books to read, you should get one.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Hey Michael Chabon, I Get It, You're Vocabulary Is Bigger Than Mine OR What This Entry Presupposes Is...Maybe He Doesn't Need All Those Words
I'm reading The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay right now and have been for a while—lay off, it's 636 pages. I promised myself that after reading Ulysses over the winter I would tackle something light, something that I could breeze through and take the feeling of satisfaction quickly and move on to something else. But then a friend gave me AAK&C and it had a picture of New York on the cover, and I was coming to New York, so I jumped in and got hooked.
I quickly noticed that this Chabon guy liked to toss around his weight in words the way the guys in Seattle’s Pike Place Fish Market toss Copper River Salmon. Early and often. It’s less his vocabulary—which is huge—and more his elongated sentences, his immense detail, that at times distract from the story. Like I said, I was hooked from the beginning, and a lesser writer wouldn’t be able to hold a reader’s attention for as long as Chabon does trying to pull the same tricks. A reader would label it instantly as too flashy coming from the pen of someone less talented. Still, as good as he seems to be, some of the sentences in this book become exercises in deliberation. Especially in the YouTube society in which we find ourselves living; you have to work to stay with these sentences. Which is probably a good thing. We should all settle down from time to time and focus a bit more. However, as I come to the end of page 212 and reach the following two sentences, I can’t help but feel as though I’ve been at this book an awfully long time to only be on page 212, and maybe, just maybe, Mr. Chabon could, at time, get to his point a bit quicker:
"There was a long hemicircular reception desk opposite the entry, faced with black marble and ribbed with Saturn’s rings of glass, behind which three black-coated firemen, their faces concealed by heavy welder’s masks, crouched, poking around carefully with broom handles. On the wall over the reception desk, there was a painting of a lithe masked giant in a dark blue union suit, his arms outspread in ecstatic embrace as he burst from a writhing nest of thick iron chains that entangled his loins, belly, and chest."
It may not seem like much reading it here, standing alone. But when it comes on the heels of other paired expository sentences, the result can be a bit draining. A few pages prior:
"At the time, he had taken note only of the charming scene: the two boys lying shirtless and barefoot, in a swinging hammock stretched between a pair of unblighted elms, in a dappled bend dexter of sunlight, their downy legs tangled together, the restless attention of each wholly absorbed in a crudely stapled smear of violent color labeled Superman. Love had followed the subsequent conquest by the strapping, tights-wearing hero of the newspapers, of cereal boxes, and lately of the Mutual Broadcasting System, and was not unknown to cast an eye toward Superman’s funny-page adventures."
Does Picador (the publisher) have editors on staff? The two boys were lying in a hammock reading Superman and now their uncle, Love, reads the comic himself. Obviously we wouldn’t want to read that. I am not calling for a death to Mr. Chabon’s creative use of language. But maybe an imprisonment here and there of some of the words he knows. Just chain ‘em up for a short time and work with the ones remaining. These boys most likely never return to the story. Possibly we could have brushed over them in a few words. The fact that they were reading Superman is the important point here, but we have gathered from many other places throughout the book that all teen and pre-teen boys were reading Superman at the time. This is just another example to make us understand the culture of comics at the time. And all I’m saying is maybe we don’t need another example. And if we get one, maybe we don’t need to know every detail about the example.
Again, it probably doesn’t seem like much with only two excerpts, and I am most likely coming across as a lazy reader, which may be true (I don't know if you noticed above where I mentioned finishing Ulysses). But stack thousands of these sentences on top of each other and the result is a heavy book. A book that could possibly have lost some physical weight somewhere along the way and not have lost any of its cerebral weight along with it. And, if nothing else, at least I’d be more than a third of the way through it.
I quickly noticed that this Chabon guy liked to toss around his weight in words the way the guys in Seattle’s Pike Place Fish Market toss Copper River Salmon. Early and often. It’s less his vocabulary—which is huge—and more his elongated sentences, his immense detail, that at times distract from the story. Like I said, I was hooked from the beginning, and a lesser writer wouldn’t be able to hold a reader’s attention for as long as Chabon does trying to pull the same tricks. A reader would label it instantly as too flashy coming from the pen of someone less talented. Still, as good as he seems to be, some of the sentences in this book become exercises in deliberation. Especially in the YouTube society in which we find ourselves living; you have to work to stay with these sentences. Which is probably a good thing. We should all settle down from time to time and focus a bit more. However, as I come to the end of page 212 and reach the following two sentences, I can’t help but feel as though I’ve been at this book an awfully long time to only be on page 212, and maybe, just maybe, Mr. Chabon could, at time, get to his point a bit quicker:
"There was a long hemicircular reception desk opposite the entry, faced with black marble and ribbed with Saturn’s rings of glass, behind which three black-coated firemen, their faces concealed by heavy welder’s masks, crouched, poking around carefully with broom handles. On the wall over the reception desk, there was a painting of a lithe masked giant in a dark blue union suit, his arms outspread in ecstatic embrace as he burst from a writhing nest of thick iron chains that entangled his loins, belly, and chest."
It may not seem like much reading it here, standing alone. But when it comes on the heels of other paired expository sentences, the result can be a bit draining. A few pages prior:
"At the time, he had taken note only of the charming scene: the two boys lying shirtless and barefoot, in a swinging hammock stretched between a pair of unblighted elms, in a dappled bend dexter of sunlight, their downy legs tangled together, the restless attention of each wholly absorbed in a crudely stapled smear of violent color labeled Superman. Love had followed the subsequent conquest by the strapping, tights-wearing hero of the newspapers, of cereal boxes, and lately of the Mutual Broadcasting System, and was not unknown to cast an eye toward Superman’s funny-page adventures."
Does Picador (the publisher) have editors on staff? The two boys were lying in a hammock reading Superman and now their uncle, Love, reads the comic himself. Obviously we wouldn’t want to read that. I am not calling for a death to Mr. Chabon’s creative use of language. But maybe an imprisonment here and there of some of the words he knows. Just chain ‘em up for a short time and work with the ones remaining. These boys most likely never return to the story. Possibly we could have brushed over them in a few words. The fact that they were reading Superman is the important point here, but we have gathered from many other places throughout the book that all teen and pre-teen boys were reading Superman at the time. This is just another example to make us understand the culture of comics at the time. And all I’m saying is maybe we don’t need another example. And if we get one, maybe we don’t need to know every detail about the example.
Again, it probably doesn’t seem like much with only two excerpts, and I am most likely coming across as a lazy reader, which may be true (I don't know if you noticed above where I mentioned finishing Ulysses). But stack thousands of these sentences on top of each other and the result is a heavy book. A book that could possibly have lost some physical weight somewhere along the way and not have lost any of its cerebral weight along with it. And, if nothing else, at least I’d be more than a third of the way through it.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
A couple of (possibly) pertinent quotes
Like it or not we come to life in the middle of stories that are not ours. The way to knowledge and to self-knowledge is through pilgrimage. We imitate our way to the truth, finding our lives, saving them in the process.
Paul Ely The Life You Save May Be Your Own: An American Pilgrimage
And whether I come to my own to-day or in ten thousand
or ten million years,
I can cheerfully take it now, or with equal cheerfulness I
can wait.
Walt Whitman from Song of Myself
Paul Ely The Life You Save May Be Your Own: An American Pilgrimage
And whether I come to my own to-day or in ten thousand
or ten million years,
I can cheerfully take it now, or with equal cheerfulness I
can wait.
Walt Whitman from Song of Myself
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)